Peter Dubovský, «Why Did the Northern Kingdom Fall According to 2 Kings 15?», Vol. 95 (2014) 321-346
By applying various exegetical methodologies to 2 Kings 15, I have tried to identify the dynamics responsible for the fall of the Northern Kingdom, such as its instability, financial problems, tribal tensions, wrong international policy, etc. By analyzing some Assyrian documents it was shown that these dynamics were often in play during Assyrian invasions.
01_Dubovský_321_346 28/10/14 10:32 Pagina 340
340 PETER DUBOVSKÝ
hem’s payment and other tributes must have drained the wealth of
Israel, broken the economic power of Israel, and financially ruined
the Northern Kingdom 41. Menahem is thus portrayed as the oppo-
site of Solomon. The money flowed into Israel under Solomon, but
under Menahem money flowed out of Israel 42. Moreover, drawing
on the wallets of 72,000 nobles must have severely undermined
Menahem’s popularity. Ironically by receiving this money, the As-
syrians were able to form an army which then could easily attack
Samaria and later on become the basis of Rab-Shakeh’s boasting
(2 Kgs 18,19-26).
VIII. Israel’s wrong international policy
The deterioration of the Northern Kingdom is fitted into the nar-
rative about two Judahite kings — Azariah and Jotham, which cre-
ates the narrative frame for the central part of chapter 15 (see
above). By analyzing this narrative frame we can point out another
cause of the downfall of the Northern Kingdom encoded in the rhet-
oric of 2 Kings 15 — its wrong international policy.
The narrative frame constituted by the accounts of two Judean
kings is characterized above all by solidity. In contrast to five Is-
raelite kings who reigned for a total of 32 years and 6 months, the
Southern Kingdom is characterized by dynastic stability: two
Judean kings reigned for a total of 68 years. No conspiracy or revolt
took place during the reigns of Azariah and Jotham, whereas four
coups d’état took place during the reign of five Israelite kings. An-
other element of stability can be derived from an assessment of both
kings: they did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, marred in
both cases only by a less-than-full approval by God, whereas all
five Israelite kings did what was wrong in the eyes of the Lord 43.
Thus, the image of serenity and of a long-lasting Davidic dynasty,
even though facing its own problems, constitutes the essential fea-
41
If these conclusions are combined with 2 Kgs 17,4, then the reader
learns that besides this huge payment the Israelites had to pay annual tributes
to the Assyrians.
42
W. BRUEGGEMANN, 1 & 2 Kings (Macon, GA 2000) 455.
43
LONG, 2 Kings, 172.