Biblical historians must give some account of why the Israelite monarchy split into two kingdoms shortly after Solomon’s death. The Bible provides answers both in the form of commentary by the stories’ narrators and in the judgments of the prophets who appear therein. These see the divide as a divinely mediated consequence imposed as punishment for the poor choices and bad behaviors of David and Solomon, ancient Israel’s two “golden-age” kings. However, those interested in sociopolitical causes can find much to work with in the narratives as well.   Two Biblical Stories About the Monarchy David, by Lorenzo Monaco, ca. 1408–10. Source: The Metropolitan Museum of Art   The Hebrew Bible, which Christians call the Old Testament, contains the story of the Israelite monarchy’s beginning in two places. One appears in what many critical scholars often call the “Deuteronomistic History,” a name that evokes its literary connection to the book of Deuteronomy. These scholars believe that the biblical books of Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings were edited together as a unit. This is not to say the material they contain was written at the same time, but that the sources upon which they draw were intentionally shaped together, as a continuous work, into the form in which they now appear in the biblical collection. While not all scholars agree with this conclusion about how the text was formed, it is at least clear that the book of Second Kings, which concludes the Deuteronomistic History, ends with the Babylonian takeover of Jerusalem. This suggests that its editors worked when Babylon was still dominant in the Mediterranean world.   The second biblical narrative about the Israelite monarchy’s history appears in First and Second Chronicles. In contrast to the Deuteronomistic History, Chronicles was written after many Jews had been sent back to their ancestors’ land by the Persian king Cyrus II, who conquered Babylon in 539 BCE. For the Jewish descendants of captives that the Babylonians had forced to live in Mesopotamia, Cyrus was a liberator. Thus, while the narrative of the Israelite kingdom in the Deuteronomistic History was crafted in the wake of a chapter of extreme defeat in the nation’s history, Chronicles was probably written during a relatively hopeful time.   The Fall of Babylon; Cyrus the Great Defeating the Chaldean Army, by John Martin, 1831. Source: Wellcome Collection   The writer of Chronicles seems to have had access to the books of Samuel and Kings—or at least to an early version of them—as evidenced by its lengthy, word-for-word quotations of their material. However, Chronicles omits key parts of the Samuel–Kings story while choosing to emphasize others. As a result, the two accounts provide divergent explanations for one of the most pivotal events in ancient Israelite history.   The Monarchy’s Shaky Beginning Samuel Cursing Saul, by Hans Holbein the Younger, 1530. Source: Wikimedia Commons   In the Deuteronomistic History, the people of Israel occupied what was in their day called the Land of Canaan by means of conquest. Up to that time, the Israelites had been either largely nomadic or enslaved and therefore did not possess a land they could associate with their national identity. They were arranged according to tribes and clans and did not have a formal system of governance. Moses was a charismatic leader, whose lineage in no way destined him for authority. The same can be said of Joshua, whom Moses chose as his successor despite Moses having two sons who theoretically could have succeeded him. This tradition of recognizing leadership based on charisma, or divine election, rather than heredity continued through the period named for “the Judges,” who were also charismatic leaders, for around two or three hundred years (depending on how one dates the events) after the Israelites had settled in Canaan.   The last of these Judges was Samuel—a remarkable character who also played priestly and prophetic roles.   Samuel is one of the most celebrated personages in Deuteronomistic History. He vehemently opposed the establishment of a monarchy in Israel. Yet, paradoxically—and in stark contrast to the precedent Moses had set centuries before—Samuel appointed his own sons to succeed him as Israel’s leaders. As the story is told, despite Samuel’s personal popularity, his sons were corrupt and seen as unfit for leadership by the people. This was the occasion for a popular call for the establishment of a monarchy. Samuel failed to quell the enthusiasm, which God is also portrayed as opposing. Yet God relented, nevertheless, and sent Samuel to appoint a man from the small tribe of Benjamin, named Saul, to be Israel’s first king.   The Ghost of Samuel Appearing to Saul and the Witch of Endor, by Salvator Rosa, 1668. Source: The Louvre   Saul is presented as beginning well, but failing more and more as his reign progressed. Eventually, God rejects him as king and, in turn, sends Samuel to appoint David as his replacement. David’s would later become the most enduring dynasty in Israel’s history. But, his descendants would rule over only half the kingdom he had taken from Saul’s family.   Why the Split Happened According to Samuel–Kings The Prophet Nathan Rebukes King David, by Eugène Siberdt, ca. 1850. Source: Wikimedia Commons   One of the most famous stories from David’s kingship years is about his affair with a woman named Bathsheba, who was the wife of Uriah, one of his Hittite soldiers. When David discovers Bathsheba is pregnant, he orders that Uriah be placed in the enemy archers’ line of fire in battle, where he is killed.   By this time, Samuel is dead, but his prophetic mantle appears to have been taken up by another equally formidable prophet named Nathan. Though the reader is left wondering how he became aware of what had transpired between David, Uriah, and Bathsheba, Nathan confronts David in his own throne room for his unjust behavior. Though David is remorseful, Nathan predicts that the sword will never depart from his household because of what he has done. Also, the baby David had conceived with Bathsheba would die in infancy. Nathan’s prediction seems to evoke the later splitting of the kingdom into two. Though this is not made explicit in the text, Nathan’s prophecy at least suggests divisions of various kinds would result because of David’s choices.   The explicit reason provided for the division of the kingdom in the Samuel–Kings narrative is connected to the reign of David’s son, Solomon. Solomon’s multiplication of foreign wives in his harem leads to his building of shrines in honor of their patron deities. According to the narrative, it was Solomon’s tolerance and encouragement of idolatry that resulted in God’s rending of half the kingdom from his dynasty’s control.   Omissions in Chronicles The Idolatry of Solomon, by Frans Francken the Younger, 1622. Source: The Getty Museum   On first reading, much of Chronicles can appear to be a mere rehearsing of the same material that appears in Samuel–Kings. However, several key elements are omitted—including two that are mentioned above. In Chronicles, there is no trace of David’s affair with Bathsheba or his order to have her husband killed. In addition—and in starker contrast—Solomon’s vast harem is omitted from the story almost entirely. In fact, Chronicles nowhere explicitly links the division of the kingdom with Solomon’s choices.   Assuming that the writer of Chronicles had access to the material in Samuel–Kings, it seems that he was keen to ignore the most negative parts of David and Solomon’s activities. Given the clarity with which Samuel–Kings presents the division of the kingdom as a consequence of Solomon’s idolatry, it is remarkable that this is passed over in Chronicles’ retelling.   Like the Deuteronomistic History, however, Chronicles also sees the division as the result of kingly folly—it just avoids singling out Israel’s golden-age kings. Chronicles locates the fault in the generation following Solomon instead. For the writers and editors of both the Deuteronomistic History and Chronicles, Israel’s division and exile are divinely orchestrated consequences of their bad behavior, and Israel’s kings in particular are held responsible.   A Sociopolitical Viewpoint Sacrifice of Jeroboam, by Claes Moeyaert, 1641. Source: Wikimedia Commons   If one brackets out the theological commentary in the text along with the pronouncements of the prophets, it is possible to piece together a sociopolitical reason for why Israel split in two using the historical narrative material in the text by itself. The key issue driving the division, from this point of view, was not idolatry but an oppressive labor policy.   The glory days of Solomon’s kingdom, which boasted enormous wealth and some of the most magnificent buildings in the region according to the Bible, came at a cost. Someone had to build those buildings. Both Chronicles and Kings report Solomon’s use of slave labor, but Kings also says that Solomon drafted labor from among the Israelites themselves. These people would be required to work one month out of three for the kingdom. For all Israelites who worked in what might be called in modern terms “civilian” sectors, this was an onerous amount of time to be working for the kingdom. This would have been especially true for workers drafted from the northern half of Solomon’s realm, where the majority of the population resided. This is also where most farming was done within the land. For farmers, leaving one’s responsibilities behind for long periods of time would have been especially burdensome.   By the time of Solomon’s death, Israel was tired. They enjoyed the prosperity his policies brought, but they were no longer willing to continue to give as much as they had been. Unless Solomon’s heir to the throne would be willing to change this policy, the kingdom was ripe for a rebellion.   Labor Rebellion Rehoboam’s Insolence, by Hans Holbein the Younger, 1530. Source: Wikimedia Commons   The Book of Kings explains that Solomon recognized the exceptional managerial talents of a man from the tribe of Ephraim named Jeroboam. Solomon appointed him to oversee his drafted labor force within the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, which constituted the majority of Israel’s northern half. As the story is told, a prophet named Ahijah approaches Jeroboam and predicts that he will one day rule over ten of Israel’s tribes. According to Ahijah, this would function as divine judgment upon Solomon’s idolatry. But, the prophecy does not see Jeroboam as a liberator, indeed, he would be far more cruel than Solomon ever had been.   Somehow, Solomon discerns that Jeroboam is a threat to his dynasty and seeks to kill him, forcing Jeroboam to flee for refuge under Shishak, King of Egypt, until Solomon’s death. This element in the story suggests that Jeroboam had garnered a high level of respect among the workers he oversaw. He was well-positioned to lead a revolt, whether Ahijah had prophesied that he would or not.   King Solomon, by Simeon Solomon, ca. 1874. Source: The National Gallery of Art, Washington   Upon learning that Solomon had died, Jeroboam returned from asylum in the Egyptian kingdom. He then led a delegation of his compatriots to negotiate with Rehoboam, Solomon’s son, who had been installed as the next king. Without refusing to work faithfully for Rehoboam, the delegation asks simply that the yoke on their necks be lightened during his reign.   The text presents Rehoboam as egotistical and lacking his father’s political acumen almost entirely. Ignoring the advice of his father’s experienced counselors in favor of that of his peers, Rehoboam responds to the delegation’s request with insults, threatening to exceed his father’s demands rather than alleviate them. The response is immediate. Rehoboam barely escapes south with his life and, though a civil war is evaded, the kingdom splits permanently in two.   Ten Tribes in the North, Three in the South Solomon’s Temple 1000 BC, 1862. Source: The Getty Museum   The southern kingdom called Judah after the split, comprised the tribes of Judah and Benjamin with their territories, as well as the majority of the Levites who, as a priestly class, did not have a land of their own. The remaining ten tribes composed the northern Kingdom of Israel.   It is customary to think of ancient Israel as a confederation of twelve tribes, but since the descendants of the patriarch Joseph’s two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, are reckoned separately, the total count is actually thirteen. Ephraim and Manasseh are sometimes referred to jointly as “the house of Joseph.”   Jeroboam’s New Religion Jeroboam and the Congregation of Israel before Rehoboam, by Gerard de Jode, ca. 1579. Source: Harvard Art Museums   The character of Jeroboam plays a key role in Israel’s memory of its pre-exilic story. Having already been anointed king before his exile in Egypt, he was finally crowned ruler of the newly-formed Kingdom of Israel years later. As a popular, liberator-type figure, his reign brimmed with potential at the start. But beginning with his very first action as king, his memory became tainted, and his name evolved into a byword for failed kingliness later on.   The biblical Hebrew narrative only occasionally gives the reader insight into the conscious, mental reasoning of its characters. In one of these rare cases, the reader is told that Jeroboam feared for his life, thinking that if his subjects were to travel frequently to Jerusalem to Solomon’s glorious Temple to worship, they would eventually become discontent and assassinate him or his successors. His solution was to build two shrines at Bethel and Dan—opposite extremes of his new kingdom—with golden calves as their centerpieces. He further established holidays and a new priestly order. Basically, he founded a new religion.   This short foray into Jeroboam’s politico-religious reasoning echoes that of Aaron, Moses’s older brother, in an iconic scene in the biblical Book of Exodus. There, Aaron also ordered the crafting of a cultic golden calf out of fear for his life. In this ironic twist, Jeroboam is thus presented as a failed Moses figure; he had led his people out of a burdensome labor system, but only into a state of perpetual religious wandering away from Jerusalem and its Temple.   A Doomed Legacy Ahijah Predicting the Fate of Jeroboam’s People, by Abraham Bloemaert, ca. 1604. Source: The San Diego Museum of Art   In the remainder of the story, especially as it is related in the Book of Kings, Jeroboam becomes the quintessential example of an unfaithful monarch. There is a sense in which he was doomed from the start, since the Temple was located in the south, in the very capital of the Kingdom of Judah. But from the perspective of Israelites from all tribes in the wake of the Assyrian and Babylonian exiles, Jeroboam’s disloyalty to the Temple cult at Jerusalem was difficult to forgive. The kings in the northern kingdom are remembered as wicked because they followed in the way of “Jeroboam, the son of Nebat.”   What “Really” Split Israel’s Kingdom Apart? David, Solomon, Rehoboam (from The Twelve Kings of Israel), by Lucas van Leyden, 1520. Source: The Metropolitan Museum of Art   The answer to this question is surely complex—even as it would be if it were about the decline of any government in history. It would have to do with political, moral, economic, social, natural, and religious factors, and would take into account the choices of people both within and outside of the society.   While it can appear so at first blush, the Bible’s explanation for what led to one of the most consequential events in ancient Israel’s story is by no means straightforward. On the one hand, it does answer the “why-how” question but on the other hand, it also answers it in a variety of ways. The diverse perspectives invite a revisiting of the causes of what happened to Israel in light of emerging theories about what makes a society socially, morally, and politically healthy. The reader is asked to ponder: what kind of society can avoid divisions like this?