REHOBOAM re ə bō’ əm (רְחַבְעָ֥ם; LXX ̔Ροβοάμ, G4850, Matt 1:7; the people (or, family) is extended (W. F. Albright, AJSL 38 [1922], 140; also Noth, Israelitische Personennamen, p. 193, after considering the interpretation he enlarges the people [cf. Gen 26:22]; Montgomery, p. 248, suggests welcoming the people; Late Heb. raḥab, liberal). The first king of Judah after the Division; 1 Kings 11:43-12:27; 14:21-15:6; 2 Chronicles 9:31-12:16.
A. Family. A son of Solomon, born to him before his accession (1 Kings 11:42; 14:21). His mother was Naamah, an Ammonite princess. Among his wives Mahalath was of David’s family by both parents; but he subsequently preferred Maacah daughter of Abishalom, and nominated her eldest son Abijah as his successor. Following his father’s example, he maintained a large harem, and placed his sons in command of fortified towns (2 Chron 11:18ff.).
B. Chronology. Rehoboam succeeded his father at the age of forty-one and reigned for seventeen years until his death. E. Thiele gives the dates as 931/0 to 914/3, on the basis of his analysis of the data in Kings, and working back from the battle of Qarqar in 853 b.c. (fixed by Assyrian records; see Chronology of the Old Testament). Some check on this is afforded by Shishak’s invasion in the fifth year of Rehoboam; the Egyp. evidence consists of an inscr. and reliefs on the Bubastite gate of the temple of Amun at Karnak, built in Shishak’s twenty-first year (ANET 242f.). The unfinished state of these reliefs, and the apparent failure of Egypt to follow up her advantage politically, indicate that the campaign took place toward the end of Shishak’s reign; and it is not mentioned in any earlier monument (Albright, BASOR 130). Interest accordingly centers on Shishak’s dates; Albright accepts a possible range from 937 to 930 for his accession, and arrives at a date for the invasion around 918, with a tolerance of five years either way. This agrees with his conclusion in an earlier article (BASOR 100), relying on the synchronism in 2 Chronicles 16:1 (see Asa), and on a theory that some of the figures and synchronisms given for Zimri, Omri, and Ahab are secondary (see Omri, Zimri); he places Rehoboam’s accession in 922 b.c. Gardiner however gives Shishak’s reign as about 945-925 b.c. (Egypt of the Pharaohs, 448), which tends to justify Thiele’s conclusions.
Rowton (BASOR 119) supports a later date from Phoen. evidence, linking the foundation of Carthage in the seventh year of Pygmalion (for which the classical writer Timaeus gives a date equivalent to 814 b.c.) with the twelfth year of Hiram, which would then be 959 b.c.; according to Josephus, this was Solomon’s fourth year, in which the Temple was founded. His fortieth would thus be 923 b.c. The basic evidence is not substantial and Rowton concedes that this is only a cross-check. Liver, taking the date 825 b.c. for the founding of Carthage (after Pompeius Trogus) recovers 931/0 for the division. See also Finegan pp. 115, 197, and Thiele, Vet Test 4, 187ff.
C. Revolt of Israel
1. Situation. Rehoboam came to the throne at a time of stress, due to the following factors: (i) heavy state expenditure, particularly on the court and standing army, financed partly by taxation which prob. fell most severely on the agricultural N. This conclusion may be drawn on a priori grounds, and from the data in 1 Kings 4 on Solomon’s organization of districts (Aharoni, pp. 277-280).
(ii) Forced labor was a standing complaint; notwithstanding a disclaimer in 1 Kings 9:22, which may be taken to mean that there was no permanent loss of status for Israelites, it is clear from Adoniram’s position and unpopularity (4:6; 12:18) that the precedent of the corvee for building the Temple (5:13ff.) was too regularly followed. (iii) Despite Solomon’s large standing army, he had lost control of the Damascus area, and the Syrians were raiding N of Israel (1 Kings 11:25). (iv) The lax attitude to foreign religions was inviting divine judgment, expressed in Ahijah’s words to Jeroboam (1 Kings 11:29ff.). Jeroboam’s position, and doubtless the prophecy itself, were known to Solomon and to Israel generally (12:3).
2. Confrontation. A national assembly was called at Shechem to confirm Rehoboam’s accession. This apparently was not done for Solomon (the only exact precedent, since David’s coronation began a fresh dynasty); such was the difference in the political atmosphere. It was not yet established that there was a hereditary right of accession apart from the wishes of the people, though there was a natural tendency to de facto hereditary sucession, which might be called a presumptive right, even with the sons of Gideon and Saul. Myers (on 2 Chron 10) notes that no question was ever made of Rehoboam’s succession in Judah, and the cry of revolt (1 Kings 12:16) was “We have no inheritance in the son of Jesse,” i.e., asserting tribal separatism. However, the assembly was not in itself mutinous, as Kittel (Geschichte des Volkes Israels II, 219f.) seems to imply; otherwise the king would surely have taken military precautions.
The “assembly”—that is, the elders representing the people—demanded relief from the burdens imposed by Solomon, intimating that this would be a condition of allegiance. Rehoboam was faced with a choice: in principle, should his authority be constitutional or absolute? His older advisers (Solomon’s council of state) recommended that he make concessions and win the people; but he took the advice of his contemporaries, to make it clear that he would tolerate no challenge to his authority. The identity of these two groups was considered in a discussion (BA 28, 34ff.) of a paper by A. Malamat, who sees the young men as mainly of the royal family and of military rank; G. Evans is less sure of their official status.
Rehoboam accordingly answered the assembly with the famous phrase: “My father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions” (prob., loaded scourges). The assembly thereupon repudiated the Davidic dynasty, raising the now traditional cry of dissolution: “To your tents, Israel!” It was not seriously proposed to restore the premonarchic order; the state needed a king, and Jeroboam was apparently consecrated at the same convention. The point was that Israel still claimed a freedom to which her king owed respect.
3. Aftermath. Adoniram, who controlled the labor force and was therefore directly concerned with public order, was sent to quell the riot; but he was stoned to death, and Rehoboam himself escaped to Jerusalem. There he summoned the militia of Judah and Benjamin to try to reduce Israel by force, but the prophet Shemaiah forbade the expedition publicly in the name of the Lord; so the assembly dispersed. A state of hostilities ensued (1 Kings 14:30; 2 Chron 12:15); this is not incompatible with the avoidance of a pitched battle (cf. ASA, 4b); indeed it helps to explain the major clash under Abijah, who clearly invaded Israel (perhaps under provocation) and cherished some hope of restoring the Davidic kingdom there.
D. Shishak’s expedition. The attempt of Shishak (Sheshonq I) to reassert Egyp. authority in Pal. is described (so far as it affected Judah) in 1 Kings 14:25-28 and 2 Chronicles 12:1-12, and represented on the wall of the temple of Amun at Karnak; it occurred in Rehoboam’s fifth year (see B above). A number of correlations have been obtained between the Karnak inscr. and place names occurring in the Bible, but the inscr. was not properly understood until B. Mazar suggested reading alternate lines in opposite directions (boustrophedon). This put the recognizable names in a sequence which indicated that Shishak, after detaching a force to invade the Negev, came into the hills by Gibeon (N of Jerusalem), crossed into the Jordan Valley, and went through the Vale of Jezreel and back by the coast road. Archeological evidence illustrates his trail of devastation at Gezer, Beth Shemesh (if this was the Egyp. rbt), and Megiddo (Kenyon).
Doubtless Shishak’s main concern was to assert suzerainty over Jeroboam, who had been a refugee at his court; also, Solomon had been Egypt’s ally by marriage. The inscrs. speak of “northern rebels and aggressors of the Mitanni.” Although Shishak was not so concerned with the hill state of Judah, Jerusalem might well have expected to suffer the same fate as the cities of the plain. Mazar (IEJ 2) observes that while the account in Kings relates primarily to the replacement of the gold shields by bronze, and to the origin of the custom of carrying them in procession, Chronicles (typically) deals with the episode in the context of Shemaiah’s prophecy. The king and his people, having left the service of the Lord, would now know what it was to be at the mercy of a tyrant (2 Chron 12:8). It was a case of “the king’s heart...is in the hand of the Lord” (Prov 21:1). The common source of Kings and Chronicles gives the impression that Shishak actually entered or sent officers into the city; Aharoni (p. 287) thinks that an embassy met him at Gibeon, since the next place mentioned in his inscr. is Zemaraim, to the N. These suggestions are not incompatible.
E. Defense. Two lines of evidence suggest that Shishak’s Negev force established a buffer state under Egyp. control in the valley of Gerar: (1) the character of the forces attacking Judah about thirty years later (see Asa); and (2) the list of hill towns fortified by Rehoboam against Philistine, Egyptian, and perhaps Edomite threats (Myers, 2 Chron 10). Junge’s view, that they were fortified by Josiah, is controlled by his theory that the Chronicler continually projects the Josianic situation into the more remote past. Alt inclines to accept the Chronicler’s account, and also sees in the Levitical towns of Judah a line of frontier forts. Even on this basis, the southern border was now withdrawn to the hills.
On his northern frontier, Rehoboam did not consider himself to be on the defensive.
F. Religious policy. Rehoboam claimed to be loyal to the Lord and to His Temple; this is attested by his replacing the shields given to Shishak with replicas for the traditional ceremonies; by Abijah’s speech in 2 Chronicles 13; and, indirectly, by Jeroboam’s need to set up counter attractions to the Jerusalem Temple. Many Levites moved into Judah as a result (2 Chron 11:13ff.).
The Chronicler records, however (11:17, 12:1), that after three years, when he felt established, Rehoboam abandoned the teaching of the Lord; and Shemaiah declared Shishak’s invasion to be God’s answering judgment. The king and court accepted the rebuke, but with half-hearted repentance. The episode of the invasion is introduced in Kings by a description of the backsliding, not of the king specifically, but of the people as a whole. It may be that Rehoboam was not strong-minded enough to stem the popular tide; and it should not be forgotten that Solomon had opened the door wide to foreign practices.
Bibliography Beyer, Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palestina Vereins 54 (1931), 113-134; E. Junge, Wiederaufbau, BWANT 4/23 (1937); J. Simons, Handbook of Egyp. Topography Lists (1937), 89, 178; E. Thiele, JNES 3 (1944), 137-186; W. F. Albright, BASOR 100 (1945), 16-20; M. Rowton, BASOR 119 (1950), 20ff.; J. Montgomery, Kings (ICC, 1951); B. Mazar, IEJ 2 (1952), 82-88; J. Liver, IEJ 3 (1953), 113-122; W. F. Albright, BASOR 130 (1953), 4-8; A. Alt, Kleine Schriften II (1953), 116ff., 306ff.; E. Thiele, Vet Test 4 (1954), 187ff.; J. Pritchard, ANET2 (1955), 242f.; F. Cross, G. Wright, JBL 75 (1956), 216f.; W. F. Albright, BASOR 141 (1956), 26ff.; B. Mazar, Vet Test Suppl. 4 (1957), 57-66; G. Wright, BASOR 155 (1959), 28; K. M. Kenyon, Archaeology in the Holy Land (1960), 273ff.; Y. Aharoni, IEJ 10 (1960), 23-36, 97-111; A. Malamat, JNES 22 (1963), 247ff.; J. Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology (1964), ss. 188, 305; J. Gray, Kings (1964); E. Thiele, Mysterious Numbers2 (1965); J. Myers, Chronicles (1965); A. Malamat, BA 28 (1965), 34-65; J. Gronbaek, Vet Test 15 (1965), 421-436; Y. Aharoni, Land of the Bible (1966), 283-293; G. Evans, JNES 25 (1966), 273-279.