Week 19 II Chronicles
Solomon was a smart, dynamic, ambitious and determined autocrat. So he had enemies.
As soon as he died a delegation of non-Judah-tribes wanted to renegotiate the oppressive labour policy.
King Rehoboam had two advisory groups to help him decide. One advised that he lighten the load. The other said: work ’em harder. Crazily, Rehoboam chose suggestion #2.
What was he thinking? As the head of state he could have just publicly agreed with popular opinion, and then disregarded it.
Anyway, the interesting twist and explanation the chronicler adds is that Rehoboam’s decision: was a turn of events from the Lord.
A bible reader’s advantage is getting reminded that there’s not just one input. Rehoboam is making his own independent decision about state policy. And the Lord is directing the affairs of Israel. The Lord’s action is not unilateral because both he and the king are making decisions and taking action. It’s a bilateral process.
If Rehoboam had been conciliatory and chosen suggestion #1 it would have changed things quite a bit because then his decision is a different decision with different effects. I’m guessing that he’d still end up with only half a kingdom, and Jeroboam would win his rebellion and get the lion’s share. But all that comes at the end of a different set of events.
It’d be easier to understand outcomes if the Lord simply acted dictatorially. It complicates things that he doesn’t.
Note: quote from II Chronicles 10:15 (NASB version)