Bible Commentaries
2 Chronicles 10

Verses 1-16

A. Rehoboam chs. 10-12

This writer selected three things to stress in regard to Rehoboam’s reign: the division of the kingdom (ch. 10), characteristics of both the northern and southern kingdoms, but especially Rehoboam’s (ch. 11), and Egypt’s invasion of Rehoboam’s kingdom (ch. 12).

Verses 1-19

1. The division of the nation ch. 10

This account is very similar to the one in 1 Kings 12. Solomon’s son Rehoboam did not act wisely and therefore lost his kingdom. The Chronicler added that a prophet had foretold this situation (2 Chronicles 10:15; cf. 2 Chronicles 11:1-4). The division of the kingdom looked like a tragedy, but it was part of God’s plan for His people. That would have given hope to the original readers since the captivity looked like a tragedy, but prophets had foretold it too. It was part of God’s sovereign will. Furthermore it was not the end of the nation (cf. Ezekiel 37:11-13).

"Jeroboam stands forever as a caution against the danger of becoming passionately angry about a rightly perceived evil, yet blinded by that passion to such an extent that all measures taken against it seem right. When this happens there is almost inevitably a failure, ironically, to distinguish between right and wrong." [Note: McConville, p. 155.]

Verses 1-23

IV. THE REIGNS OF SOLOMON’S SUCCESSORS CHS. 10-36

"With the close of Solomon’s reign we embark upon a new phase in Chr.’s account of Israel’s history. That account can be broadly divided . . . into the pre-Davidic era, the time of David and Solomon, and the period of the divided monarchy up until the Babylonian exile." [Note: McConville, p. 150.]

". . . the Chronicler never regarded the northern monarchy as anything but illegitimate and a rebellion against God’s chosen dynasty. As far as he was concerned, all Israel had one and only one ruling family." [Note: Thompson, p. 249. See also G. N. Knoppers, "Rehoboam in Chronicles: Villain or Victim?" Journal of Biblical Literature 109 (1990):423-40.]

The writer continued his "sermon" by evaluating each of Solomon’s successors with the same yardstick he had used on Solomon, namely, the example of David. His intent appears to have been to show that none of David’s descendants measured up to him, much less surpassed him. Consequently, the promised Son of David was yet to appear. The relationship of each king to temple worship showed his heart commitment to God. So there is much in what follows that deals with the kings’ relationship to the temple and temple worship.