Annotations for 1 Kings

1:1 King David was very old. A comparison of dates given in 2 Samuel and 1 Kings indicates that David is well over 70 years old as he lies on his deathbed, much older than the average lifespan in the first millennium BC as suggested by the analysis of anthropological remains, though royal inscriptions often indicate that royalty tended to live longer.

1:3 Abishag, a Shunammite. Biblical and ancient Near Eastern sources give special attention to the status of women in the royal court. The size and makeup of the king’s harem was a measure of his power and prestige. In this case, the beautiful Abishag slept next to the king, but was never added to his harem. Yet, as a consequence of this intimate association with the king, any interest in marrying her would be interpreted as a challenge to the throne (cf. 2:13–25). It is noteworthy that Abishag was from Shunem in Galilee, not far from Nazareth. Her selection may have been a way to maintain strong ties between the Judahite monarch and the rival northern tribes.

1:5 I will be king. Because Adonijah was the next in line after Absalom’s death, his statement was in keeping with the customs of Israel and its neighbors. Legal documents dating to the second millennium BC from places such as Mari, Nuzi and Assyria stipulate that the oldest surviving son always received the privileged position. Likewise, the Israelites were expected to give the firstborn son a double portion of property and to establish him as the head of the household (see the article “Inheritance Rights and Birthrights”). This practice, which was the norm for households and royal courts alike, served to preserve family resources and regulate generational transitions. Rank and status were assigned by societal norms rather than the father’s love for a particular wife or son. Many Biblical characters did not adhere to this tradition, but examination of the passage’s ancient context clearly shows that Adonijah and some of the king’s advisors anticipated that David would. he got chariots and horses ready, with fifty men to run ahead of him. See note on 2Sa 18:23.

1:7–8 gave him their support . . . did not join. Two factions emerged in the court because of David’s failure to follow cultural norms and announce a successor when he became incapacitated. The failure of David’s special guard to join Adonijah’s followers was a clear indicator that David had yet to act. Adonijah’s entrance with chariots and a royal guard (v. 5) not only increased the tension between the king and traditional institutions, but perhaps represented a premature appeal to power by force that violated religious and cultural protocols (though it is possible that an heir to the throne would normally enjoy such perquisites). David’s inaction therefore emboldened both parties and created a national crisis with rifts in the military, the priesthood and the prophets.

1:9 Adonijah then sacrificed sheep, cattle and fattened calves at the Stone of Zoheleth near En Rogel. The religious pretext for the sacrifice is unclear, though it likely was intended to initiate a feast that would seal an alliance between those gathered. Adonijah achieved political relations with the Israelite aristocracy by inviting them to his gathering (v. 25). Conversely, he did not invite his own brother Solomon or the opposing prophet, priest and commander (Nathan, Zadok and Benaiah, v. 10).

1:21 I and my son Solomon will be treated as criminals. Coup attempts were common in the ancient Near East. They inevitably led to bloodshed. A good example is the ascension of Esarhaddon, an Assyrian king in 680 BC. Rival siblings killed his father and disputed his claim to the throne. Upon his victory he meted out collective punishment by killing the rebels, their aides and their male descendants. In light of the ancient Near Eastern background, Bathsheba’s concern is an understatement.

1:33 have Solomon my son mount my own mule and take him down to Gihon. David’s quick action rendered Adonijah’s feast an act of rebellion in practice and not just theory. He handed to Solomon several overt symbols of kingship, including his personal means of transportation as well as the go-ahead for anointing him in a public declaration at one of the royal city’s main landmarks. Mules were the preferred means of transportation among royalty, a fact corroborated by second-millennium BC letters from the kingdom of Mari.

1:34 anoint him king over Israel. See notes on 1Sa 2:10; 10:1. Typically it was the prophet’s role to anoint a king. The unusual participation of the priest may have been a response to the support that Adonijah received from the rival priest, Abiathar. Priestly participation may also represent the completion of David’s work to establish Jerusalem (now also known as Zion with its preexisting Jebusite traditions) as the religious and political capital of Yahweh’s people (2Sa 7). Note how the priest personally brought the horn of oil specifically from the tent (v. 39), Yahweh’s original residence in the holy city.

1:38 the Kerethites and the Pelethites. These two groups are mentioned together so often in the Bible that it is reasonable to suggest a common ethnic and geographic origin. They are described as David’s royal guard. By hiring foreigners for this service he ensured that his personal security was not dependent on Israelites who could become involved with persons or causes opposed to the king. Like many other attributes of David and Solomon’s kingdom, this practice is well attested in the Near East from the days of Abraham to the days of Jesus. The Code of Hammurapi and other Mesopotamian texts refer to reliable, well-paid mercenaries. See notes on 1Sa 27:2; 2Sa 8:18.

1:40 playing pipes and rejoicing greatly. See note on 1Sa 18:6.

1:41 What’s the meaning of all the noise in the city? Adonijah’s entire company at En Rogel heard the commotion and the trumpet from the Gihon spring, because they were less than a mile (0.5 kilometers) away, around a turn in the Kidron Valley. The swiftness of events and the messengers was due to the close proximity of the two groups, despite their inability to see one another.

1:50 took hold of the horns of the altar. Though horned altars are ubiquitous in the ancient world, the purpose of the horns protruding from the altar is not known. Adonijah went to this location because, according to Biblical tradition, it was a place of asylum for those who inadvertently committed murder (Ex 21:13–14). Although he had not killed anyone, Adonijah expected to be executed for his actions and apparently thought the horns of the altar would be the best place from which to beg for his life and vow allegiance. This form of seeking asylum is so far unattested in the rest of the ancient Near East.

1:52 The expectation was that Adonijah would be killed for his insurrection. As David had done after Absalom’s revolt (2Sa 15–16), Solomon chooses to spare the usurper. The uncustomary nature of this action is reminiscent of an edict issued by King Telipinu of the Hittite Empire in 1500 BC. In response to decades of brutal fighting over the throne, Telipinu implemented a prohibition on the killing of political rivals and usurpers, regardless of social standing.

2:2–9 A remarkably similar set of concerns is found in a treatise on kingship delivered by an aging Egyptian pharaoh during the late third millennium BC. Besides a summary of King Merikare’s reign, this text “lays down all the laws of kingship.” It advises the successor on methods of ethically suppressing rebellion, maintaining good relations with the aristocracy and commoners alike and dealing justly in all situations. Comparative compositions such as this one can increase our appreciation for the pressing issues that David and Solomon faced during their reigns and the judicious manner in which they responded.

2:5 with that blood he stained the belt . . . and the sandals. Joab twice murdered his political rivals against David’s intentions. The stability of the kingdom requires that he be punished as a criminal. belt . . . sandals. Do not refer to military gear and may be intended to emphasize that these killings took place in circumstances other than combat.

2:7 let them . . . eat at your table. In the ancient Near East, eating together was a symbol of friendship and cooperation that carried with it the obligation to protect one other and provide hospitality. In addition to these cultural expectations, those who sat at the king’s table were considered special friends to be provided for, protected and housed near the king’s palace. A lively depiction of the king’s banquet table is preserved on a wall relief from Ashurbanipal’s palace in Nineveh.

2:10 rested with his ancestors. Conceptually indicates that a person has joined the ancestors in the netherworld. It is more tangibly expressed in the common burial practices that interred each individual in a family tomb wherein they literally rested with their ancestors (see notes on Ge 23:4; 25:8). We have no reason to assume that David’s ancestors were buried in Jerusalem (“the City of David”), so here the expression reflects the focus on joining his deceased ancestors. The royal tombs of David and his progeny were the only burials to be located within the confines of Jerusalem. buried. Kings from Macedonia to Egypt built lavish tombs, but Israelite burials were more modest, rock-cut chambers whose features emulated the foyers, doorways and cornices of contemporary palaces. The tomb was known as late as the first century AD (cf. Ac 2:29), but the modern-day “David’s tomb” is a much later construction on a nearby hill erroneously ascribed to David by Crusader pilgrims.

2:17 give me Abishag the Shunammite as my wife. Adonijah’s request to marry Abishag and Solomon’s harsh response must be understood against the backdrop of Abishag’s ambiguous status (1:3–4) and the revolt of Absalom in 2Sa 16:21–22. In the ancient world, control of the harem accompanied accession to the throne. A public appearance with the king’s concubines was a political statement of control. Records from Ugarit, e.g., indicate a similar process in Canaanite culture. Although Abishag had never been an official concubine of David, her close association with him meant that her marriage to Solomon’s political rival might be interpreted by the populace as an acquisition of power and a challenge to the new king. In light of the fight over succession, Solomon had no other choice but to interpret Adonijah’s request as a rebellious act (v. 22), and thus Solomon eliminated him (v. 25).

2:19 a throne . . . for the king’s mother. There are three different kinds of queens in the ancient world. The first includes primary wives of the king (e.g., Esther), who were sometimes treated as ornaments, but could alternatively be delegated power (as is later the case with Jezebel). The second is the wife or mother of the king who assumes his place when he dies, such as Athaliah of Judah or Hatshepsut of Egypt. The third is the “queen mother,” whose royal husband has died but who continues to hold influence over his successor, such as Maakah of Judah, Sammuramat of Assyria and, in this context, Bathsheba. The amount of power and influence would have depended upon the personality of the individual. The queen mother is named for nearly every king in Judah, but not for those of Israel, suggesting that the queen mother was an especially important figure in the southern kingdom.

2:34 Joab . . . was buried at his home. Despite the guilt assigned to him (see 2:5 and note), Joab was given a proper burial in his family tomb at the edge of the wilderness near Bethlehem. There he would rest secure with his ancestors on the family plot. The shame and eternal curse of an improper burial would be too severe for even Joab’s crimes.

2:39 two of Shimei’s slaves ran off to Achish. Some Near Eastern states in Solomon’s day had treaties that forbade the harboring of runaway slaves or political fugitives. For example: “If a fugitive flees from Hatti [and goes to the land of Mittanni, the Mittanians shall seize and] return him.” Shimei probably expected the cooperation of Achish when his slaves were discovered there. Philistia lay to the west of Judah and was connected to the highlands by way of several ridge routes. During this period, unlike the prior decades, the border was quiet and Shimei likely could pass into the Philistine pentapolis unhindered.

3:1 Solomon made an alliance with Pharaoh king of Egypt and married his daughter. In antiquity, treaties and alliances between monarchs were often consummated through an exchange of daughters as wives. Israel’s new dominance in the region led to a series of alliances and hence a large number of wives for Solomon (11:1). The marriage to Pharaoh’s daughter was significant because the powerful Egyptians had seldom been in a weak enough position to derive benefit from giving their women to other monarchs. In keeping with this prestigious acquisition, Solomon built his bride a palace (7:8). The dowry included the site of Gezer (9:16), located near Joppa at an important crossroads between the road into Jerusalem and the international coastal route traversing the coast of Israel from Egypt to Syria and then inland to Mesopotamia. Archaeological excavations at Gezer have unearthed a large Israelite city wall, gate, and other structures that Solomon built at this time (9:15, 17). During this period of waning Egyptian influence, the Twenty-First Dynasty ruled Egypt from Tanis in the delta. When the dates of Solomon (970–930 BC) are correlated with Egyptian chronology, Siamun emerges as the pharaoh who forged this alliance with Solomon. Effectively, in a rare anomaly of history, the Israelites under Solomon displaced the mighty pharaoh’s hegemony of the southern Levant and its all-important trade routes. Indeed, only a few decades later the Egyptians attempted to disrupt Israelite supremacy in the region through the campaign of Pharaoh Shishak in 927 BC.

3:2 high places. Throughout their history, the people of Israel navigated the fine line between adapting local customs and preserving their distinctive religious and ethnic identity rooted in Yahweh. The comparison between Israelite worship atop the bamah (Hebrew for “high place,” vv. 2–4) and that of Ugaritic, Canaanite and Akkadian cultures illustrates this tension. When the Israelites entered the promised land, non-Israelite high places were to be destroyed (Nu 33:52; Dt 7:5), whereas Israelite ones would be tolerated until such time that the temple was completed. It seems that problems did not arise from the bamah itself, which was merely an enclosed, stepped platform for worship and sacrifice, but rather from the temptation to adopt local pagan belief and practice.

3:4 offered a thousand burnt offerings. Such a large number of offerings must represent a momentous event in Israel’s history (cf. 8:63). Although this number sounds excessive, comparable numbers occur in other ancient Near Eastern texts, and in this case the Hebrew verb for “offered” can mean ongoing sacrifice over time. Some scholars compare this passage to Dt 1:11, in which the number “a thousand” appears to convey the idea of “a great many.”

3:5 At Gibeon the LORD appeared to Solomon. The high place at Gibeon is a site of legitimate worship (see note on 2Ch 1:3). dream. Dream narratives are common in ancient Near Eastern literature, especially among kings facing new challenges. Thus, King Gudea of Mesopotamia (third millennium BC) received instruction to build a temple to Ningirsu and place the statues of the deity inside, the Egyptian pharaoh Netjer-er-khet was warned of impending famine, Amenhotep II received battle plans from the god Amon, and King Kirta of Ugarit gained instruction for conquest and personal restoration from the deity. See the article “Dreams and Temple Building in the Ancient Near East.”

3:7 you have made your servant king. Like David before him, Solomon was “sponsored” by Yahweh. One text among many that portrays divine backing for a king is the monumental inscription from Tell Dan in which an Aramean king boasts of his god, Hadad, making him king and “going forth before” him. The kings of Israel spoke of their divinely sponsored acts with the same conventions used by monarchs in surrounding lands. little child. Solomon is an adult at this time, but he compares himself to a child, because he feels that he lacks the maturity that comes from experience, which would help him be an effective ruler.

3:12 a wise and discerning heart. Solomon’s appeal for wisdom and the Lord’s promise of wealth and long life could be taken from the pages of any Near Eastern king. Note, e.g., the prayer for the Assyrian king Tukulti-Ninurta I, a century before Solomon: “May Assur give you authority, obedience, concord, justice, and peace!” See note on 2Ch 1:10. At the same time, Solomon’s request is commendable because it would not have been unusual for a king to request wealth and military success from the god, as Zimri-Lim of Mari is recorded to have done many centuries earlier. In the royal ideology of the ancient world, the highest expectation of a king was that he be wise and just, and Solomon’s request reflects this lofty aspiration.

3:16 prostitutes. Brothels and prostitutes were a part of everyday life in the Biblical and ancient Near Eastern world. Solomon’s judicious handling of the two prostitutes indicates that even persons of the lowest stature could gain an audience with the king. The Mesopotamian Lipit-Ishtar Code of the early second millennium BC ensures that child-bearing prostitutes be guaranteed provision, but not the status of wife. The Code of Hammurapi considers prostitutes to be unmarriageable, but possessing limited rights. The stories of Rahab (Jos 2) and Tamar (Ge 38) convey the relative freedom that prostitutes had in ancient Israel.

3:28 wisdom from God to administer justice. One of the most important ways that wisdom is demonstrated is in a keen understanding of human nature. This is exactly what Solomon demonstrates here. The ideal king is also a fair and consistent judge, as Solomon is shown to be in this passage. He is in good company, as kings of the entire Near East are depicted in similar ways in law codes and monument inscriptions. A representative example is Hammurapi of Babylon, “whose deeds are pleasing to the goddess Ishtar . . . who proclaims the truth, who guides the population properly, who restores its benevolent protective spirit to the city of Assur.” As the Bible attributes Solomon’s discernment to Yahweh, so this Babylonian law code credits its patron deity with wisdom and sound judgment. The Assyrian king Sargon credited the gods Ea and Belet-ili with making him the wisest ruler in the world, and Ashurbanipal takes pride in his great learning and wisdom, as well as technical knowledge and ability to debate the learned, courtesy of Adad and Shamash. See note on 2Ch 1:10.

4:1–6 Under Solomon, the kingdom of Israel became a small-scale empire that required new organization. The changes can be seen through the proliferation of titles and the increased number of royal officials from the time of David’s reign through the latter part of Solomon’s reign. The empires of the Near East required large bureaucracies, and it is no surprise that at the height of Israel’s fortune Solomon required the same. The names of many officials can be found on clay seals and stone inscriptions dated to the centuries following Solomon. Although they are later, they demonstrate the commonality of the titles of many officials, such as scribe and royal steward, who are said to be those “who are over the household.”

4:7–19 Samuel’s original concerns were proven to be justified as the tribal league strained under the increasing power of a centralized bureaucracy (1Sa 8:10–22). The traditional institutions of Israel throughout the land now had to compete with a large, well-staffed palace-temple establishment in Jerusalem. The purpose of Solomon’s 12 new administrative districts appears to have been to increase the tax base, reduce tribal autonomy (particularly in the restless north) and incorporate territories secured by David. While many of the districts roughly matched the original tribal allotments, the core northern tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim were carved up into smaller districts. The borders of these new units are described by means of topographic features, tribal borders, and strategic cities, though not all of them are clearly delineated in the text.

A number of the districts incorporated adjacent non-Israelite regions, some dominated by large Canaanite cities. Solomon named each of the 12 districts after its chief officer; they took turns financing the kingdom for a month at a time. Judah was exempt, a fact that would exacerbate tribal tensions in the future. Administrative districting in the ancient Near East can be traced back to the districts (“nomes”) of Egypt and the city-states of Mesopotamia in the third millennium BC. Solomon’s administrative reforms were a natural outgrowth of his kingdom’s great size.

4:21 from the Euphrates River to the land of the Philistines, as far as the border of Egypt. David left Solomon with a kingdom that stretched from the northwestern bend of the Euphrates to the border of Egypt (Wadi el-Arish), including the southern coast that was so frequently the domain of Egypt. Ironically, the frontiers of the kingdom began to destabilize during Solomon’s prosperous reign. Revolts in Edom and Aram created uncertainty on the northern and eastern borders, as a trade deficit resulted in the transfer of the Asher plain to Phoenicia. Meanwhile, Egypt could always be counted on to foment rebellion among Solomon’s neighbors. Beyond the core territories of Israel, Solomon’s sphere of influence nevertheless persisted until the close of his reign through conquered territories, vassals and regional allies across northern Syria, Transjordan and the entire eastern Mediterranean.

4:22–23, 27–28 The new administrative system no doubt increased the efficiency of taxation. Bureaucratic records were a necessity, but they also conveyed the size and complexity of the kingdom. The kings of Ugarit, Mari and Assyria maintained careful records of taxes received, produce gathered, and plunder conquered, which testified to the wealth and largesse of their domains. A good illustration is the roster of village payments at Ugarit that listed the units of flour and barley contributed to the throne. The list of provisions in these verses seems staggering until one considers that the king’s family, the royal guard, and a host of officials and their families required daily deliveries. The amounts are on par with a monarch comparable to the Egyptian pharaoh, and may even be listed in accordance with Egyptian record-keeping practice, as the units of measure are Egyptian rather than Hebrew (cor = homer).

4:25 Dan to Beersheba. A common expression referring to the entirety of the heartland’s length and breadth (cf. Jdg 20:1; 1Sa 3:20). everyone under their own vine and under their own fig tree. This is the classic Biblical statement on the security and peace that comes with following Yahweh. vine . . . fig tree. Implies long-term care through cultivation, nourishment through harvesting, and the rooted security of the family dwelling within a larger family compound. Deuteronomy and most of the Prophets (e.g., Mic 4:4; Zec 3:10) uphold this image as an ideal that Yahweh grants to those who align their hearts to him. The converse is also true, as the blessings and curses of these same books show.

4:26 four thousand stalls for chariot horses, and twelve thousand horses. The description of Solomon’s vast force informs us that the transformation of Israel’s army from a local militia to a well-equipped professional fighting force was complete. Some argue that the large numbers of stalls, chariots and horses are a case of literary hyperbole. That may indeed be the case, since comparable large numbers appear in the annals of other monarchs. However, archaeological remains of chariot cities such as Megiddo and the consistently large numbers of chariots recorded in ancient Near Eastern and Biblical battles support the possibility that these numbers are indeed accurate.

4:29–34 Alongside chariots, bureaucracy and administrative districts, wisdom can be seen as a common denominator to the cultures and empires of the ancient Near East. Regardless of geographic location and cultural heritage, ancient wisdom texts contain similar yet profound truths about morality, ethics, relationships, society and nature.

The timeless nature of wisdom is seen in the shared concerns of wisdom traditions throughout the ancient Near East. From far in the East came practical wisdom traditions recognized by the author of Job (Job 1:3). From Egypt’s wisdom tradition, which exerted strong influence on Israel at all times, came the Ptahhotep father-son teachings, the pithy sayings of the “Wisdom of Amenemope” a hundred years before Solomon (cf. Pr 22:17–24:22), and the reflections of the Eloquent Peasant. Akkadian wisdom included large numbers of proverbs, theodicies, school texts and the Job-like Words of Ahiqar.

Verses 32–34 describe Solomon’s knowledge of the natural world, plants, and animals. Because the wise were known to comprehend the underlying order of life, they often appealed to “nature wisdom,” the classification of living things, and the natural world to illustrate their points. Given the vast corpus of ancient Near Eastern wisdom and its extensive overlap with Biblical wisdom in both style and content, the Biblical statement that “Solomon’s wisdom was greater than the wisdom of all the people of the East” is profound indeed (v. 30).

4:31 Ethan . . . Heman, Kalkol and Darda, the sons of Mahol. These individuals were known for their intellectual prowess, which Solomon was said to surpass. Little is known about them, although 1Ch 2:6 lists them as descendants of Tamar and Judah. The first two are described in the psalm titles of Ps 88–89 as “Ezrahites,” a possible reference to service in Levitical circles. Here, the author of 1 Kings is emphasizing that even these men, skilled in music, wisdom and perhaps dance (if the Hebrew word mahol [“dancer”] is properly understood), were no match for the prodigious Solomon.

4:33 plant life. This does not concern the kind of matters modern botanists would be interested in, but involves medicinal, industrial, dietary and magical functions of plants (“herb lore”). Botanical wisdom can also relate to agricultural pursuits concerning seeds and the entire planting, growing and harvesting process. The context’s emphasis on trees may indicate the use of tree-based parables and fables in his wisdom teaching, such as the one related in Jdg 9:8–15 by Jotham or the Sumerian parable of the Tamarisk and the Palm. animals. Probably refers to telling stories about animals like those found in Aesop’s fables (see the article “Fables in the Ancient World”). The Egyptian “Instruction of Amenemope” and the Mesopotamian Words of Ahiqar are both filled with parables and sayings about animals and plants.

5:1 Hiram king of Tyre. The Phoenicians were seafaring Canaanites whose fleet served as conduit for trade between the inland regions of the eastern Mediterranean and the west, as well as between the Egyptians and the north Syrian coast. They established numerous cities in the western Mediterranean during the first millennium BC. Their primary natural resource was wood from the mountain ranges adjoining their territory, but they were almost entirely dependent on trade. Thus, Hiram naturally sought good relations with the ascendant Israelite nation.

Hiram’s reign from the city-state of Tyre, just south of Sidon, is thought to have lasted from 980–950 BC. This contemporary of Solomon is not attested in extra-Biblical sources, though several Phoenician kings with the same name are attested in later periods. During much of this time, Solomon provided food in exchange for timber and laborers, since lack of farmland was the Phoenicians’ greatest liability. For more details on Hiram’s ties to Israel, see note on 9:11.

5:3 because of the wars waged against my father David from all sides, he could not build a temple. The account of Solomon’s temple construction fits precisely into a recognizable literary device known as a “building account.” This genre, attested for over two millennia in Mesopotamia and the Levant, includes the rationale for the project, the consent of the deity, preparations for construction, building description, dedication of the building, prayer of blessing and recitation of blessings and curses (see note on 2Ch 2:1). David did not succeed in the first stage of building a temple, and in this he was not alone among the monarchs of the ancient world. Naram-Sin, Zimri-Lim, Nabonidus—all powerful leaders of ancient Mesopotamia—for one reason or another failed to secure their deity’s approval to build a temple at one point in their reign. David’s unsuitability for temple building should not be understood as unheard of in ancient Near Eastern culture. put his enemies under his feet. This expression, which refers to the defeat and humiliation of an enemy, may also be noted in texts and in art ranging from the third-millennium BC monument of Naram-Sin (king of Akkad in Mesopotamia) to the Narmer Palette (memorializing Narmer’s unification of Egypt, third millennium BC) and the portrayal of Rameses II’s battle with the Hittites at Qadesh (1285 BC). In his letter to Solomon, Hiram uses an expression that occurs in the Bible and can be heard to this day in the Middle East.

5:6 cedars of Lebanon. Cedars grew only in select areas of the Lebanon mountain range. As tall, massive trees with strong, durable wood, there was a high demand for them, particularly for the construction of ships and crossbeams in large public buildings. A symbol of luxury in architecture, they were used for lining the walls of palaces and temples. This precious building material, together with the many cultural connections of the region, ensured Phoenicia’s wealth and influence.

5:13 Solomon conscripted laborers from all Israel. Solomon’s building projects required additional labor, which he extracted from the Canaanites, who apparently were now subdued and hence subject to the governance of the Israelites. Although such conscription was not uncommon in the ancient world, in this case it sowed the seeds of the schism between north and south (see 9:15; 12:1–33). Conscript labor is evident in the Levant as early as the Alalakh texts and the Amarna texts of the mid-second millennium BC. Conscription was designed to meet the needs of state projects, including irrigation, construction of public and administrative buildings, digging canals, construction of garrisons or fortifications and many other projects that were done away from one’s home. It was often imposed by a conqueror on a subjugated people. Such an act expressed bondage.

It is unclear whether Solomon raised a corvée labor force from the Israelite population, and, if so, whether it differed from the labor imposed on foreigners. On the one hand, texts such as 2Ch 2:17–18; 8:9 indicate that Solomon did not impose slavery on Israelites; on the other hand, texts such as this verse imply that Israelites were also conscripted for royal work projects. The difference may simply lie in the distinction between the slavery-style labor placed on the foreign population and the required national service expected of Israelites.

It is possible that the drama of Rehoboam’s confrontation with the elders of the northern kingdom (ch. 12) must be understood in light of the distinction between Jeroboam as an officer of the corvée and Adoniram as the overseer of the forced labor gangs. This difference in terminology likely implies different categories of state workers. Thus, Rehoboam was backing up his verbal rhetoric by sending the overseer of harsher work to the north. One proposal is that Israelites performed national service on a rotating basis (service for one out of every three months), whereas foreigners were conscripted on a more permanent basis.

Certainly, the conscription of citizens for national interests such as warfare and infrastructure projects was not uncommon in the ancient Near East. Note that Egypt used a three-month corvée program based on the cycle of the inundation of the Nile River. Similarly, special taxes might be imposed on the citizenry to help underwrite the cost of the raw materials associated with such projects. In the cylinders of Gudea the text notes that the “whole country” participated in his temple project through physical labor and financial contributions. The raising of a corvée from the citizenry carried a negative nuance that could be exploited by political rivals (as with Jeroboam). Thus, the Persian ruler Cyrus refers to the Babylonian king Nabonidus in the Cyrus Cylinder as “an incompetent person” who imposed corvée on his citizens “unrelentingly, ruining them all.” See the article “Temples and Sacred Space.”

5:18 workers from Byblos. Stonemasons from Byblos were added to the work force at this time. Because the Phoenicians were a central trading partner for neighboring nations, they absorbed artistic and cultural influences from adjacent regions and from Mesopotamia and Egypt, the two great civilizations of the ancient world. Many artifacts uncovered in Israel and Syria bear the characteristic features of Phoenicia’s eclectic art and brilliant artisans. From dagger handles to public buildings, the influence is unmistakable. Solomon’s building projects no doubt bore the trademark features of Phoenician art, including the tripartite temple, the palace with a throne room and columned porch and the embossed style of masonry that persisted until the end of the Israelite kingdoms.

Despite his extensive borrowing of Phoenician resources and know-how, Solomon did not succumb to the attendant paganism of his neighbor until the latter part of his reign. Up until that point, his selective borrowing from Phoenicia was a stark contrast to Ahab’s later wholesale embrace of Phoenician customs, religion and ethics.

6:2 temple. The Hebrew word is bayit (“house”), a ubiquitous term that has a wide semantic range in many Semitic languages. sixty cubits long, twenty wide and thirty high. See note on 2Ch 3:3.

6:3 portico. Best described as a porch. Perched atop a broad staircase, it served as a type of transitional passageway linking the courtyard to the temple’s main room. Identical temple porches are known from Syria and Phoenicia. In Syrian and Mesopotamian temples, the porch was the access point to the interior of the temple, a mysterious and holy place where the deity was believed to reside.

6:7 blocks dressed at the quarry. The stones for the temple were prepared at some distance from the construction site. Gudea’s account of building a temple demanded silence at the construction site; the taboo against dressed stone for sacred altars might also be in view here. However, it may be for practical rather than religious reasons, as seen in Assyrian reliefs depicting completed stones and statues being removed from a quarry. Sennacherib of Assyria, for his part, built a temple to Ashur complete with limestone foundations from nearby mountains.

6:8 stairway. The entrance on the southern side room parallels the design of the ‘Ain Dara temple in Syria. This indicates that the temple was oriented east-west. Most temples of the “long room” type (long sides with shorter ends) are found in northern Israel or in Syria and are oriented in the same direction. The means of ascent was not a ladder, as some translations suggest, but rather a substantial return staircase fashioned from wood or stone. Examples are known from the palace at Alalakh and the temple of ‘Ain Dara, both in Syria.

6:15 cedar boards. Expensive wood such as cedar is found in burnt houses at various Iron Age cities in Israel. Because cedar had to be imported from Lebanon, it was reserved for special buildings or structures requiring long beams (see note on 5:6). Texts and reliefs from Egypt and Mesopotamia indicate that nations throughout the eastern Mediterranean imported cedars from Lebanon for use in architecture and, in the case of Egypt, for building fleets. The second-millennium BC Egyptian Report of Wenamun, e.g., describes the importation of large planks for boat construction in Egypt. Comparable traces of cedar paneling have been uncovered in several palaces and temples in northern Syria. In some structures the holes for attaching the paneling are all that remain.

6:19 inner sanctuary. This was the Most Holy Place, the holiest place in the temple, where the ark was located. It was accessible only by ascent through increasing spheres of holiness from the outer courtyard, the porch and the main hall. In addition to being centrally located, the Most Holy Place was elevated. North Syrian temples at Tayinat, Munbaqa, ‘Ain Dara and Ebla have elevated areas in the back third of their main temple rooms. This would explain the smaller size of the inner shrine in comparison to the dimensions of the temple. The symmetry of its cube shape is attested in Mesopotamian and Anatolian temples.

6:22 overlaid the whole interior with gold. Although the dimensions of the temple are widely accepted, many scholars approach its lavish decoration with considerable skepticism. There is, however, a large body of comparative evidence that proves the temple’s wealth to be entirely plausible. The third-millennium BC kings of Lagash in Mesopotamia covered their temples with gold and silver, while Esarhaddon, an Assyrian monarch of the seventh century BC, is documented as coating the walls of Ashur’s shrine with gold. Egyptian documents recount that monuments and pillars in the second millennium BC Karnak temple were plated with gold and electrum. The vast gold of King Tutankhamun’s famous tomb, with its myriad utensils and miniature shrines, further strengthens the claims of this Biblical verse.

6:23–28 Winged sphinxes or cherub figures, fearsome composite or hybrid creatures, from religious and royal iconography in Egypt, Mesopotamia and the Levant correspond nicely to the creatures described in the temple’s Most Holy Place (see note on 8:7). A wall relief at Mari depicts such creatures flanking a fertile tree of life as a divine being summons the king. Several of the north Syrian temples yielded stone cherubim that are reminiscent of the ones described in this passage. They crouch at the entrance of the temples in order, it would seem, to reinforce the fearful power of the deity and to demarcate the perimeter of his presence. The cherubim and the ark in the innermost part of the temple most likely represented the footstool of Yahweh (see notes on Ex 25:16, 18).

6:29 carved cherubim, palm trees and open flowers. The ornate carvings of flowers, vines, rosettes and the palm tree or tree of life combine to evoke images of paradise. These motifs are ubiquitous in ancient Near Eastern temples and are attested in the sacred architecture of the region as late as the seventh century AD. Many of the temples in the ancient world were built within sacred groves as evidenced by pits and acorns in temple courtyards and lush vegetation in temple scenes depicted in a considerable number of Egyptian and Assyrian reliefs. Thus through architectural decor as well as adjoining gardens, vibrant fertility was associated with sacred space, which was considered the source of that fertility, as Eden had first been.

6:31–33 doors . . . one fifth of the width . . . doorframes . . . one fourth of the width. The Hebrew words used here are usually translated as “five-sided doorframes/door jambs” and “four-sided doorframes/door jambs.” The temples at Ur and Tell Tayinat allow for a better interpretation. In those temples the main door frame is “rabbeted,” possessing stepped indents on three sides. Most commonly the frames have four indented steps, but in some cases, as at the Ningal temple at Ur, they have five. This was also the case with Solomon’s temple. In addition to their indented frames, the doors in Solomon’s temple exhibited the same garden-like motifs as the walls.

6:36 three courses of dressed stone and one course of trimmed cedar beams. The description of the inner courtyard suggests that the sacred precinct, or temenos, of the temple was already large in Solomon’s day. A comparable inner courtyard was unearthed in the lower city of Hazor. The walls were made with a layer of cedar planking interspersed between every three layers (courses) of stone, perhaps to compensate for irregularities in stone size and provide greater stability to the wall. Walls of this kind are attested at Ugarit, throughout Anatolia, at the palace of Knossos in Crete and at other Mycenaean sites.

7:2 Palace of the Forest of Lebanon. The origin of the building’s name is not known, though it likely reflects the Phoenician inspiration of its design and cedar construction. The cedars of Lebanon were a symbol of wealth and beauty and were the only trees capable of spanning the distances required for the roofing (see note on 5:6). The name could also refer to the four rows of 45 cedar pillars, which would have given the impression of a forest. This massive building, which was larger than the adjacent temple, was typical of north Syrian and Phoenician architecture known from excavation in the Levant. A comparable pillared building at Kition on Cyprus helps to envision the size and grandeur or Solomon’s palace.

The architectural components of the complex described in the Bible are similar to those discovered at Zinjirli in modern Turkey and Palace 1723 at Megiddo. These so-called bit-hilani palaces, attested throughout the Near East during the first millennium BC, are architecturally similar to Solomon’s palace. Because remains of Solomon’s main buildings have been uncovered, these extra-Biblical buildings (and especially the Israelite palace at Megiddo) provide a better understanding of Solomon’s achievements and substantiate the Biblical record.

7:6 pillars and an overhanging roof. Although the text provides few details of the palace’s multiple rooms, the entire description gives the impression of a very costly, intricately constructed building. The porch to the hall of pillars was attached to a wooden covering whose function is unclear. An identical covering protruded from the temple in precisely the same location of the building relative to the entrance (Eze 41:26). Because the courtyard of the palace, like the courtyard of the temple, was the venue for public gatherings, it is likely that this feature was a protective cornice or awning in front of the porch.

7:14 Huram was filled with wisdom, with understanding and with knowledge to do all kinds of bronze work. Ancient Israelite art, judging from the artifacts discovered to date, did not stand out as being particularly sophisticated or noteworthy. Monarchs of the period routinely acquired craftsmen or artisans from other lands by means of conquest or treaty. Ancient records point to a well-developed system of trade from mines and merchants to production centers and artisan households that in turn exported their products to the court or the wealthier classes.

Guilds of artisans and families of craftsmen persisted in state and entrepreneurial ventures from the fourth millennium BC to the time of Solomon and beyond. One of the best-documented production centers is the thirteenth-century BC city of Ugarit, where merchants and artisans from distant lands produced crafts of hybrid Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Greek and Canaanite styles. In hiring one such merchant (v. 13), Solomon followed the conventions of the cosmopolitan eastern Mediterranean culture in which he lived.

7:15–22 The porch of most ancient Near Eastern temples resembled a gateway into the mysterious domain of the deity. The pillars resembled ceremonial gates. Based on architectural parallels it is safe to conclude that the pillars of Solomon’s temple were load bearing and had an architectural function. In order to visualize the capitals one must rely almost entirely on ancient models and reliefs.

The pillars were 18 cubits (about 27 feet or 8.1 meters) high (cf. 2Ch 3:15 and note) and hollow, each made of cast bronze (v. 15). Each pillar was surmounted by a bowl-shaped capital. The capitals were elaborately decorated, with nets of checker work (wreaths of chain work) and two rows of pomegranates (vv. 17–18). These have been interpreted variously as columns with dedicatory inscriptions, representations of the doorways into the divine abode, and flowering trees representing the virile attributes of the divinity and the fertility of his creation. The pomegranate is a ubiquitous symbol of agricultural produce and fertility in ancient Near Eastern art. The fact that such pillars were a common feature of a number of ancient Near Eastern temples has prompted much speculation by scholars looking to unearth some kind of significant religious or cosmological symbolism (such as stylized trees of life) expressed by the pillars and their names (Jakin and Boaz, v. 21). All told, however, there is no indication in the text of any symbolism meant by the pillars, although they may have played a role in Israelite covenantal ceremonies. The “names” of the pillars might be the first words of the inscriptions carved on them.

7:23–26 The imagery of the Sea of cast metal (commonly referred to as the “bronze Sea”) is compelling in light of ancient Near Eastern symbols. The bronze Sea has parallels with Assyrian reliefs and temple fixtures including those from the time frame of Sargon II (eighth century BC). The Sea is also reminiscent of temple scenes from Luxor showing Amenhotep III appearing before the gods along with what appears to be water tanks.

In addition, the bronze Sea is replete with bull imagery, including 300 bull images inscribed below the rim of the container and 12 larger bulls on which the container rested. The use of bulls together with the Sea is intriguing given the connection between bovines and the Sea in several ancient Near Eastern literary texts. In such accounts, disorder (chaos) is portrayed via the aquatic realm (the primordial deep as well as sea creatures such as Leviathan), imagery likewise utilized in OT mythopoetic accounts (cf. Job 26:12–13; Ps 74:13–15; Isa 27:1; 51:9). Such accounts often intersect with the motif of the divine warrior facilitating order within the created realm. In some cases, the establishment of order culminates in the construction of a divine temple or palace. In short, the bronze Sea may have functioned as a symbolic representation of Yahweh sitting “enthroned over the flood” (Ps 29:10), signifying his mastery over the ancient Near Eastern symbol of chaos and disorder, the sea. Cf. 2Ch 4:2–4.

7:25 stood on twelve bulls. The bulls that supported the basin were no doubt intended to convey Yahweh’s power, strength and fertility, since “bull” is a well-known epithet for the male deities of the ancient Near East. Moreover, large bulls were routinely depicted on religious seals, stands and architecture, intended to evoke awe and reverence from the beholder. In many depictions the deity is pictured atop the animal, as if riding it.

7:26 two thousand baths. A bath is commonly understood to be six gallons (22 liters), based on the Mesopotamian parallels and the measurements of the bronze Sea itself. The capacity of the Sea of cast metal was therefore approximately 12,000 gallons (44,000 liters), a large reservoir indeed.

7:27–37 The movable stands aided in the transport of water to different areas of the temple courtyard. The Biblical author describes the stands in painstaking detail but they are still difficult to envision. Fortunately, archaeologists in Cyprus have uncovered an almost precise parallel, complete with four-wheeled design, cherubim and floral/faunal ornamentation.

7:51 treasuries of the LORD’s temple. Second-millennium BC temple treasuries are known from Karnak in Egypt and Hattusas, the capital of the Hittites. However the design of these temples and the style of construction were very different from the sacred architecture of the Levant. With the discovery of the multistoried, ornate hallways that enclose the ‘Ain Dara temple, a new understanding of the treasuries in Solomon’s temple is possible. The multistoried treasury enclosed the temple on three sides.

We cannot rule out the possibility that the lowest floor of the side structures at ‘Ain Dara and Jerusalem were used for some religious ritual. The itineraries of processions and sacred rites at Emar show an expansive vocabulary of priestly processions through the temple corridors. The rituals required a significant number of provisions that were transported from nearby storage facilities. It may be that similar activity took place between the walls of the side chambers of the Solomonic temple.

8:7 cherubim spread their wings over the place of the ark. The cherubim figure prominently in ancient Near Eastern iconography as the guardians of the deity (see note on Ex 25:18).

8:11 the glory of the LORD filled his temple. The gods of other ancient Near Eastern cultures (most notably, Baal of the Canaanites) are described in language and imagery similar to the Biblical description of Yahweh’s glory and his entry into the temple. The expression and pattern of theophany seems to be replicated in a range of cultures, regardless of the deity in question. This indicates that the presence of Yahweh in his temple was expressed to Israel in terms that were familiar not only to them, but to anyone in the ancient Near East. Thus, the function of the temple, the architecture of the temple, and the ideology of the temple were all elements that the Israelites held in common with their neighbors. All of this similarity does nothing to minimize the unique nature of Israel’s God.

8:12 The LORD has said that he would dwell in a dark cloud. The largely windowless architecture of most ancient Near Eastern and Aegean temples ensured that the deity would be worshiped in a dark place shrouded in smoke from fire, lamps and incense. The darkness and cloud reinforced the mysterious, supernatural quality of the divine being residing in the temple.

8:13 I have indeed built a magnificent temple for you, a place for you to dwell forever. The Sumerian king Gudea made a similar appeal for deity to come and dwell in the temple that had been built on his dedication of a temple to the deity Ningirsu in the third millennium BC. magnificent temple. The vocabulary of these Hebrew words is well-known from the descriptions of deities and their heavenly abodes as recorded in the religious texts from Ugarit and Mesopotamia. The semantic range of the Semitic root used encompasses “princely,” “heavenly” and “exalted,” all of which are appropriate adjectives for Solomon’s temple at the highest elevation in his capital city.

8:30 Hear from heaven, your dwelling place. The Israelite temple, like its contemporaries in Canaan and Syria, was understood to be a meeting point between heaven, earth and the world below. It was a replica of the heavenly abode that lay above the sky and heavens, and it served as an access point to that permanent, inaccessible dwelling of God.

8:31–32 When . . . they come and swear the oath before your altar . . . Judge. Legal texts and treaty formulas in Egypt and Mesopotamia reflect the same appeal to divine witness for personal accountability on matters of property, robbery and the like. See note on Ex 22:11.

8:63 fellowship offerings to the LORD: twenty-two thousand cattle and a hundred and twenty thousand sheep and goats. The parameters of the fellowship offering are not clear, but the amount of meat generated could certainly have fed a large percentage of the people gathered for the temple dedication ceremony. Sacrifices numbering thousands of animals were not uncommon in the temple and palace dedications of Egyptian pharaohs and Assyrian monarchs.

9:3–4 My eyes and my heart will always be there . . . if you . . . do all I command and observe my decrees and laws. The Lord’s commitment to the temple and his mindfulness of its location are dependent on Solomon and his people living up to their responsibilities. This relationship is consistent with the pattern of ancient Near Eastern temple accounts. The patron deity of the city typically expressed its dedication to the local temple as long as the king, priesthood and people maintained the building and its rituals. The Sumerian king Gudea received a commitment from his patron deity that resonates with Solomon’s experience. In Israel the responsibilities of the people extend beyond maintenance and ritual performance to the keeping of the Torah.

9:11 Solomon gave twenty towns in Galilee to Hiram king of Tyre. Land and cities were a common form of exchange between kingdoms of the ancient Near East, particularly when they were in need of friendly border adjustments. The cause for the exchange is unclear, but it likely reflects Tyre’s increasing strength and the final settling of accounts after its contribution to Solomon’s building campaign. Hiram desired a hinterland for his coastal kingdom, whereas Solomon sought to secure inland trade routes.

9:13 brother. Ancient Near Eastern treaties and letters indicate that this term expresses agreement or understanding between two equal parties, both kings (cf. 20:3 and note).

9:14 120 talents of gold. The weight of one talent is calculated by multiplying the number of shekels per talent (3,000) by the weight of a shekel (0.4 ounces or 11.5 grams) as determined by weights and measures found in the archaeological record; therefore, one talent is about 75 pounds or 34 kilograms. Thus Hiram delivers about 4.5 tons (4 metric tons) of gold to Solomon as part of the ongoing trade negotiations between the two kingdoms.

9:15 forced labor. Solomon’s projects relied on forced labor or corvée service demanded of the foreigners (and especially Canaanites) in his kingdom. A census determined the capacity of this labor force (v. 21). Textual records from larger ancient Near Eastern kingdoms often include abbreviated accounts of taxation, conscription and building projects that characterize a rise in status and regional influence. Solomon’s royal building program and its administration reflect programs that can be traced as far back as the early civilizations of Mesopotamia.

9:19 store cities and the towns for his chariots and for his horses. There is abundant evidence for administrative centers and chariot cities in the Levant and adjacent regions. During the Egyptian rule of Canaan in the fifteenth to twelfth centuries BC, garrisons were established in Megiddo, Beth Shan and other cities. They are mentioned in Egyptian annals and appear in the archaeological record as “governor’s residences.” Megiddo is the best example of an administrative center for storage and chariots dating to Solomon’s era, though substantial finds from this period have been discovered at other sites as well.

9:20 Amorites. See note on Nu 13:29. Hittites. See notes on Ge 23:3; Dt 7:1. Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. See note on Dt 7:1.

9:22–23 fighting men . . . government officials . . . officers . . . captains . . . commanders of his chariots and charioteers . . . chief officials in charge of Solomon’s projects. The robust terminology for court officials is to be expected in ancient kingdoms that became regional hegemonies. Although Solomon’s bureaucracy is most often compared to the court of the pharaoh in nearby Egypt, the range of officials is attested in the third through first millennium BC in Syria and Mesopotamia as well.

9:26 ships. The most successful Israelite and Judahite kings are credited with maritime operations, though this was the exception for the Israelites, not the rule. Israel, and later Judah, offered a vital link between the ports of the Mediterranean and the sources of exotic goods in Arabia and east Africa. See note on 2Ch 8:18. Ezion Geber. The most likely site is modern Jezirat Faraun, a small island in the Gulf of Aqaba/Eilat.

9:28 Ophir. Most often thought to be east Africa, perhaps along the Somali coast. The items attributed to Ophir in the Biblical text are also known to originate from Arabia and Yemen, which lie opposite. Other proposals range from India to coastal Africa (including Punt and Nubia; “Nub” means gold). Gold sourced from Ophir is noted in various ancient Near Eastern documents and receipts, including a notation on an eighth-century BC ostracon discovered at Tel Qasile (Tel Aviv). See 2Ch 8:18.

10:1 queen of Sheba. It is not clear whether the queen herself is a ruler or she has been dispatched by her husband on a diplomatic venture. Later Assyrian contacts with Arabia often dealt with powerful queens. Sheba. Its location is likely to be in the vicinity of Yemen on the western edge of Arabia. Several first-millennium BC kingdoms are known to have existed in that region, as recorded in eighth-century BC Assyrian texts, and there can be little doubt that there were tribal kingdoms in the region during the days of Solomon. The journey is 1,400 miles (2,250 kilometers) long and would have taken several months.

10:2 camels. Domesticated camels appeared in the Levant at least by the late second millennium BC, although they were utilized much earlier in the Arabian peninsula. They were incorporated into the Assyrian army in the eighth century BC as evidenced in palace reliefs, but the archaeological record for earlier periods is scarce. spices, large quantities of gold, and precious stones. Trade in spice, gold and precious stones is well documented from the third millennium BC through the Arab conquest in the seventh century AD. These products, derived from Arabia and east Africa, are depicted in the Egyptian reliefs at the Hatshepsut temple in Upper Egypt along with wild animals, birds and other goods known only from Africa and Arabia.

10:5 the food on his table, the seating of his officials, the attending servants in their robes, his cupbearers. An analogous visual commentary on this description of Solomon’s wealth is found in the banquet scenes depicted in Assyrian reliefs of the eighth and seventh centuries BC as well as in a Phoenician bronze bowl found in Cyprus. An earlier example of festivities before the king, replete with varieties of animals, food and gifts, is found in the Royal Standard of Ur, a third-millennium BC ornate box from ancient Sumer. The variety of officials in attendance and the extent of his temple offerings are reflective of a large kingdom or even an empire. The diplomatic nature of the visit is further highlighted by Solomon’s overwhelming hospitality, as banquets and meals were an integral part of any personal or public relationship.

10:9 to maintain justice and righteousness. As the agent of the deity, the ancient Near Eastern monarch was expected to maintain order, prosperity and justice in his kingdom and to expand his domain whenever possible. In Egypt, the king regulated maat (truth and justice), and in Mesopotamia the monarch implemented throughout his land the just decrees of his patron god. David and Solomon performed the same function on behalf of Yahweh, as recorded in this verse and many of the psalms.

10:11 almugwood. Unlike the almugwood imported from Lebanon (cf. 2Ch 9:10–11), the almugwood of this verse was imported from the land of Ophir. This large timber was mostly likely a sandalwood or “Grecian juniper” that originated in Ceylon or India. Biblical and ancient Near Eastern sources indicate that it was used in the construction of large buildings and musical instruments.

10:12 lyres. See the articles “Lyre,” “Music and Musicians.”

10:14 666 talents. Although this number (about 25 tons or 23 metric tons) seems exaggerated, the quantities recorded in the Bible are consistent with the revenues recorded in the empires of the ancient Near East. This amount of gold no doubt reflects Solomon’s control of most trade routes on the eastern Mediterranean seaboard.

10:16 shields of hammered gold. Ancient shields came in a wide variety of shapes and sizes and from a range of raw materials. The Hebrew words in this verse most likely depict a small, round shield. Egyptian models and frescoes show the military and ceremonial use of shields in the second millennium BC, while the Assyrian reliefs of Sargon and Ashurbanipal are the closest to Solomon chronologically. In light of their great worth and the ineffectiveness of gold for a shield, most likely the gold shields of Solomon were made for ceremonial purposes alone; such opulent ceremonial weapons were not intended for battle, but instead provided tangible proof of a kingdom’s wealth and prestige. References to gold shields and weapons are found in the gift lists of several Amarna letters and a gold-plated shield is noted in a Hittite votive text. Numerous gold ceremonial weapons have been uncovered in archaeological digs, particularly in the tomb of the Egyptian pharaoh Tutankhamen. Also, in detailing his eighth-century BC looting of Urartu, Sargon includes his seizing of ceremonial weapons, including one gold dagger weighing 27 pounds (12.25 kilograms) and six gold shields from the temple at Musasir weighing more than 100 pounds (45 kilograms) each. Similarly, the Chronicler notes that David took the gold shields carried by the officers of Hadadezer back to Jerusalem (1Ch 18:7). Shortly after Solomon’s death, the Egyptian pharaoh Shishak seizes the gold shields made by Solomon following his raid on the southern kingdom (2Ch 12:9).

10:18–20 Solomon’s regnal throne was a magnificent work of art that featured stylistics seen in other ancient Near Eastern thrones, particularly in the use of lion imagery (i.e., 12 lions on each side of six steps, and a lion next to each armrest). The throne of the Egyptian pharaoh Tutankhamun (King Tut), e.g., was a finely crafted wooden chair plated with gold and adorned with a colorful variety of precious stones and featured armrests with animal heads and animal claws at its base and the rays of the Aten as hands. The Phoenician king Ahiram is portrayed on his sarcophagus on a throne flanked by winged lions. Other images of regnal thrones with points of similarity to Solomon’s throne include the throne of the Aramean king Bar Rakab, and an ivory plaque from Megiddo dating to the same period depicts a delegation with prisoners before a throne that resembles a winged sphinx. As these examples suggest, animal images were a common ancient Near Eastern royal motif as these noble beasts project strength, dominance and fortitude. Solomon’s throne was also inlaid with ivory, a material prized in the ancient world for its smoothness. The use of ivory in art and architecture was an area of Phoenician expertise. Moreover, gold-covered ivory was used in the Assyrian royal palace at Nimrud (Calah). In both literary and artistic depictions the king, human or divine, sits on a throne that is elevated above his subjects. These images and the Biblical description of Solomon’s six-stepped throne with sphinx-like armrests are reminiscent of the Yahweh’s throne described in ch. 6.

10:22 trading ships. A more common translation of this verse reads “ships of Tarshish” (see NIV text note). When Biblical references are considered, Tarshish may refer either to a kind of boat or to a distant port—perhaps a city in Spain, in Cilicia (Tarsus), or in North Africa, an idea supported by a seventh-century BC Assyrian inscription that places “Tarsisi” west of Greece. It is safe to assume that Tarshish was a remote destination because the boats in this verse are recorded as returning only every three years. Because the items transported in these boats were of African origin, Tarshish may have been a trade outlet for the African interior, or it may be that in this instance the phrase “ships of Tarshish” refers generally to large cargo ships with sails. The luxury items it transported were the expected accoutrements of an imperial court even if they strained the linguistic and artistic abilities of Solomon’s scribes and artisans (cf. v. 12). See note on 2Ch 8:18.

10:26 chariots. Corroborative evidence for Solomon’s 1,400 chariots is found in the Qarqar inscription of 853 BC, which credits Ahab, the ninth-century BC king of northern Israel, with possessing 2,000 chariots. See 4:26 and note.

10:27 silver as common in Jerusalem as stones. Jerusalem was not a large city in Solomon’s day, but it was wealthy. Some scholars argue that there is a dearth of archaeological material dating to David and Solomon, so that this Biblical account of the city’s wealth is based on an idealized image of the city. However, this verse claims that Jerusalem was immensely wealthy, not that it encompassed vast territory. When the city is brought down to “Biblical size,” one can envision a wealthy regional capital whose acreage was smaller than most of the royal cities such as Megiddo and Hazor. Pharaoh Shishak’s plundering of the city after Solomon’s death (described in both the Bible and in Egyptian records) is further evidence that the Jerusalem had huge wealth in the days of Solomon.

10:28–29 imported from Egypt and from Kue . . . exported them to all the kings of the Hittites and of the Arameans. Solomon’s dominance of the Levant trade routes brought him into contact with Egypt in the south and Kue in the north, the Neo-Hittite kingdom on the coastal plain below the Amanus and Taurus Mountains in what is today south-central Turkey. Through conquest or alliance (it is unclear which), Solomon controlled both Syria and the entrance to Egypt. From this position of strength he was able to broker horses from the region of Cilicia and chariots from Egypt, not to mention the spice trade from Arabia and lucrative products from Mesopotamia that reached the Mediterranean through Tadmor, Syria, Galilee and Phoenicia. See the article “All the King’s Horses.”

11:1 loved many foreign women. In Bible times, marriages were arranged primarily for the economic and political benefit of family, clan and tribe. The number and geographic distribution of Solomon’s wives is a reflection of this principle, but on the level of international relations. Solomon sealed his alliances and treaties with surrounding nations through marriage, in most cases in order to secure the continued cooperation of his vassals. Despite its prohibition in Dt 17:17, this practice was an expected part of diplomacy in the ancient Near Eastern world. As he gained power, Solomon had to participate in such diplomacy, just like the monarchs of Syria, Mesopotamia and Egypt. Ancient archives from the second millennium BC indicate that such marriage arrangements were commonplace throughout the ancient Near East. King Zimri-Lim of Mari, e.g., married a princess of Aleppo, a neighboring kingdom, and Rameses II married a Hittite princess in order to cement his peaceful relations with his past enemy. Solomon’s marriage to Pharaoh’s daughter is indicative of Israel’s regional dominance in the tenth century BC, because the Egyptians rarely gave their daughters in marriage and only to imperial powers.

11:3 seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines. In addition to being a status symbol, the royal harem maintained close ties to Solomon’s constituents through marriage into families of varying clans, tribes and social classes, including wives of higher status who were counted among the royalty. Counting royal women by the hundreds was not unusual during the Iron Age. Assyrian wine lists from Nimrud indicate that as many as 300 women of various ranks lived at that palace. Extensive harems produced a large pool of heirs to ensure the enduring strength of the dynasty. In the OT world, royal marriage was not about establishing families, but about establishing alliances. A large harem is indicative not of lust on the part of the king, but of his power in international relations.

11:5 Ashtoreth. A goddess of fertility and the famous consort of the Canaanite god Baal. Known in Mesopotamia and Syria as Ishtar and Athirat, this goddess is best known as Astarte, the primary deity of Phoenician coastal cities. She appears in numerous texts and is depicted in painted pottery, metal plaques, and ivory from Judah, Israel and their neighbors. In the Bible, she is also referred to as “Queen of Heaven” and is presented with bread and cakes (Jer 7:18), as was the practice in ancient Phoenicia, Syria and Mesopotamia. Molek. Alternately named Milkom, Malik and Milku, this god was known in second-millennium BC Syria, but is figured most prominently as an Ammonite deity mentioned in Ammonite inscriptions. Identified as Canaanite Baal, this deity is associated with child sacrifice in Punic inscriptions from Carthage and in the Biblical record (2Ki 23:10; Lev 18:21; 20:2–5; Jer 32:35; see notes on 2Ki 16:3; Lev 20:2; Jer 7:31). The prophetic condemnation of child sacrifice to Molek may refer to this deity or to pagan practices named after him.

11:7 high place. High places (Hebrew bamot) proliferated throughout ancient Israel even as the prophets and Biblical writers routinely condemned them (see note on 3:2). The typical high place included a pile of stones or a staircase on a high hill. Such sites were alternate locations for improper worship of Yahweh or the veneration of pagan deities, often through sacrifice and the erection of a commemorative standing stone (Hebrew matstsebah) (cf. 14:23). Chemosh. This national god of the Moabites is described in the Mesha Stone, a ninth-century BC monumental inscription celebrating Chemosh’s victory over Israel after a period of defeat and punishment. The language and nationalist expressions are reminiscent of the Bible’s characterization of Yahweh, though this deity is known from other sources to have been venerated in Syria and Mesopotamia as well. The intense rivalry and animosity between Israel and its eastern neighbor is reflected in this verse and in the taunts of the Mesha Stone.

11:14–17 Long the archenemies of Judah, the Edomites are now able to exploit Solomon’s internal weaknesses by operating under the patronage of Egypt. Like Solomon’s internal rival, Jeroboam, Hadad will bide his time in Egypt until Israelite tribal unity becomes fragile enough for his return. Surveys and excavations in recent years have shown that Edom was a powerful tribal kingdom with settled towns as early as the second millennium BC.

11:15 bury the dead. The dead required proper burial, usually in the family tomb, in order ensure well-being in the afterlife. Defilement of the dead was the worst possible dishonor, a social reality that explains Joab’s return to Edom as well as the horrific fate of enemy dead that is showcased in the Bible and ancient Near Eastern texts.

11:18 Pharaoh . . . gave Hadad a house and land and provided him with food. Egypt had a long tradition of harboring foreigners during times of famine or strife in the Levant, but in this instance Egypt’s motive was to cultivate allies for a return to military and economic exploitation of its northern neighbors. They would be housed, tied to their patron by marriage, and then sent back to cause as much trouble as they could, draining enemy resources and perhaps opening opportunity for conquest. The Middle Kingdom Story of Sinuhe brings to life Egypt’s rich hospitality and manipulation of political rivals through cultivating rebels from adjacent lands. Although Hadad resided in Egypt for some time and married into the royal family of the Twenty-First Dynasty, it is not known whether his patron was Pharaoh Shishak of the Biblical record or a prior king such as Siamun (see 3:1 and note). If his patron is the same Siamun who has a treaty with Solomon, releasing Hadad to cause havoc puts the pharaoh in a very awkward position, which might explain why he encourages Hadad to stay (vv. 19–22).

11:23 Rezon son of Eliada, who had fled from his master, Hadadezer king of Zobah. The Aramean kingdom of Zobah lay in the Beqaa Valley northwest of Damascus. It had a history of fomenting rebellion against David (cf. 2Sa 8:3–8). After David defeated its king, Hadadezer, a commander named Rezon formed his own military force and overtook Damascus. Late in Solomon’s reign, Rezon became a powerful northern rival, gaining supremacy over Aram and northern Mesopotamia. These developments are known primarily from the Biblical text, although Hadadezer’s name persists into the eighth century BC on an Aramaic seal.

11:30 Ahijah took hold of the new cloak he was wearing and tore it into twelve pieces. Unlike the prophets from Mesopotamia and Syria, who primarily sanctioned the actions of the king and mediated the intentions of the gods, Israelite prophets often played a strategic role in dynastic change. The tearing of garments usually accompanied mourning and impending doom (cf. Samuel’s confrontation with Saul, 1Sa 15:27–31). Ahijah’s tearing of the garment (a new one, no less) was a tangible means of asserting that his words would come to pass. A further indication of Ahijah’s investment in Jeroboam may be seen indirectly from Mesopotamian legal documents that describe one’s garment as a legal extension of the person and their ability to bring about change. Symbolic gestures become an important means by which the prophets convey their message (see note on Eze 6:11).

11:40 Shishak. See note on 14:25.

11:43 he rested with his ancestors and was buried in the city of David his father. See note on 2:10.

12:1 Rehoboam went to Shechem, for all Israel had gone there to make him king. Shechem was a logical place for such a national gathering (see note on Jos 20:7). Like prior Israelite kings, Rehoboam had to be ratified by the tribal leaders (cf. 1:18–21). Rehoboam was at a disadvantage by meeting in Shechem and not in Jerusalem because the strong traditions associated with Shechem most likely reminded the northern tribes of their supremacy until the days of David. Solomon lacked David’s charisma and record of conquest, and his policies exacerbated traditional tribal rivalries (4:7–20). all Israel. Here likely refers to the northern tribes without Judah and Benjamin of the south.

12:4 yoke. Refers to the corvée labor noted in 9:15 (see notes on 5:13; 9:15). The Akkadian expression for yoke implies “rule” or “service.” The delicate balance between royal demands and the tolerance of the populace was not an uncommon issue faced by ancient kings. The Hittite king Tudhaliya, e.g., describes an adjustment to his burdensome forced labor and taxation in a treaty document of the second millennium BC.

12:8 Rehoboam rejected the advice the elders gave him. Like their counterparts in the Near East, the elders of Israel seem to have been both an amorphous group in daily life settings and a recognized social stratum within the court. Kingly councils, including one in the famous Gilgamesh Epic, can be traced as far back as Sumerian texts from more than a thousand years before David and Solomon. The elders in Rehoboam’s day seem to have had a much longer frame of reference than did the young courtiers who opposed them. The advice and preferences of such stratified groups could vary widely because of the varied interests of such groups. In the setting of this passage and the parallel account in 2Ch 10, the “young men” may have consisted of the royal princes aligned with Rehoboam.

A similar situation is found in the Sumerian story “Gilgamesh and Akka.” This narrative describes a time of tension between the ancient Mesopotamian cities of Kish (ruled by Akka) and Uruk (ruled by Gilgamesh) over the workload demanded by Akka in the digging of wells. Although Uruk was under the control of Kish, Gilgamesh sought to rebel, a notion supported by his youthful advisors but not supported by the city’s assembly of elders. In the end, like Rehoboam, Gilgamesh rejected the counsel of the elders for that of his “youthful” advisors, who, incidentally, nominated Gilgamesh to be their king.

12:11 scorpions. This may be metaphoric, or it may refer to a kind of whip embedded with fragments of metal or glass, though these are unattested prior to Roman times. An Akkadian list does mention a copper “scorpion” along with copper fetters for slaves, and some have suggested this refers to the tip of a scourge.

12:16 What share do we have in David, what part in Jesse’s son? To your tents, Israel! The scene is almost a repeat of prior revolts in Israel (cf. 2Sa 20:1). The division of the monarchy is commonly referred to as the “schism,” but in reality the division into northern and southern kingdoms was a return to the natural state of affairs based on geographic realities and long-held tribal associations. The tensions of the tribal league described in Judges will now manifest themselves in military conflict between neighboring polities. Look after your own house, David! The people of the north may be referring to the relative inferiority of Judah’s resources in comparison to the large, well-watered north.

12:21 a hundred and eighty thousand. See the article “Numbers in Numbers.”

12:24 This is what the LORD says: Do not go up to fight against your brothers. Israel is not alone in the practice of consulting prophets regarding potential military action, though prophets from the ancient world generally encourage the king to pursue his agenda for battle. The prophetic caution against military invasion such as is found in this passage, while far less common in non-Israelite prophetic traditions, is attested in a small number of texts, including a stern warning to King Zimri-Lim of the second-millennium BC kingdom of Mari not to proceed into battle. Overall, prophets in Israel were much more likely than their ancient Near Eastern counterparts to resist the king’s desires or to criticize him.

12:25 Jeroboam fortified Shechem . . . and built up Peniel. Traces of Jeroboam’s building activities at Shechem have been unearthed, though they are unimpressive when compared to the massive walls, gates and public buildings of the second-millennium Middle Bronze Age city. Jeroboam’s royal initiatives at other strategic centers are attested in a beautiful seal that bears his name. Found at Megiddo in the Jezreel Valley, it bears the name of “Shema, servant of Jeroboam.” Recent analysis of the seal’s original context in the gate of Megiddo indicates that it may well have belonged to this tenth-century BC king. Peniel. Identified with Tell edh-Dhahab, it lay near the mouth of the Jabbok canyon in Transjordan, not far from the broad Jordan Valley. Its selection as an alternate capital city most likely reflects Jeroboam’s need for a place of retreat should his fledgling kingdom suffer invasion. His attention to the site may also be explained by his desire to forge close ties with the Israelite tribes of Gad and Reuben in the mountains of Gilead. It was in any case a sufficiently important city to be included in Shishak’s list of destroyed towns in his campaign shortly after Solomon’s death.

12:28 golden calves. Ancient Near Eastern religious tradition reinforced the power and virility of key deities through association with the bull and calf (see note on 7:23–26). In the Canaanite tradition, e.g., both the patron god El and the warrior-god of fertility, Baal, were often referred to as “bull” or “calf.” The image is used repeatedly in the Ugaritic myths as well. It is important to note that these creatures represented not the gods themselves but only their attributes. Whether they were cast in metal or incorporated into architecture or incense stands, the bovines were the pedestal or footstool on which the deity was thought to stand.

This iconography and the principles that underlie it are closely related to the ornate thrones of earthly kings. In seeking to replace traditional worship of Yahweh in Jerusalem, Jeroboam initiated a syncretistic pattern that culminated in national Baal worship under the reign of Ahab and Jezebel. Bronze or composite bull or calf figurines have been found in several archaeological excavations (e.g., Mount Gilboa, Hazor and Ashkelon; also a ceramic one at Shiloh), but these are only three to seven inches (seven to eighteen centimeters) long.

Variations of bovine (including calves, bulls and cows) were commonly portrayed in connection with divinity in Mesopotamia, Persia, Egypt, Canaan and Anatolia. The specific association of bovine with the divine realm varied and included the animal as god/goddess, the animal as a bearer (or pedestal) of a god (recall the 12 large bulls on which the “bronze Sea” rested in 7:25), and the animal as an emblematic symbol whose potency, strength and fertility (fecundity) represented attributes of the divine realm.

In Egypt, the Apis bull was understood as a manifestation of the creator god Ptah while the Egyptian goddess of love (Hathor) was typically depicted as cow and the Egyptian god Monto was known as the mighty bull. Also, in Coffin Text 261 the Egyptian god Heka addresses the “bulls of heaven” in his claim to supremacy among the pantheon. Similarly, the Sumerian god Nanna (later associated with the Babylonian moon-god Sin) is described in a praise hymn as a “ferocious bull whose horn is thick” and, like the Canaanite Baal, is described as the “Bull of Heaven.” In Canaan and Syria, the god Baal (Hadad) was depicted with bronze, silver and golden calf idols, and his divine sister (Anat) is depicted as a cow in conjunction with her liaison with Baal, who mounts her “like a bull.” Lastly, golden calves as a religious symbol are reflected in the discovery of golden calves in the tomb of the priestess of Nanna at Ur.

Given the range of bovine imagery in the ancient Near East, Jeroboam’s calves (like those of Aaron in Ex 32) may not be intended as deity (in violation of the first commandment). Rather, they may reflect growing syncretism with neighboring religious systems (likely Egyptian or Canaanite influence) or may reflect the human tendency to make an image of Israel’s God in line with a common means of representing deity in the ancient Near East (in violation of the second commandment). See the article “The Golden Calf.”

12:29 Bethel . . . Dan. Jeroboam chose these locations based on preexisting traditions and geopolitical considerations. The setting of Dan in the north held great promise as a pagan shrine because of its abundant water and vegetation, as well as its position at the foot of majestic Mount Hermon, which towers nearly 10,000 feet (3,000 meters) above the plain. These abundant images of fertility and provision figured prominently in Israelite and ancient Near Eastern ritual and iconography and were considered to be the physical manifestations of the deity’s power and virility. The altars, calves and religious practices drew on the existing syncretism of the northern tribes that reached its zenith in the days of Ahab (ninth century BC) and Jeroboam II (eighth century BC). Dan also lay on the northern perimeter of Jeroboam’s kingdom on the main route connecting Israel to Aram, Damascus and the interior of Mesopotamia.

To the south, Bethel’s appeal was its location on the border of Judah and the rich spiritual and ethnic heritage of the site from the days of Abraham to the period of the monarchy. Because it lay on the route to Jerusalem, Bethel was perfectly situated to entice Israelites away from the traditional and legitimate religious center in Jerusalem. It was also a convenient rallying place on the plateau between Israel and Judah. Just as David had united the tribes around a new shrine in Jerusalem, so Jeroboam combined diplomacy and religion to draw his people to Dan and Bethel.

12:31 appointed priests from all sorts of people . . . not Levites. Jeroboam is worried that the Levitical priesthood will not be supportive of him, so he appoints new priests with securer loyalties. The priesthood had significant power in the ancient Near East. Akhenaten of Egypt and Nabonidus of Babylon both tried to reform their state religions, and both dynasties lost their power as the slighted priesthood took revenge.

12:33 he instituted the festival for the Israelites. It is unclear whether Jeroboam’s new festival coincided with the Festival of Tabernacles or the New Year Festival practiced in Jerusalem. Scheduling it simultaneously to a pilgrimage festival such as the New Year Festival would be a logical choice, as it would approximate and displace the Jerusalem experience.

13:2 he cried out against the altar. It is not unusual for a prophet in the ancient Near East to declare a shrine illegitimate. human bones will be burned on you. Although there is debate as to whether the Israelites ever practiced human sacrifice, it did occur in the Canaanite and Phoenician cultures. The so-called Tophet at Carthage is a prime example. An Egyptian relief of an assault on a Canaanite town may include a depiction of human sacrifice. The defenders hold incense stands, raise their hands, and cast individuals out of a fortified tower.

13:3 This is the sign the LORD has declared: The altar will be split apart and the ashes on it will be poured out. The test of a prophet’s veracity was whether or not the prediction came true, or more dramatically, the production of a miraculous sign, in this case the destruction of both the altar and (the ashes of) the gift that had been offered on it. Altars were normally made of limestone; impurities or improper preparation could cause them to crack when exposed to heat.

13:7 Come home with me for a meal, and I will give you a gift. Middle Eastern hospitality was as central in Biblical times as it is today. The sharing of a meal signified a bond of friendship that was not easily broken. The host typically shared his finest produce, as can be seen in Mesopotamian banquet scenes from Ur and Assyria. Gifts were often exchanged at such gatherings. Given this cultural setting, the prophet’s rejection of hospitality is jarring and signifies overt hostility (v. 8; cf. 2:7).

13:13 donkey. The most common pack animal in antiquity. Horses were reserved for military use and for pulling large carts or chariots.

13:26 given him over to the lion. In the many treaties from the ancient Near East, one of the curses found is, “May Bethel and Anath-Bethel deliver you to a man-eating lion.” This was a punishment for breaking an oath. In this passage, the prophet’s encounter with a lion is interpreted as God’s punishment for oath breaking.

14:3 Take ten loaves of bread with you, some cakes and a jar of honey. It was common practice to present votive gifts when visiting a prophet or person of authority, particularly if a favor was to be requested. honey. It is unclear whether the honey in this instance was wild or cultivated, as there is no mention of hive cultivation activity in the Bible. Nevertheless, the Egyptians were producing honey centuries before, and beehives have been excavated from this time period at Tel Rehov indicating that Israelites were also doing so.

14:9–10 you have aroused my anger . . . Because of this, I am going to bring disaster. In this verse and throughout the historical record of Israel, Yahweh rewards and punishes his subjects individually and corporately. The Bible is not unique in explaining the demise of kings and empires as divine retribution for religious disobedience. One of the best ancient Near Eastern parallels to this Biblical retribution theme is found in the Curse of Agade. In this account, a successful Mesopotamian king named Naram-Sin desecrates a temple of the god Enlil, who is credited with the eventual demise of his kingdom. As a result, the impulsive king loses the very kingdom he strove so hard to build.

14:11 Dogs will eat . . . birds will feed on. In the ancient world, desecration of the deceased put in jeopardy the well-being and repose of that person in the underworld. If a body was not buried, the spirit could not pass into the netherworld and would roam the earth causing problems to the living. The body gave the dead person identity in the netherworld. In Babylonian thinking, burial gave the spirit a place to reside once the body transitioned to the netherworld through decomposition. With no identity in the world of the dead, the individual would find no rest, receive no care and have no hope. No punishment could be greater than to be consumed by roaming dogs and fowl. Some rulers enforced their treaties by threatening disloyal subjects with just such a fate. The Assyrian king Esarhaddon employed this threat in one of his treaties. The prophets of 1 Kings raised the prospect of this treatment repeatedly, but even such horrific images did not produce moral correction.

14:19 the book of the annals of the kings of Israel. The author of 1,2 Kings makes frequent reference to the “book of the annals” (e.g., v. 29; 15:7, 23, 31; 2Ki 15:6, 11, 15, 21, 26, 31, 36). This was likely part of a robust court record of the type discovered in ancient Mesopotamia, Anatolia and Egypt. Vast archives from these empires and regional kingdoms such as Ebla and Mari provide a glimpse of the size and range of topics that likely characterized the lost court records of ancient Israel. These archives include letters from and to the king, court documents and records of military campaigns. A fine illustration is the court archival material from the capital of the Hittite Empire, dating to the middle of the second millennium BC. It describes a range of activities that took place in the court.

14:23 high places, sacred stones and Asherah poles. Because the Biblical (and especially prophetic) condemnation of pagan cultic practices was so extensive, one can conclude that these practices were ubiquitous during much of the period recorded in 1 Kings. The archaeological record largely corroborates these condemnations. high places. See notes on 3:2; 11:7. sacred stones. In the ancient world, cult symbols such as standing stones are abundantly observable. These standing stones could at times be deified (i.e., considered to contain the essence of a deity), probably the function of the two found in the vicinity of the Iron Age temple unearthed at Israelite Arad. Others were believed to represent ancestral spirits; still others simply stood as memorials of treaties or special events (notice the 12 set up by Moses in Ex 24:4–8). Asherah poles. The people venerated Asherah, consort of the main Canaanite deity El, by setting up poles of wood or stone. This practice, similar to the setting up of standing stones (Hebrew matstsebot), is well documented both in the Bible and in archaeological discoveries.

14:24 male shrine prostitutes. See note on Dt 23:17–18.

14:25 fifth year of King Rehoboam. Most likely 926 BC. Rehoboam began his reign following the death of Solomon (c. 931 BC), with the division of the kingdom occurring shortly thereafter. The Chronicler, in his parallel account of Rehoboam’s reign (2Ch 10–12), notes that there was a three-year period in which Rehoboam was loyal to Yahweh (c. 930–927 BC) followed by apostasy, providing a context (theological and historical) for the time leading up to Shishak’s invasion (2Ch 11:17–12:1). Shishak king of Egypt. The last pharaoh of the Twenty-First Dynasty (Psusennes II, c. 965–931 BC) did not have a male son and thus promoted a Libyan military commander named Sheshonq I (Biblical Shishak; variously spelled as Sheshonq, Sheshonk, Shoshenq and Shusheq by Egyptologists) to a position of virtual heir to the throne. When Psusennes II died, Sheshonq became the pharaoh, founding the Twenty-Second Dynasty. He facilitated the reunification of Upper (Southern) and Lower (Northern) Egypt through deft political decisions, strategic priestly appointments and key marriage arrangements. This internal unity in turn strengthened Egypt’s ability to expand trading activities and international influence, particularly in Phoenicia and Canaan. attacked Jerusalem. The summary of Shishak’s invasion in the parallel account in 2Ch 12 provides additional details of Shishak’s campaign over those disclosed in 1Ki 14, such as the extent of Shishak’s invasion, the number of chariots involved in the battle (1,200), the number of cavalry/horsemen (60,000) and the multiethnic composition of his military coalition (Libyans, Sukkites and Cushites [Nubians or Ethiopians]). The details of Shishak’s invasion are celebrated on the southwest wall of the Karnak temple in Thebes—a topographic inventory of more than 150 hieroglyphic place-names recorded as part of his expansion of the temple via the Bubastite Gate. Of this number, approximately 30 names have been effaced and other names are proposed reconstructions. The upper register of Shishak’s list contains a number of towns in what was primarily the territory of the northern kingdom of Israel, including cities along the coastal highway (such as Soko and Yaham), places in the Jezreel Valley (such as Taanach and Megiddo), towns in the Beth Shan (Shean) Valley (including Beth Shan and Rehob) and places in the Transjordan region (such as Adam and Penuel). These victories undoubtedly restored Egyptian domination over important trade routes through these areas. In the upper register of his temple inscription Shishak also records the defeat of several towns in the territory of the southern kingdom of Judah, including Gibeon (in the central hill country) and Aijalon (one of Rehoboam’s fortified cities in the Shephelah). Moreover, the lower register of Shishak’s list focuses on towns in the southern region of Judah (the Biblical Negev), perhaps aimed at reasserting Egyptian control over trade routes to Arabia. The absence of Jerusalem in Shishak’s lists is noteworthy, although any notations summarizing the plundering of Jerusalem may have been among the destroyed sections of the inscription.

14:26 He took everything. Shishak’s goal was not only to reassert Egyptian supremacy in the southern Levant. He had his sights set on Solomon’s famed treasury. An appreciation for the geographic environs of Jerusalem can help to explain how Shishak could extract such riches from Solomon without destroying Jerusalem. A broad highland plateau lies north of the city in the center of Benjamin’s tribal territory. Convenient routes connect this plateau to Gezer and the coast in the west, to Jericho in the east, and to Jerusalem in the south and Shechem in the north. Though Jerusalem served as an admirable capital city for a number of strategic reasons (water supply, surrounding topography, and access to north-south trade routes), it did not connect directly to any convenient routes from the coast or Transjordan. It therefore relied largely on the Benjamin region for access to the outside world.

In a move taken by many invaders before and after his day, Shishak effectively held Jerusalem hostage by seizing the cities of the plateau in Benjamin. It is unclear whether the pharaoh was unable to take Jerusalem or whether tribute was sufficient not to advance further. Rehoboam paid handsomely to avoid a siege and to restore his access to the outside world. This is reminiscent of the words used to describe Sennacherib’s attack on Judah in 701 BC, even before he laid siege to Jerusalem. Hezekiah in his capital city was “like a bird in a cage.”

15:13 queen mother. Like Bathsheba before her (cf. 2:19), Maakah exercised extensive power as queen mother. Hittite records offer a useful parallel to the considerable activism of the Judahite queen mother in affairs of state. Although Maakah venerated Asherah and was condemned for this, her influence does not account adequately for the chronological and geographic scope of Asherah-related artifacts excavated to date in the region of ancient Judah.

15:17 Ramah. Jerusalem’s fate was so tied to the strategic Benjamin plateau that the capture of Ramah by an enemy effectively cut off Judah altogether. The city’s name is preserved in er-Ram, the name of the modern town, under which the ancient site presumably lies. It is noteworthy that even the capture of a town several miles/kilometers north of strategic Gibeon in the northern part of the plateau could block all traffic in and out of Judah.

15:18 Ben-Hadad. This Aramean king was one of several who bore the name Ben-Hadad. As a result, there is some confusion in determining the sequence of conflicts between the Israelites and the Arameans as recorded in 1 Kings. The other names in this verse are unattested. It is most likely that this is Ben-Hadad I, who ruled roughly during the first part of the ninth century BC. He is not mentioned in any extra-Biblical sources. After Asa bribed Ben-Hadad, the latter exploited the situation and conquered the cities of both trunk routes, the vicinity of Hazor, and the hilly region of Naphtali to the west, thereby expanding the western reaches and maritime trade routes of his Damascus-based kingdom.

15:22 Geba. Modern Jeba; it lay six miles (almost 10 kilometers) northeast of Jerusalem and dominated the main road to Jericho. Mizpah. Modern Tell en-Nasbeh; it was directly between Bethel to the north and the widening of the Benjamin plateau to the south. There are expansive remains and evidence of massive fortification and administrative architecture exposed in modern excavations. In some places the walls are 13–19 feet (4–6 meters) thick. These features bear witness to the strategic position of the town and Asa’s determination to define the border once and for all. Two of the gates were preserved to a height of several feet/meters and sections of the city wall towered nearly 50 feet (15 meters) above ground level.

15:29 killed Jeroboam’s whole family. Beyond the practical purpose of eliminating every member of the outgoing rival dynasty, the literary traditions of Israel and its neighbors also interpreted such barbaric acts. They were considered a reckoning for offenses committed against the ruling deity.

16:4 Dogs will eat . . . birds will feed. See note on 14:11.

16:6 rested with his ancestors. See note on 2:10.

16:14 the book of the annals of the kings of Israel. See note on 14:19.

16:15–16 The army . . . proclaimed Omri . . . king over Israel. It was not normally the job of the army to declare a king, but military support is essential for a successful reign. Military coups might be more common than records indicate, because kings usually like to portray themselves as ascending legitimately, and the violent overthrow of a ruler does not set a healthy precedent.

16:18 set the palace on fire. Zimri’s apparent suicide is surprisingly similar to the death of Shamash-shum-ukin, the Assyrian king who died in a burning building in Babylon during the desperate last days of the Assyrian Empire. In both cases the victim suffered the indignity of murder and mutilation.

16:23 Omri became king. Omri made several decisions that put Israel on a new trajectory and prepared the way for his son Ahab. Ahab’s prominence in the eastern Mediterranean during the ninth century BC is noteworthy. Omri’s policy changes included a new alliance with Phoenicia (sealed through his son’s marriage to Jezebel), a powerful new capital city (Samaria) and aggressive military expansion such as the attack on Moab recorded by its king, Mesha: “Omri was the king of Israel, and he oppressed Moab for many days.”

Biblical and ancient Near Eastern texts suggest that Omri and Ahab were powerful kings, and the archaeological record of wealth and construction supports this description. Like Solomon of the tenth century BC, these ninth-century BC kings exploited the relative absence of great international powers. One indicator of Omri’s success is the frequency with which Assyrian annals refer to him, most notably in the campaign records of Shalmaneser III and the Black Obelisk that shows “Jehu, son of Omri” bowing before the Assyrian monarch. In this case “son of” likely indicates the dynastic line rather than direct sonship.

16:24 Samaria. In contrast to the defensive positions of Tirzah and Penuel, Samaria was in a forward position that afforded direct access to the coastal plain to the west, the strategic Jezreel Valley to the north and the Israelite highlands to the southeast. Unhindered access to the Dothan and Jezreel Valleys encouraged both Israelite expansion and foreign invasion. Despite the vulnerability of its position, the large natural hill made Samaria significantly more defensible than Shechem, the traditional center of the northern Ephraimite highlands. Shemer. His estate was a small village with excellent wine and olive yields and a commanding view in all directions. American excavations uncovered scattered dwellings and olive presses on the acropolis. Above this small original settlement lay the large courtyards, terraces and the impressive palace of Ahab’s great ninth-century BC city.

16:26 worthless idols. The idols and plaques represented various deities or in some cases a human worshiper. Figurines could also accompany rituals that sought to ensure good fortune in day-to-day activities. Israelite idols and votives had much in common with those of Canaan/Syria and Egypt in terms of iconography, motifs and cultic use, because these clay and metal images signified and invoked the presence of a deity.

16:29 Ahab. Just as Solomon had been able to capitalize on David’s strategic successes, so Ahab consolidated a mighty kingdom built on Omri’s foresight. Comparison might be made with Tukulti-Ninurta I, who built the Assyrian Empire against great odds, overcame internal strife and paved the way for Assyrian campaigns abroad. Through synchronism with Judahite king lists and ancient Near Eastern sources, it is possible to date Ahab’s rule to 873–852 BC and to reconstruct many details of his reign. Ahab’s military might is recorded in the annals of his enemy, the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III. The “2,000 chariots and 10,000 troops of Ahab the Israelite” comprise the second largest contingent of the coalition against the Assyrian attack. Ahab’s military and civic structures are well represented at excavated sites such as Megiddo, Hazor, Tell Dan, Samaria, Dothan and Jezreel. They include storage facilities, palaces with characteristic Phoenician masonry, large solid city walls and pillared buildings associated with chariotry.

16:31 married Jezebel daughter of Ethbaal king of the Sidonians. This reestablishment of Phoenician-Israelite ties secured inland markets for the Phoenicians and Mediterranean trade for Israel. It effectively cut Aram-Damascus out of the trade routes passing from Arabia and the Red Sea up the King’s Highway of Transjordan and on to the Mediterranean Sea. This alliance is one of the major causes for the century of warfare between Aram-Damascus and Israel in the ninth and eighth centuries BC. For the significance of marriage in ancient political alliances, see note on 3:1. Ahab tightened the cultural ties between Israel and Phoenicia to the point of embracing Canaanite/Phoenician religion. Jezebel. Excavators at Samaria uncovered a beautiful seal of Jezebel that may be associated with Ahab’s queen. It depicts stylized Egyptian griffins and her name in Phoenician script. Jezebel would have used a seal like this to secure royal edicts and correspondence (cf. 21:8). Ethbaal. He reigned 887–856 BC and controlled most of the Phoenician coastland, including the port of Sidon, and he dominated western Cyprus as well. He, like many local kings, faced the Assyrian invasions of the mid- and late-ninth century BC.

16:32 temple of Baal that he built in Samaria. Only small fragments of this structure were exposed during the excavations at Samaria. Long, tripartite Baal temples are known from Ugarit, Byblos and other sites in the Levant. Each had a stepped, pillared entrance and a long hall with an elevated holy of holies in the back, upon which sat an image of the deity. It is likely that a high percentage of early first-millennium BC temples in Syria were dedicated to local expressions of Baal. Each had its own designation, such as Baal Hamon, Baal Hadad and so on. Baal. In Jezebel’s home country, the major deity was (Baal)-Melqart. Aside from a few brief references in inscriptions, little is known about him aside from his identity as a warrior-god. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that Ahab and Jezebel were seeking to import Melqart into Israel. The religious center being established in Samaria probably focused on a local manifestation of Baal, which perhaps would have been designated “Baal of Samaria.” See the article “Baal.”

16:34 He laid its foundations . . . and he set up its gates. In the literature of the ancient Near East, including the Bible, one measure of a ruler’s greatness is the extent of his or her building activity. King Mesha of Moab, e.g., boasted of building the citadel, gates, towers and reservoir of his capital city, Karcho. His good fortune was expressed in the tangible projects he undertook or in the ability of his enemies to destroy those symbols of his power, such as towers, fortifications and public buildings (see note on 9:15).

17:1 neither dew nor rain. Periodic droughts are recorded in antiquity and occur today as well. The catastrophic nature of this drought is seen in the absence of dew, which is vital to vineyards and trees during the dry summer months. Elijah, through confronting Ahab in this manner, began the process of neutering Baal, the Canaanite god of storms and fertility. In the myths of Ugarit, Baal is described as the one who waters and provides bread and who defeats the forces of death and famine. The confrontation on Mount Carmel (18:16–40) was the culmination of this showdown. By stopping the rain and dew, the prophet effectively rendered impotent both Baal and his priesthood.

17:4 ravens. Known to roost in the wadis and other desolate areas, storing excess food in rocky crags. Elijah might be observing these caches and stealing them. Regardless of whether Elijah is active or passive, God is the one acting to provide for his needs.

17:10 widow. See notes on Ge 38:11; Dt 10:18; 15:7. bring me a little water. Elijah’s request would have been modest in terms of normal hospitality. At this time, however, it exposes the strain caused by drought and famine.

17:12 the LORD your God. Elijah is recognizable as an Israelite, and the Sidonian woman is greeting him in the name of his own god, as per common protocol. This statement does not indicate any belief of the woman in Yahweh.

17:16 the jar of flour was not used up and the jug of oil did not run dry. The importance of this is to show Yahweh’s superiority to Baal. Not only could Yahweh provide food for his own prophet, he now sent that prophet up into Baal’s home territory, where there was a drought, to provide for Baal’s people.

17:18 kill my son. As an inhabitant of Phoenician Zarephath, this woman thinks about God the way that Phoenicians did. Gods could become angry over small slights and strike severely. As a prophet, Elijah lives in the aura of the divine, and therefore those around him are more subject to divine scrutiny. The woman fears that although her connections to the prophet have thus far brought benefits, she is now experiencing the downside.

17:21 This verse and 2Ki 4:34–35 are among the most blatant examples of magical procedures used by Israel’s prophets. Incantation literature from Assyria indicates the belief that demons exercise power over an individual by touching part to part. It is an expression of possession. Here Elijah is imitating that procedure to reverse the effects as vitality and life force are transferred. Nonetheless, here, as the prayer indicates, the power of Yahweh is at work. In the ancient world, sharp lines were not drawn between magic and religion. Both are related to interacting with the world of the divine. Incantations in the ancient world also represented attempts to tap the power of deity through words of power, but in Israel, unlike her neighbors, God could not be bound or obligated by such words or by accompanying rituals. As is often seen to be the case throughout the OT, Yahweh regularly uses ideas and practices that are familiar to the Israelites in their culture to accomplish his work.

18:3 palace administrator. Lit. “who was over the household.” This expression is found in the imprints of royal seals discovered in the Holy Land and also in an inscription above an elegant rock-cut tomb in Jerusalem dating to the days of Isaiah: “This is the tomb of Shebna who is over the household.” Obadiah was probably the executive officer of Ahab’s court.

18:4 Jezebel was killing off the LORD’s prophets. To the modern reader this may look like religious persecution, but it must be understood in its context. The polytheism of the ancient world was an open system—there was always room for more gods, and if a god was deemed to be active and powerful in the region, it was logical to acknowledge that deity. This was not an issue of theological ideology; it was a matter of practical necessity. People worshiped gods by caring for their needs, such as providing food for them. As a result, the deity would not become angry and the attention he received brought benefits to the people. No question arose in ancient Near Eastern theology of whether a certain god was a “true god” or not, though there were discussions of some gods being stronger than others. The relative strength of gods was a political matter as one country, empowered by its gods, sought to impose its will on another country, despite the will of its patron deities. We must therefore seek a motive for the slaughter of Yahweh’s prophets in politics rather than in theology. Prophets in the ancient world often served in the hire of the king and, more than anything else, served as mouthpiece for the gods to support the legitimacy and programs of the king. The prophets of Yahweh, therefore, would not likely offer support for the legitimacy of Ahab and Jezebel’s rule, and this made them enemies of the state.

18:19 Mount Carmel. It rises over 500 meters (1,600 ft) above the Mediterranean Sea and defines both the western edge of the Jezreel Valley and the coastline of the sea. Known in Egyptian texts as “the antelope’s nose,” it has been a key landmark for seafarers and land-based travelers since the third millennium BC. It is one of the country’s most lush and evergreen regions, and in the winter one can see from its summit the snow-capped Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon ranges. These qualities and the mountain’s position between Phoenicia and Israel, the sea and the land, made it the perfect location for the religious and cultural showdown that was about to transpire. prophets of Baal and . . . prophets of Asherah, who eat at Jezebel’s table. Baal was the storm-god of Canaanite mythology, whereas Asherah was the consort of the patriarchal deity El (see the article “Baal”). In Ahab’s day, Asherah was recast as Yahweh’s consort, a syncretistic approach that opened the door for Baal worship as well. A series of ninth-century BC inscriptions from a fortified way station at Kuntillet ‘Ajrud in the Negev wilderness sheds light on this issue. They include statements such as “Yahweh of Samaria and his Asherah.” Painted images of dancing figures and a deity sitting on a throne are strong indicators that some Israelites worshiped Asherah as a consort of El. In the myths of Ugarit, Baal was said to receive the help of Asherah when he requested from El that he be permitted to build a house. Ahab and Jezebel had chosen prophets of Baal and Asherah to be their official advisors. Just as these prophets were identified as those “who eat at Jezebel’s table,” prophets in the ancient world often enjoyed the patronage of the king. Prophets of the Levant at places such as Emar, Ugarit and Damascus acted as intermediaries, more often than not handing down favorable words of encouragement to the king. A study of the prophetic texts available from the ancient world has shown that these sponsored prophets rarely had anything negative to say about the king or his policies. Only a couple of examples are extant in which these prophets proclaim any indictment or judgment on the king. They more often provide instruction to the king (often regarding cultic actions to be taken) and almost always give support and encouragement to the king in his undertakings. In contrast we find Elijah offering no support at all of the king’s policies. Instead, he has stinging indictments and horrific judgments that he pronounces on the royal house. Such an adversarial role is unattested in the ancient Near East, though that does not mean such a role did not exist. It must be remembered that most of the literature we have from the ancient world was preserved by the palace and temple. These sources would be less likely to preserve the antagonistic words of any who stood against the throne.

18:23 two bulls. As was common in the ancient Near East, the animals were slaughtered and prepared prior to being placed on the altar. In effect the altar was a table on which the deity consumed the animal. Texts from Ugarit describe the ritual of sacrifice as an attempt to appease the Canaanite pantheon. The prophets of Baal in this chapter were doing the same thing. Other forms of appeasement included clapping hands, wearing special garments and handing over gifts to the priests.

18:26 danced around the altar. The frenzied dance most likely included music and chanting. Depictions of ritual dancers using instruments such as tambourines, flutes and lyres are found on seals, pottery paintings and frescoes in Late Bronze Age and Iron Age Phoenicia and Palestine. The variety of poses, configurations and artistic media of the artwork indicate that this was a common practice. The dancing, music and chanting no doubt were intended to get the attention of the deity.

18:27 Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened. The gods of Canaan, Mesopotamia and Greece were understood to possess many human characteristics, including vices and some bodily functions. Elijah was therefore taunting the prophets with their own possible explanations for Baal’s indifference. A passage in the Baal Cycle from Ugarit describes the challenge of finding Baal when he is not in his house, and another text describes his death, an integral part of the annual cycle. The humanlike attributes of Sumerian gods are also seen in the Myth of Enki and Ninmah. A passage from that story provides a most instructive context for Elijah’s mockery: “Enki lay on his bed and would not rise from his sleep . . . ‘you are sleeping and slumbering . . . arise!’ ”

18:28 slashed themselves with swords and spears, as was their custom, until their blood flowed. Self-flagellation represents a more desperate attempt to invoke Baal’s presence, and it is a behavior that is well attested in the Canaanite, Hittite and Mesopotamian cultures. The shedding of blood draws the attention of the gods. The prayers of the Hittite king Mursili II, e.g., sought to “make restitution by spilling blood.” In the myths of Ugarit, El mourns the death of Baal by cutting himself with razors and “plowing his chest like a garden.” In another text the mourners of Kirta “rend their skin” in sorrow as they sacrifice to the gods. slashed. This Hebrew word is translated “passed over” in Ex 12:27, and might therefore mean “stood guard” (see the article “Passover”).

18:30 repaired the altar of the LORD. It was common practice in the ancient Near East to destroy or desecrate the altars and divine statues of rival peoples. The burned and overturned temples of Hazor’s lower city are a good example. In a violent Late Bronze Age conflagration, statues of the gods were beheaded and violated, and the temple courtyards were ransacked. Given the cultural background and archaeological parallels, Jezebel’s religious persecution is the most likely explanation for the ruined altar of Yahweh (see note on 19:10).

18:32 two seahs of seed. A seah (7 quarts or 7.5 liters) is a dry measure typically used for cereals and grains, and its use in this verse is unclear. If this is the volume of the trench, it is a small trench. The reference may be to the size of a container used to hold that amount, as a reference to indicate the trench’s depth.

18:33 large jars. These containers are no doubt smaller versions of the large storage jars that are ubiquitous in the Levant from the seventeenth through the fourth centuries BC. The nebel or “Canaanite jar” and “Israelite jar” held over eight gallons (32 liters) of wine or water, whereas the smaller kad of this verse held half of that volume. The typology of Israelite pottery shows that the volume of water is almost 50 gallons. water. The source for filling these jars is not known, though several springs at the foot of Mount Carmel’s eastern slopes are known to this day. Since the text does not specify “fresh” water, the Mediterranean is also a possible source. It is possible that one of Elijah’s purposes in pouring out the water at the altar was to make a libation offering to Yahweh (cf. 1Sa 7:6). Such offerings to the gods are well-known in ancient Near Eastern religions, as, e.g., upon the wall relief at Mari, where liquid offerings are poured out before the gods.

18:38 fire of the LORD fell. Fire is the clearest possible indicator of the divine presence, an impressive theophany. The irony of Yahweh’s victory is all the more potent when one considers the Canaanite religious tradition that Baal controlled lightning and rain. In one passage from Ugarit, Baal states, “I understand lightning, which not even the heavens know.”

The lightning, however, is more than just an impressive show of power. The sacrifices were ostensibly offered along with petitions for rain, typically sent by storm-gods. The fire indicated that God was listening to and answering Elijah’s prayer, so that when the rain came in the following verses, it was clear that it was sent by Yahweh rather than by Baal. The lightning was also one of the weapons of the divine warrior; thus, here we see the warfare going on between Baal and Yahweh in the last couple of chapters brought to a climax.

It is natural, then, that this should result in the slaughter of the prophets of Baal and Asherah, for the worship of Yahweh did not tolerate prophets of other gods among the Israelites. As a result of this contest, the petition of Elijah is heard (the sacrifice is consumed), Yahweh sends rain (the drought ends), and the warfare with Baal is concluded (prophets are slain), with Yahweh having demonstrated himself superior to Baal in Baal’s own terms.

18:40 Kishon Valley. Runs along the eastern edge of Mount Carmel. It drains the entire western half of the Jezreel Valley as far east as Mount Tabor and the outskirts of Tell Jezreel, the winter palace of the Israelite kings. The entire region drains through a narrow break in the ridge connecting Mount Carmel and the ridge on which lie Nazareth and the ancient city of Sepphoris. In antiquity the river swelled during the winter months and flooded the entire region between Megiddo and Nazareth, making passage nearly impossible. This is the reason the prophet urged Ahab to return to Jezreel without delay (v. 44).

18:45 the sky grew black with clouds, the wind rose, a heavy rain started falling. Rainfall in the Holy Land typically occurs only when storms push their way across the Mediterranean Sea, usually accompanied by strong winds and dramatic clouds. There is no better location at which to experience these storms than the summit of Mount Carmel. The Canaanites attributed the power of such storms to Baal, as in this passage from the Baal Cycle from Ugarit: “Baal (can) send his rain in due season . . . shout aloud in the clouds . . . shoot (his) lightning-bolts to the earth.” Such descriptions of Baal highlight the fact that it was Yahweh who in the end possessed these qualities and broke the three-year drought (see note on v. 38). Ahab rode off to Jezreel. Ahab most likely followed the high road along the periphery of the valley next to the Carmel range.

18:46 Elijah . . . ran ahead of Ahab all the way to Jezreel. Elijah’s specific action is unclear in the text. It seems that he either accompanied the king as an attendant or raced Ahab to Jezreel by taking a more direct route that the heavy chariot could not attempt. In light of ancient Near Eastern parallels and Biblical contexts, the former explanation is more compelling. By running ahead of the king’s chariot, the prophet may have been symbolically representing Yahweh, the king’s new patron deity. Hittite kings were known to describe their chariots as vehicles led by the gods. Rameses II of thirteenth-century BC Egypt noted the advance of the god Montu running before his chariot as he advanced into battle. It is equally likely, however, that Elijah’s position ahead of the chariot was one of respect and allegiance. This precise intent is conveyed in the eighth-century BC Bar Rakub inscription, in which a Syrian vassal shows his devotion to Tiglath-Pileser III by “running at his wheel” as an outrunner.

19:2 May the gods deal with me, be it ever so severely. This is a common ancient Near Eastern oath formula, indicating that a horrible fate awaits one who breaks a covenant or acts in treachery against another. In effect, Jezebel is making a treaty with herself.

19:3 Beersheba. One of the regional centers of the Biblical Negev, which served as a major gateway into Judah via Hebron. By mentioning Elijah’s arrival at Beersheba the Biblical author most likely intended to note that the prophet was far beyond the borders of Ahab’s kingdom and about to enter the dangerous and foreboding wilderness that lay beyond the southern kingdom of Judah.

19:4 broom bush. Retama raetum can grow to a height of 10 feet (3 meters). It produces small white flowers in spring. To this day broom bushes in the arid Negev and northern Sinai offer much-needed shade. Because vegetation is so sparse in the great wilderness, this particular bush may have been the only shade available to Elijah for several miles/kilometers.

19:8 traveled forty days and forty nights until he reached Horeb. The long journey places Elijah deep in the Sinai peninsula or on the border of Arabia. Horeb. The location of Horeb/Mount Sinai is uncertain (see the article “Mount Sinai”).

19:10 torn down your altars, and put your prophets to death with the sword. Such desecration and religious purging have good parallels in the reforms of Akhenaten in fourteenth-century BC Egypt and the efforts made at restoring traditional Egyptian religion after his death.

19:11 the LORD is about to pass by. The wind, earthquake and fire (vv. 11b–12) are recognizable elements of theophany in the ancient world. The presence of the god either in anger or in battle can wreak havoc, as it threatens human life. Some of these same features are evident in Yahweh’s theophany on Mount Sinai (Ex 19:16–19). Yahweh also approaches Job in the whirlwind (Job 38:1). Sumerian, Hittite, Akkadian and Ugaritic texts all attest to the power of the divine warrior.

19:12 gentle whisper. This is unusual and is without parallel in the ancient world (see previous note). In a theophany, the voice of the god usually thunders, but in all the destructive emanations there had been no message from Yahweh. The “gentle whisper” does not indicate the demeanor or the volume of Yahweh’s communication. Rather, it identifies that Yahweh speaks in the reverberating silence that follows tumultuous disasters. Here this indicates that Yahweh has not just been about judging Ahab and Jezebel as divine warrior, he has also been transitioning to a new era in which new leadership will take control (vv. 15–16).

19:15 anoint Hazael king over Aram. Israel was not the only nation that anointed kings. This method of installing kings was also practiced in ancient Egypt and possibly in Canaan as well. Hazael was the most powerful king Aram would ever know. He ruled during the last four decades of the ninth century BC. For most of his reign he campaigned tirelessly against the kingdom of Israel that had been weakened by an unstable dynasty after the house of Omri was obliterated through Ahab’s demise in 852 BC. Hazael’s destructive attacks on sites such as Rehov in Galilee and Gath and Zeitah in Philistia are seen in excavated destruction layers that are dated securely by radiocarbon dating. After fighting off Shalmaneser III of Assyria, Hazael successfully cut off Israel and Judah on three sides and reopened his own trade links to the Mediterranean Sea. In 805 BC his kingdom was destroyed by another Assyrian king, Adadnirari III. This anointing would still carry weight in Aram even though the prophet was Israelite. Any endorsement from a deity could be exploited for one’s political ambitions.

19:19 threw his cloak around him. This action would seem to signify the transfer of power from Elijah to Elisha (see note on 1Sa 18:3–4).

20:1 Ben-Hadad king of Aram. There were a number of Aramean kings named Ben-Hadad who ruled during the ninth century BC. There was a Ben-Hadad ruling from Damascus prior to, during and after Ahab’s reign, and one of them was no doubt the king described in this chapter. Accompanied by thirty-two kings. Ben-Hadad’s ability to recruit so many other kings and chieftains was a rare achievement in the ancient Near East and is a testimony to Aram’s ascendancy in the mid-ninth century BC. besieged Samaria and attacked it. Ahab’s battles with Aram reflect an ongoing trade war between Aram and Israel that originated with the alliance between Israel and Phoenicia. This new arrangement, sealed by the marriage of Jezebel and Ahab, severely curtailed Aram’s access to the lucrative trade of Mediterranean ports. Ben-Hadad’s purpose was to isolate Israel and not necessarily destroy its capital city of Samaria. Because of the geographic distribution of messages, scouts and troop movement, the battle description in ch. 20 apparently does not involve a protracted localized siege of Samaria. Instead, ch. 20 must be read against the backdrop of the ongoing trade wars, the geography of the Israelite highlands, and the translation of the Hebrew word translated “in their tents” in v. 12 (see note there). These contextual data help to explain Ahab’s victory and the subsequent hesitation of Ben-Hadad to engage Israel in the hills (v. 23).

20:2 messengers. Diplomatic messengers were given safe passage regardless of the tension between their masters. In the eighth-century BC Sefire treaty between Aramean kingdoms, all local kings were required to provide safe passage and open roads to messengers. Not to do so constituted a violation of the treaty. The Aramean messengers of Ben-Hadad played a pivotal role during the standoff with Samaria, and decisions of war and peace were dependent on their freedom of movement.

20:3 silver and gold . . . wives and children are mine. Were a battle to be fought, both sides of the conflict understood that the vanquished party would lose their primary possessions and most prominent persons (“wives and children”). Such was the case in Esarhaddon’s and Ashurbanipal’s destruction of enemy kingdoms: “I carried off his wife, his children, the personnel of his palace, gold, silver . . . many valuables” (cf. v. 3). The Egyptian victors did the same. Amenhotep II boasts of seizing wives, children, animals and “all of their property without end.” Reliefs from Tiglath-Pileser III show captives and animals leaving Babylon, providing a chilling visual commentary to such texts.

20:4 all I have are yours. Because he was outnumbered, Ahab’s compliance is nothing less than a surrender. His words resemble that of a vassal responding to a lord in the deferential language of covenant treaties from the ancient Near Eastern world.

20:6 I am going to send my officials to search your palace and the houses of your officials. While the actions described in the preceding three verses resonate with coercive ancient Near Eastern surrenders, the thoroughness of the threatened search was a declaration of war. This escalation and the ability of Ahab’s advisors and commanders to crisscross the region help to explain Ahab’s abrupt change of tone.

20:8 The elders and the people all answered, “Don’t listen to him or agree to his demands.” This verse runs against common practice in the ancient world. Public outcry was seldom an option in the theocracies and monarchies of the ancient world. the people. In this verse they are most likely the elders and clan leaders of the northern kingdom, who represent the views of the people. The semantic range of the Hebrew word is broad enough to comprise military commanders and advisors, which may be the intent here (cf. 12:8).

20:11 One who puts on his armor should not boast like one who takes it off. The language of royal correspondence and diplomacy often invoked pithy sayings and proverbs. A good parallel to Ahab’s caustic reply is found in a letter from a local king to the pharaoh of Egypt: “When ants are struck . . . they bite the hands that strike them.” These idioms expressing the concept of “don’t act like you’ve won before the battle starts” continue the evidence throughout this chapter that the cultural behavior of the Israelites is very much like that with which we are familiar from the ancient world.

20:12 in their tents. The Hebrew (bassukkot) can also be translated “in Sukkoth” (see NIV text note), presumably a staging area in Transjordan. The movements of messengers and troops in the verses that follow would not be possible were Samaria under a tight siege. For this reason and because both Zimri (16:9) and David (2Sa 11) previously had launched campaigns from the nearby region of Sukkoth, a city in the Jordan Valley, the alternative translation “in Sukkoth” is probably intended. This interpretation also helps to explain the relatively free movement of Ahab’s army in vv. 17–20.

20:15 junior officers under the provincial commanders. Relatively few details are known about the organization of the Israelite army. junior officers. The Hebrew word (naar) can denote a soldier or “young officer” as in the texts of Ugarit and Late Bronze Age Egypt, but the cognate terms do not guarantee this translation. provincial commanders. The meaning of this term is unclear. 7,000 in all. This would be a sizeable force, but this may also designate seven clan divisions, which would likely be considerably smaller (see the article “Numbers in Numbers”).

20:23 Their gods are gods of the hills. People in the ancient world often recognized divinities as being confined to regions (see note on Jdg 6:13). if we fight them on the plains . . . we will be stronger. Chariotry and archers were better suited to the traditional battlegrounds of the open plain than to the narrow defiles of the central range. Moreover, Ben-Hadad had no desire to repeat the disaster recorded in the preceding verses.

20:29 a hundred thousand casualties . . . in one day. See the article “Numbers in Numbers.”

20:30 wall collapsed. The massive walls of ancient Israelite cities required large foundations, which could be undermined by sapper work, as depicted in many Assyrian reliefs (see the article “Siege Warfare”). inner room. The expression may or may not be a technical term for a specific room. It is unclear where this “inner room” was located, but it was most likely a fortified space within the citadel of the city. A Hittite historiographic document describes an associate of the king going into the “inner chamber” and sitting before him on the right. The context implies a throne room or some portion of the king’s secure quarters.

20:32 Wearing sackcloth. A clear sign of submission that has parallels in both textual and artistic expressions in other ancient Near Eastern cultures. In a similar act of surrender King Shurpria of Urartu faced his Assyrian opponent and “took off his royal garment and wrapped his body in sackcloth befitting a (penitent) sinner.” ropes around their heads. Most likely a sign of their submission and willingness to be bound. Pharaoh Shishak’s Karnak relief shows local kings on their knees before the king, with ropes around their necks. By placing ropes on their heads, the Arameans appear to have been acquiescing to Ahab in advance of being captured. He is my brother. This common diplomatic usage of the term “brother” indicates that Ahab still acknowledged the equal power and position of Ben-Hadad, whom he had just defeated. Compare the diplomatic parity reflected in the friendly dialogue between the kings of Tyre and Ugarit in the thirteenth century BC: “To the king of Ugarit, my brother, say . . .” The expression is often found in the preamble or conclusion of treaties between kings, as is the case here. By inviting Ben Hadad into his chariot (v. 33) rather than making him walk in submission by the wheel, Ahab was acknowledging publicly the agreement between the two kings. Rather than making Ben-Hadad into a vassal, he was extracting from him key territorial and economic concessions in return for his freedom.

20:34 market areas in Damascus. The treaty made in this verse is a further indicator that trade and economic gain were the motivation of this battle and the Aramean-Israelite wars generally. A good precedent of such tax-free trading centers is the Assyrian colonies in Anatolia that brought copper ore into Mesopotamia. These karums or land-based ports thrived in the second millennium BC.

20:39 a talent of silver. A talent is 75 pounds (34 kilograms); therefore, this is an impossibly large sum for an ordinary person, and it virtually assured that it would be a life for a life if the man went missing. This was the price of two or more slaves in Mesopotamia and Egypt. Such a large sum of money, though exorbitant, is in keeping with the penalties recorded in other ancient Near Eastern cultures.

21:2 vineyard to use for a vegetable garden. Assyrian palace reliefs depict royal gardens adjacent to the king’s residence much like the sacred gardens that surrounded temples and holy sites. The city plan of most ancient cities included a royal complex with palace, gardens and administrative buildings. The temple and its courtyard lay adjacent to the royal complex and its palace as at Zinjirli, Tell Tayinat and Jerusalem. Such distinct districts can be identified not only by a contrast in architecture but also in the concentration of expensive or imported finds that they produce in archaeological excavations. vegetable. This Hebrew word occurs only two other times in the OT and in those contexts refers to small agriculture for food. Its basic root refers to greenery, but other terms could have been used here if Ahab intended a park of trees and flowers. A vegetable garden is not unlikely, since the palace kitchens would have needed a place to grow the food for the king’s table.

21:3 the inheritance of my ancestors. Naboth can make this claim on the covenant basis of land inheritance. Each Israelite family viewed the land as their little piece of the covenant. At the same time, temporary land grants could be made, so it is likely that Naboth is maintaining his covenant right of possession as an expression of antagonism toward Ahab and Jezebel.

21:4–6 This passage demonstrates differences in the social structure of Israelite and Phoenician monarchies. In Phoenicia, though still accountable to the gods, the king was above the law, and the land was considered to be the ultimate property of the crown, given out through grants. In Israel, the king is bound by the same covenant laws as the people, and the land is ultimately Yahweh’s to distribute.

21:8 wrote letters in Ahab’s name, placed his seal on them. Most documents and decrees were written in ink on leather or papyrus. Official communication was secured by string, held together by a clay seal impressed with the official’s seal. Personalized stone seals or stamps were commonly used in the ancient Near East in order to indicate the ownership of pottery vessels or to authenticate letters. In the latter case the seal impression was made on a wet clay “bulla,” which was then affixed to the string tied around the document in order to seal it. It is usually possible still to see traces of the string and of the papyrus fibers on the reverse side of Hebrew bullae, which does confirm that sheets of papyrus were in widespread use in Israel and Judah in the eighth to the sixth centuries BC—the time period from which most of the seal impressions come. Hundreds of such stone seals or the impressions they made on pottery or bullae have been discovered all over Syria and Palestine. They are often inscribed with artwork and usually display the name of the seal’s owner and some further information about the owner (e.g., father’s and grandfather’s name; title). In about a dozen examples of specifically Hebrew seal inscriptions, the inscription derives from an Israelite woman rather than a man, suggesting that at least some women in that culture were authorized to sign contracts and other documents.

21:9 Proclaim a day of fasting. The king can declare a fast as part of some sort of critical petition (cf. Jnh 3:7–9) in order to relieve a calamity such as a drought. The assumption would have been that someone’s offense had brought disaster on them all. Once Naboth is identified as the responsible party, his death is supposed to rectify whatever offense caused the problem by appeasing God. seat Naboth in a prominent place. Naboth’s prominent position indicates high status, which means he could potentially be responsible for whatever affects the entire community.

21:10 seat two scoundrels opposite him. Placed near Naboth so that they can claim to have overheard Naboth curse God and the king (see next note).

21:13 cursed both God and the king. Refers to placing blame for the situation, which demonstrates disloyalty and is judged as treasonous.

21:16 take possession. Technically, Ahab had the right to the property if Naboth had been deemed a law breaker. A similar royal takeover of property is recorded in a text from Alalakh in the late second millennium BC, and also from fourteenth-century BC Ugarit.

21:24 Dogs will eat . . . birds will feed. See note on 14:11.

22:5 First seek the counsel of the LORD. Texts as early as the early third millennium BC record royal consultation with professional seers before battle. Many of the prophetic terms and procedures described in the Mari archive have close parallels in the Bible. The Mari archive includes numerous examples of prophetic warnings or approvals of the king’s military and political plans. A ninth-century BC inscription of King Zakkur of Hamath describes the assurances he received from Baal Shamayim, his patron deity, during a siege. His seers and diviners said, “Don’t be afraid! Since I have made you king I will stand beside you!” The rhetoric and vocabulary of these prophets is similar to prophetic utterances in the Biblical books of Kings and Chronicles. Ahab and Jehoshaphat were no doubt hoping for such assurance.

22:11 made iron horns. This symbolic action evokes images of power and domination. Bulls and their horns are used as metaphors for the king’s power in Egyptian and Mesopotamian texts and iconography. The same image shows the power of the gods. In the Ugaritic myths the patron deity El is described as a strong bull calf, “the bull, the gracious one,” and in one Mesopotamian text the goddess Ninlil gores her enemies “with her strong horns.”

22:12 Attack Ramoth Gilead . . . for the LORD will give it into the king’s hand. The unanimous answer of the prophets did not match the dire situation that Ahab and Jehoshaphat faced. The prophets of Mari likewise inclined to offer their king Zimri-Lim an overly positive assessment of the situation. Ahab’s admonition to Micaiah (v. 16) indicates that he, like Zimri-Lim a millennium before, had his doubts about prophetic consensus.

22:17 like sheep without a shepherd. The concept of shepherd-king is as ubiquitous in the ancient Near Eastern world as it is in the Bible. The monarchs of Assyria, e.g., were described as unrivaled princes who shepherded their people. A well-known Babylonian proverb further exemplifies the nexus between king and shepherd: “A people without a king (is like) a sheep without a shepherd.”

22:19 the LORD sitting on his throne with all the multitudes of heaven standing around him. These images fit comfortably within the religious traditions of Egypt, Syria and Mesopotamia, where the gods are seen as sitting in their heavenly council before the throne of El.

22:21 a spirit came forward. There are ancient precedents for deities and spirits offering guidance to the king in this manner. In the Ugaritic Keret epic, it is El, the patriarch of the gods, who blesses the human and sends a message to him.

22:24 slapped Micaiah in the face. The inappropriateness of this action is attested in the Code of Hammurapi itself. Although it dates to the prior millennium and is a product of Babylonian culture, this legal collection has much in common with the Biblical laws. Hammurapi’s collection lists a series of fines for striking a commoner or one above or below one’s own social status. The penalty for striking a fellow commoner was ten shekels of silver (about a year’s pay), plus the cost of a medical treatment.

22:27 Put this fellow in prison. In the Mari letters prisoners describe the king’s practice of confining them for some time before deciding their fate, and this may be the case in this verse as well.

22:31 chariot commanders. Chariotry would accompany infantry in the initial charge, but would then break away from the melee in order to pursue other objectives, such as containing the perimeter or hunting down a specific target, as here.

22:34 between the sections of his armor. An identical scene replete with detailed relief of pierced armor is recorded on a panel of Thutmose III’s chariot dating to the sixteenth century BC. Interconnected scales of armor have been excavated at various Late Bronze and Iron Age sites. These can be reconstructed into sleeveless vests of interconnected plates.

22:39 adorned with ivory. Ivory was a prized symbol of wealth. It was typically used for the manufacture of combs, cosmetic boxes, small tools and handles, as well as inlay in furniture. Excavators at Samaria found hundreds of ivory pieces in a large burned building that may be the palace described here. The intricate images of architecture, lions and bulls, cherubs, lotus flowers, mythical scenes and women were common in the Levant, Cyprus, and particularly in Phoenicia. These finds are a concrete manifestation of the syncretistic and excessive practices of Ahab described in 1 Kings. A house with ivory-paneled walls would have represented opulence and indulgence taken to unprecedented levels. Further evidence of great wealth among the kingdom’s aristocracy was uncovered at Shechem, where a large house with wealthy contents is a good parallel to Ahab’s ivory house.

22:43 high places. See notes on 3:2; 11:7.

22:48 ships . . . wrecked at Ezion Geber. Dozens of ancient Mediterranean shipwrecks have been identified off the coasts of Turkey and Israel. A series of Iron Age wreckages have been excavated under the eastern Mediterranean using the new technologies of underwater archaeology. The sunken ships held hundreds of large storage jars, utensils for the crew, and large stone anchors. Ophir. See note on 9:28.