1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Mariulka [41]
3 years ago
12

Rehoboam, Solomon's son, had nothing to do with the division of the kingdom, except to accept it. true or false

History
2 answers:
disa [49]3 years ago
8 0
<span>Yes, Rehoboam had nothing to do with the division of the Kingdom as the man of God Shemiah said. It was God's handiwork; Did I hear you say, ah, but Rehoboam lost it because he listened to the wrong audience? God is no more at work in that piece of advice than he is in the division of the Kingdom. From bad counsel to division to the hostility as the people heard the king's decision God was behind the whole thing! The counsel was a channel God used to accomplish his wish: To punish David's descendants because Solomon had abandoned the Lord to worship Baal. And we see this over and over again how Scripture proves that the king's heart is in the hand of the Lord (including any counsel) and he turns it wherever he wants. Pro 20:1 and that no human wisdom or counsel can stand against the Lord; the horse is prepared for battle (do what it can) but the victory is of God. Pro 21 : 30. But then that doesn't mean that Rehoboam isn't responsible for his actions. God is totally sovereign in the affairs of men and yet man is totally responsible. It's a great paradox but they are both true.</span>
Ne4ueva [31]3 years ago
7 0
This is false. He was against it and he led a war against the division but he returned back because he was advised that it was wrong. He was accused by many of straying away from Hebrew religious principles because of this war but it is said that he had an army of 180 000 people ready to fight.
You might be interested in
EXTRA POINTS AND BRAINIEST IF CORRECT!!!
Andrews [41]

Answer:

Johnson is the right answer

Explanation:

8 0
2 years ago
Plz answer these 4 question please:
lina2011 [118]
The author shows a how a protective tariff will benefit people in his town by describing the various ways in which the protective tariff could help benefit people, making examples about how different people in town would have some benefits, like the mercantile and its commercial pursuit, or the parents and their earnings that went to the comforts of their aged parents.
<span>---
</span>The author illustrates how the town would be negatively affected if the factory was to close by portraying an imaginary future image where the factory is closed and everyone mentioned before joining in conversations, comparing the past to the present.
<span>---
The proper method for setting questions of economic and national policy is to see for themselves,</span> imagining to themselves the difference between a factory at work and a factory burnt, because when people can see the practical difference between a factory stopped and a factory active, the issue will be easily resolved.<span>
---
</span>A modern autoworker employed by an American manufacturer might favor a protective tariff today because of the aggressive competition from other brands that make life difficult for the American manufacturer, and so the hope is that a protective tariff will help them avoid such impasse.
<span>---
American consumers might oppose a such tariff because of its price, as the price for imported goods will grow, and also because the sociocultural context is different, and globalization should have come to an end to protective tariff mechanism since the manufacturer that works only with American people only on the U.S. soil are very limited.</span>
7 0
4 years ago
Which led most directly to the Roman Republic's demise and its transition to an empire?
MrMuchimi

Well, the only one that actually  makes sense to me is C.  

8 0
3 years ago
What would a utopian socialist not support
Zanzabum
Class struggle and political revolution is necessary for socialism to emerge. They think that everyone will just adopt it, without struggle or a fight, if it's represented convincingly.
7 0
3 years ago
What did the Stamp Act say the colonists were supposed to buy a British stamp for? every sheet of newspaper every document every
nexus9112 [7]

The answer is: all of the above.

The Stamp Act of 1765 was a British tax appointed to the Thirteen American colonies. It demanded that the publications produced in the colonies be manufactured in stamped paper in Britain, which received incomes from that. The printed matter included newspapers, legal documents, playing cards and other publications.

6 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Who is credited with writing a anonymous article about the Soviet Union expansion plans that influential in the creation of the
    15·1 answer
  • Why were both inventors and capitalists needed to bring about the industrial revolution?
    11·1 answer
  • Which of the following did some southern states require from African American voters?
    7·1 answer
  • What was the important event on boston march 4 1776
    9·1 answer
  • New laws restricted rights freedoms of blacks where
    12·2 answers
  • I hope u are having a good sunday n i hope that u are being blessed today n want u to that i am here for u if u ever need someon
    12·2 answers
  • Which of the following was not an asset to Spain and Portugal in their quest to create a global empire?
    14·1 answer
  • Read the following excerpt from the Declaration of Independence, and read the question that follows. "We, therefore, the Represe
    15·1 answer
  • Believed that the structure of society is influenced by how it's economy is
    14·1 answer
  • What does the term fauvism mean.........
    7·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!