Text and Exposition

I. THE UNITED KINGDOM (1:1–11:43)

OVERVIEW

The account of the reign of Solomon in chs. 1–11 demonstrates the faithfulness of God to the Davidic covenant (2Sa 7) in three respects:

1. 1. Solomon as David’s son now sits on his father’s throne.
2. 2. Solomon, while he follows God wholeheartedly, is greatly blessed, but when he departs from the Lord, God prepares to bring judgment.
3. 3. Solomon builds the house of the Lord that David had wished to build.

Of these three matters, the events surrounding the building of the temple receive the major emphasis, as can be seen from two considerations: (1) The concentric symmetrical structure (shown below) of this section revolves around these events; (2) the amount of space (some two hundred verses) given to the preparation, building, and dedication of the temple, followed by further related comments, is far more than that allotted to any other subject. (Ninety-nine verses are allotted to the succession of Solomon, twenty-nine to his decline, seventy-eight to the glories of his reign [distributed around the account of the building of the temple].)

Solomon himself, on the occasion of his prayer of dedication of the temple (1Ki 8), refers to the faithfulness of God in fulfilling his promise to David by (1) giving him a son to succeed him, (2) allowing him to build the temple, and (3) recognizing the need for faithfulness on the part of David’s successors (1Ki 8:17–25).

There have been several previous studies relating to the structure of this section of Kings. They include the following:

• • K. I. Parker (“Repetition in 1 Kings 1–11,” JSOT 42 [1988]: 19–27), who views chs. 1–2 and 11:14–43 as a frame around the two dreams of Solomon.
• • M. Brettler (“The Structure of 1 Kings 1–11,” JSOT 49 [1991]: 87–97) sees the structure as revolving around the pro-Solomon and anti-Solomon sections of 3:3–9:23 and 9:24–11:10, respectively.
• • Amos Frisch (“Structure and Its Significance: The Narrative of Solomon’s Reign [1 Kings 1–12:24],” JSOT 51 [1991]: 3–14) is similar to that suggested here, with the building and dedication of the temple as central; but he includes ch. 12 in his plan.
• • Two authors exclude chs. 1–2 in their outline: Y. T. Radday (“Chiasm in Kings,” Linguistica Biblica 31 [1974]: 52–57) and David A. Dorsey (Literary Structure). The former finds the focus in the building of the temple; the latter finds the climax in the dedication of the temple.

The following outline will help the reader visualize the plan of these chapters. The designations A/A’, etc., are intended to draw attention to the parallel ideas found in the corresponding sections. The parallel items may be identical or similar in nature, or they may be contrastive. N. W. Lund (Chiasmus in the New Testament [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1992], 45–46) states that in a chiastic structure the center is always the turning point and often is the climax of the section. Dorsey, 17–18, points out that in a chiastic structure “the central unit generally functions as the turning point or climax or highlight of the piece.”

A. The Rise of Solomon (1:1–2:46)

B. Solomon’s Love for the Lord—God’s Approval (3:1–26)

C. The Glories of Solomon’s Reign (4:1–34[4:1–5:14])

D. Preparations for the Building of the Temple (5:1–18[5:15–32])

E. The Building and Dedication of the Temple (6:1–9:9)

D´. Events after, but Related to, the Building of the Temple (9:10–25)

C´. The Glories of Solomon’s Reign (9:26–10:29)

B´. Solomon’s Love for Pagan Wives—God’s Disapproval (11:1–13)

A´. The Decline of Solomon (11:14–43)

These chapters revolve around the building and dedication of the temple. It is helpful to note the following correspondences:

A/A´: The Rise/Decline of Solomon

i. A: God chooses him; A´: God disapproves him

ii. A: God gives him victory over his adversaries; A’: God strengthens his adversaries

iii. A: David’s charge to Solomon; A´: Ahijah’s charge to Jeroboam

B/B´: Solomon’s love for the Lord/Solomon’s love for pagan wives

i. B: Right priorities: he loves God; B´: Wrong priorities: he loves pagan wives

ii. B: He seeks wisdom from God; B’: He participates in the worship of idols

iii. B: God promises blessing; B’: God announces punishment

C/C´: The glories of Solomon’s reign

Both sections demonstrate in different ways his fame, wisdom, honor, and wealth.

D/D´: Events related to the building of the temple

i. Hiram’s help and remuneration is recounted in both sections

ii. Solomon’s conscript labor program is described in both sections

Note that the correspondences may be parallel or contrastive. In the present case the A/A´ and B/B´ elements are contrastive. The C/C´ and D/D´ elements are parallel. Though perhaps most commonly in this type of structure the correspondences are of the same kind, either parallel or contrastive, this is not the only instance of a mixture. See, e.g., the structure of Isaiah 40–48 as presented in Dorsey, 226.

Three other correspondences are noteworthy:

1. 1. The two appearances of the Lord to Solomon, first at Gibeon (3:5–14) before the building of the temple, then again in 9:1–9, after the completion of the temple. Note that in 6:11–14 God also spoke to Solomon, apparently through a prophet, because in 11:9 he says that he had appeared twice to Solomon.
2. 2. The two references to the daughter of Pharaoh. In 3:1 he houses her in the city of David until the completion of the temple, his palace, and the wall around the city. In 9:24–25, after the completion of the temple, he moves her into her permanent quarters.
3. 3. In ch. 3 he worships the Lord at the temporary worship site, Gibeon, and 9:25 pointedly recounts his regular worship three times a year at the temple he had built.

A. The Rise of Solomon (1:1–2:46)

1. His Accession to the Throne (1:1–2:11)

a. Adonijah’s plot to seize the crown (1:1–10)

OVERVIEW

Solomon is God’s choice to be king (2Sa 12:24–25), and though he is opposed by powerful enemies, God establishes him on the throne. God’s support of Solomon here to the detriment of his opponents stands in vivid contrast to the way he strengthened Solomon’s enemies in ch. 11. God’s dealings with Solomon reflect his promise (and warning) in 2 Samuel 7:14–16.

At issue at the outset of the book is the question as to which of David’s sons is to succeed him. Two complicating factors are involved: (1) David’s feebleness and apparent laissez-faire attitude toward government in his later years, and (2) Adonijah’s self-willed ambition to succeed his father, based on Adonijah’s being the oldest of David’s surviving sons. In this ambition he is supported by some influential members of David’s government, contrary to David’s wishes.

i. David’s feebleness (1:1–4)

1When King David was old and well advanced in years, he could not keep warm even when they put covers over him. 2So his servants said to him, “Let us look for a young virgin to attend the king and take care of him. She can lie beside him so that our lord the king may keep warm.”

3Then they searched throughout Israel for a beautiful girl and found Abishag, a Shunammite, and brought her to the king. 4The girl was very beautiful; she took care of the king and waited on him, but the king had no intimate relations with her.

COMMENTARY

1 This brief account of David’s feebleness and apparent inability to act decisively is given as the backdrop to Adonijah’s attempted coup. It is somewhat startling to see the once-so-vigorous king now, at scarcely seventy years of age (cf. 2Sa 5:4–5), in such a state of debilitation. Presumably the one thing that did more than anything else to sap David’s strength and will to govern decisively in his latter years was the series of disasters let loose on him and his family following his disgraceful act of adultery with Bathsheba and the indirect murder he committed in an attempt to cover up his sin.

This shattering chain of events included Amnon’s rape of his half-sister Tamar; Amnon’s subsequent murder by Absalom, Tamar’s full brother; Absalom’s revolt, with its severe disruptions, followed by his death, with its great emotional impact on David (2Sa 18:32–19:8); David’s ill-judged census and the resultant plague; and then Sheba’s brief revolt. There can be no doubt that these experiences, coupled with his knowledge of moral lapse, though forgiven, did much to rob David of his earlier physical and spiritual elan.

2–4 The point of this paragraph is to show how David’s feebleness encouraged Adonijah to believe he could successfully force David’s hand in his favor, and why Adonijah’s later request to Solomon brought about such severe consequences (see comments at 2:13–25). The woman chosen to minister to David had the status of a concubine, though in actual fact she served David as a nurse. Some have suggested that her role was to attempt to coax David back to sexual vitality, but this purpose is not stated in the text. The narrator states simply that her presence was a means chosen to keep him warm, since his own body did not seem able to generate sufficient heat.

NOTES

1 The first two chapters of 1 Kings are commonly joined with 2 Samuel 9–20 and called the “Succession Narrative.” This view was formulated by Leonhard Rost in 1926 (Die Überlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids [BWANT 3/6; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1926]) and is considered to be one of several previously existing documents utilized by the author of Kings. This theory has ushered in a new approach to the study of source material, namely, focusing on the utilization of historical accounts that cover various parts of Israelite history. The Succession Narrative is considered to be one such unit, having the purpose of justifying the choice of Solomon over his older brothers to reign in David’s place, since the latter were found to be unworthy (e.g., R. N. Whybray, The Succession Narrative: A Study of II Sam. 9–20 and I Kings 1 and 2 [SBT 2/9; London: SCM, 1968], 50–55). There have been many modifications of Rost’s original thesis, such as a change in terminology to “Court History,” but scholars for the most part have embraced the general thesis.

Some, however, have found fault with this view; they cite such problems as the lack of a definitive starting point, these chapters’ lack of a self-contained narrative (P. Ackroyd, “The Succession Narrative (So-Called),” Int 35/4 [1981]: 392), and literary differences between the Samuel portion and the Kings portion (J. W. Flanagan, “Court History or Succession Document? A Study of 2 Samuel 9–20 and 1 Kings 1–2,” JBL 91/2 [1972]: 173–74). P. K. McCarter (“Plots, True or False: The Succession Narrative as Court Apologetic,” Int 35/4 [1981]: 361) also finds it difficult to reconcile the thematic unity between 1 Kings 1 and 2, where the succession question is so urgent, and 2 Samuel 9–20, where it is not.

Other difficulties are seen in the fact that there are materials in the Samuel portion that have no relation to the Solomonic succession, such as Sheba’s revolt (Flanagan, “Court History,” 175). The account of David and Bathsheba certainly does nothing to enhance Solomon’s status (J. S. Ackerman, “Knowing Good and Evil: A Literary Analysis of the Court History in 2 Samuel 9–20 and 1 Kings 1–2,” JBL 109/1 [1990]: 55–56). Ackroyd, “Succession Narrative,” 392, asks “whether it is justifiable to separate one section (from the larger work) and label it the ‘Succession Narrative’ rather than see the whole work as in some degree related to the problem of religion and political continuity.” McCarter (“Plots,” 361) suggests plausibly that the author of Kings utilized the material of Samuel, which preceded the writing of Kings.

Whatever the merits of the hypothetical Succession Narrative might be, it must be recognized that 2 Samuel 7 is the high point of the history of God’s relationship with David and that any succession theory must at least include this great promise (cf. G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology [New York: Harper & Row, 1962], 311). The Davidic covenant focuses not only on the succession but also on the fact that David’s son will build the temple that David longed to build, and that each successive heir to the throne will be responsible to walk in God’s ways. Thus it would seem better to view the Solomonic narrative of 1 Kings as a fulfillment of the Davidic covenant, with all three of the major provisions of the covenant being addressed (see the Introduction to chs. 1–11).

With this perspective in mind, it is possible to see 2 Samuel 21–24 not as an intrusion into the narrative but actually as a fitting conclusion to the life of David and as an introduction to 1 Kings. Thus the relevance of 2 Samuel 24 becomes clear: the divine choice of the site for the temple as the place where God is willing to be gracious toward the repentant sinner (see also the expansion in 1Ch 21–29). Even the little note in 2 Samuel 21:15–17 becomes significant in preparing us for the weakness of David recorded in the opening verses of Kings.

2 The expression “to attend” is literally “to stand before” and is used of the activity of a servant or court minister before a master or a king, or of a priest before God (S. Amsler, “ [ʿāmad],” TDOT, 2:921).

The fact that David “had no intimate relations” with Abishag, though she was nominally a concubine, is an indication of a lack of virility. Loss of virility was in many cultures considered to be grounds for bringing in a younger king (Jones, 89–90).

The suggestion made by David’s staff conforms to a type of diatherapy described by Josephus (Ant. 7.343 [14.3]) as a medical prescription. Galen (Methus medicos 8.7, cited by Montgomery, 71–72) confirms it as a practice in Greek medicine.

ii. Adonijah’s attempted coup d’état (1:5–10)

OVERVIEW

David’s feebleness and failure to make his choice of his successor public encouraged Adonijah to force David’s hand by presenting him and the people with a fait accompli. Adonijah no doubt felt justified in his claim to the throne in that he seems to have been the oldest surviving son (though no normal succession patterns had as yet been established in Israel). However, his ambition was in direct contravention of God’s will and David’s explicit wishes. He did not wait for prophetic anointing or a royal proclamation. He was like his brother Absalom in being willful and self-centered though a naturally attractive person.

5Now Adonijah, whose mother was Haggith, put himself forward and said, “I will be king.” So he got chariots and horses ready, with fifty men to run ahead of him. 6(His father had never interfered with him by asking, “Why do you behave as you do?” He was also very handsome and was born next after Absalom.)

7Adonijah conferred with Joab son of Zeruiah and with Abiathar the priest, and they gave him their support. 8But Zadok the priest, Benaiah son of Jehoiada, Nathan the prophet, Shimei and Rei and David’s special guard did not join Adonijah.

9Adonijah then sacrificed sheep, cattle and fattened calves at the Stone of Zoheleth near En Rogel. He invited all his brothers, the king’s sons, and all the men of Judah who were royal officials, 10but he did not invite Nathan the prophet or Benaiah or the special guard or his brother Solomon.

COMMENTARY

5–7 Adonijah’s willfulness is attributed in v.6 to David’s failure in disciplining him as a boy. Amnon and Absalom showed a similar willfulness.

Joab, the most powerful of Adonijah’s supporters, had always been fiercely loyal to David but not necessarily to David’s wishes (see comments at 2:5). In supporting Adonijah’s pretensions to the throne, Joab was acting characteristically. He was not consciously disloyal to David, but he opposed David’s (and God’s) choice of Solomon as David’s successor and acted on his own inclinations, as he had done so often in the past. Having the support of Joab and the army he controlled seemed practically to guarantee success for Adonijah’s cause.

Abiathar, the other named active supporter of Adonijah, had been the only survivor of Saul’s massacre of the high priest Ahimelech and his family. Abiathar fled to David at Keilah and brought the ephod with him (1Sa 22:20–22; 23:6, 9). He served as high priest during David’s reign and seems to have been senior to Zadok (1Ki 2:26–27; Mk 2:26).

8–10 Adonijah had invited all his brothers (except Solomon) as well as the royal officials. It seems that he had at least their tacit support. There were those, however, who did not support Adonijah. Zadok was the son of Ahitub (2Sa 8:17), a descendant of Eleazar, the third son of Aaron. In 1 Chronicles 12:26–28 Zadok is listed as a warrior of the house of Levi and one of those who came to David at Hebron to offer him the rulership over all Israel.

Benaiah of Kabzeel, son of Jehoiada, was renowned as one of the greatest of David’s mighty men (2Sa 23:20–23; 1Ch 11:22–25). David put him in charge of his bodyguard.

Nathan had played an important role in David’s reign. He seems to have been particularly close to David. It was to him that David had gone to indicate his desire to build a temple for the Lord, and it was through Nathan that God responded with the Davidic covenant (2Sa 7). Later God sent Nathan to deal with David over the matter of his sin with Bathsheba (2Sa 12). Nathan was also sent by God to David on the occasion of Solomon’s birth to declare God’s special love for Solomon (2Sa 12:24–25).

Shimei and Rei are otherwise unknown, though Shimei may well be the Shimei, son of Ela (1Ki 4:18), who was appointed by Solomon as one of twelve district governors (4:7).

Also absent was David’s “special guard [gibbôrîm]” (vv.8, 10). This group was originally comprised of six hundred men who followed David before he was recognized as king. They at some point included the Kerethites and Pelethites. Special mention is made in 2 Samuel 23:8–39 of thirty-seven “mighty men” (officers?) who were renowned for their faithfulness and deeds of valor. Benaiah was their commander (2Sa 23:23). These were not under the authority of Joab and are mentioned in 2 Samuel 15:15–18 as being loyal to David during Absalom’s rebellion.

Adonijah’s attempted usurpation of the throne began with a ceremonial gathering of his supporters. Absalom had begun his coup in a similar manner (2Sa 15:11–12). The participation of Abiathar and Joab in the ritual sacrifice and communal meal lent an aura of legitimacy to the occasion.

En Rogel (modern Bir Ayyub, “Job’s well”) was located slightly southeast of Jerusalem, near the confluence of the Hinnom and Kidron valleys. It was somewhat secluded and was thus ideally suited for Adonijah’s clandestine gathering of forces before taking public action.

NOTES

5 Despite the assertion of many (DeVries, 21; Alter, 97–100) that it was Solomon and his supporters who were guilty of intrigue, it seems clear that Adonijah was the guilty one. Alter’s claim that Bathsheba and Nathan between them succeeded in making a feeble David think that he had made a vow, when in actual fact he had done no such thing, seems to border on specious reasoning. Second Samuel 12:24–25; 1 Chronicles 22:9–10; 28:4–7 clearly show that Solomon was God’s choice as well as David’s. Adonijah and his followers were fully aware of this choice, as can be seen from the fact that Solomon and his supporters were not invited. Those who see Solomon as the ambitious opportunist can do so only by making the gratuitous assumption that the passages quoted above are an editorial apologetic for Solomon as king. The fact that Solomon was not invited and that Adonijah did not inform David are a strong indications that Adonijah knew full well that he was in the wrong. The clandestine nature of the gathering affords further proof.

The order of David’s first four sons was Amnon, Kileab, Absalom, and Adonijah, these four and two others having been born in Hebron (2Sa 3:2–5). Kileab, the second, must have died as a child, for no further mention is made of him. Amnon was slain by Absalom, ostensibly as an act of vengeance for Amnon’s rape of Absalom’s sister Tamar (2Sa 13:1); but Absalom’s later actions make it appear likely that it was his aspirations to the throne, not the desire to avenge his sister, that motivated him in the slaying of his older brother Amnon.

7 First Chronicles 16:39 suggests that Abiathar served as high priest in Jerusalem, where the ark was located. But since Gibeon was the site of the tabernacle and the chief place of worship (1Ki 3:4–15) until such time as the temple should be built, it would seem likely that Zadok was commonly regarded as de facto high priest.

8 Nathan’s support for Solomon was rooted in his role of communicating God’s forgiveness to David. The very fact that David had named his son “Solomon” (“Peace”) was an indication of his awareness that by God’s grace the rift between him and God had been healed. To seal the fact of God’s full forgiveness, he sent Nathan to add the appellation Jedidiah (“beloved of the Lord”) to Solomon (2Sa 12:24–25). The passage clearly implies God’s choice of Solomon as David’s successor. Keil, 18, notes from 2 Samuel 7:12–16 that God “did not ensure the establishment of the throne to any one of his existing sons, but to him that would come out of his loins (i.e., to Solomon, who was not yet born).”

9 The “Stone of Zoheleth” (, ʾeben hazzōḥelet) is traditionally thought to mean “serpent’s stone,” but it is now more commonly thought to mean “sliding stone.” DeVries, 14, adopts the plausible view that the term “sliding stone” reflects the fact that this was a place where stones had slid down the steep embankment into the wadi below.

Of interest is the fact that En Rogel was the place where the two messengers who kept in touch with David during Absalom’s rebellion stayed as they waited for word from Hushai (2Sa 17:17). DeVries’s suggestion that En Rogel was a holy place is, however, debatable.

b. The counterplan of Nathan (1:11–31)

OVERVIEW

When Nathan became aware of the plot, he acted immediately by rousing David to take the steps necessary to ensure the public proclamation of Solomon as king. By so doing Nathan became God’s instrument for carrying out the divine purpose. He acted tactfully and judiciously, just as he had done when he reprimanded David for his sin with Bathsheba and Uriah.

11Then Nathan asked Bathsheba, Solomon’s mother, “Have you not heard that Adonijah, the son of Haggith, has become king without our lord David’s knowing it? 12Now then, let me advise you how you can save your own life and the life of your son Solomon. 13Go in to King David and say to him, ‘My lord the king, did you not swear to me your servant: “Surely Solomon your son shall be king after me, and he will sit on my throne”? Why then has Adonijah become king?’ 14While you are still there talking to the king, I will come in and confirm what you have said.”

15So Bathsheba went to see the aged king in his room, where Abishag the Shunammite was attending him. 16Bathsheba bowed low and knelt before the king.

“What is it you want?” the king asked.

17She said to him, “My lord, you yourself swore to me your servant by the LORD your God: ‘Solomon your son shall be king after me, and he will sit on my throne.’ 18But now Adonijah has become king, and you, my lord the king, do not know about it. 19He has sacrificed great numbers of cattle, fattened calves, and sheep, and has invited all the king’s sons, Abiathar the priest and Joab the commander of the army, but he has not invited Solomon your servant. 20My lord the king, the eyes of all Israel are on you, to learn from you who will sit on the throne of my lord the king after him. 21Otherwise, as soon as my lord the king is laid to rest with his fathers, I and my son Solomon will be treated as criminals.”

22While she was still speaking with the king, Nathan the prophet arrived. 23And they told the king, “Nathan the prophet is here.” So he went before the king and bowed with his face to the ground.

24Nathan said, “Have you, my lord the king, declared that Adonijah shall be king after you, and that he will sit on your throne? 25Today he has gone down and sacrificed great numbers of cattle, fattened calves, and sheep. He has invited all the king’s sons, the commanders of the army and Abiathar the priest. Right now they are eating and drinking with him and saying, ‘Long live King Adonijah!’ 26But me your servant, and Zadok the priest, and Benaiah son of Jehoiada, and your servant Solomon he did not invite. 27Is this something my lord the king has done without letting his servants know who should sit on the throne of my lord the king after him?”

28Then King David said, “Call in Bathsheba.” So she came into the king’s presence and stood before him.

29The king then took an oath: “As surely as the LORD lives, who has delivered me out of every trouble, 30I will surely carry out today what I swore to you by the LORD, the God of Israel: Solomon your son shall be king after me, and he will sit on my throne in my place.”

31Then Bathsheba bowed low with her face to the ground and, kneeling before the king, said, “May my lord King David live forever!”

COMMENTARY

11–31 Nathan sent Bathsheba in first. Her status as favored wife would ensure a quick hearing, and immediate action was indeed necessary. Her role was to rouse David to action by asking him how he could allow Adonijah to become king when he had solemnly sworn that Solomon should reign after him (vv.13, 17). Nathan would then confirm her statements and impress on David the need to act decisively (v.14).

The validity of Solomon’s claim to the throne was not in question here. Both Bathsheba and Nathan knew David’s disposition in the matter. The danger was that Adonijah would succeed to the throne through David’s inaction. Nathan’s words, “The eyes of all Israel are on you, to learn from you who will sit on the throne of my lord the king after him” (v.20), prodded David to prompt and vigorous action. He took immediate steps to make his wishes in the matter clear in a public way. The choice of Gihon as the location of the public anointing and proclamation of Solomon as king may well have been dictated by its proximity to En Rogel. By this means David left no doubt in anyone’s mind as to his own wishes in the matter. It is clear that this definitive act was received with overwhelming public approval. There was such rejoicing and enthusiasm that the ground shook.

NOTES

12 Nathan’s warning reflected reality. The omission of Solomon from the “guest list” was a sure sign that he was marked for death if Adonijah succeeded. The normal practice was for the successful claimant to the throne to execute any unsuccessful rival (see Jdg 9:5; 1Ki 15:29; 2Ki 10:6–14; 11:1).

Jones, 93, is typical of many commentators who, despite the clear intent of the text, see Nathan as engineering a coup d’état by wrongfully bringing Solomon into power. DeVries, 15, correctly rejects Gray’s suggestion, 88, that Nathan wanted Bathsheba to convince a senile king by autosuggestion that he had sworn an oath that he in actual fact had not done.

c. Solomon’s anointing (1:32–40)

32King David said, “Call in Zadok the priest, Nathan the prophet and Benaiah son of Jehoiada.” When they came before the king, 33he said to them: “Take your lord’s servants with you and set Solomon my son on my own mule and take him down to Gihon. 34There have Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet anoint him king over Israel. Blow the trumpet and shout, ‘Long live King Solomon!’ 35Then you are to go up with him, and he is to come and sit on my throne and reign in my place. I have appointed him ruler over Israel and Judah.”

36Benaiah son of Jehoiada answered the king, “Amen! May the LORD, the God of my lord the king, so declare it. 37As the LORD was with my lord the king, so may he be with Solomon to make his throne even greater than the throne of my lord King David!”

38So Zadok the priest, Nathan the prophet, Benaiah son of Jehoiada, the Kerethites and the Pelethites went down and put Solomon on King David’s mule and escorted him to Gihon. 39Zadok the priest took the horn of oil from the sacred tent and anointed Solomon. Then they sounded the trumpet and all the people shouted, “Long live King Solomon!” 40And all the people went up after him, playing flutes and rejoicing greatly, so that the ground shook with the sound.

COMMENTARY

32–40 The men that David called to carry out the public anointing of Solomon were Benaiah (v.32), the commander of David’s special guard; Zadok (v.34), the priest; and Nathan, the prophet. The servants referred to in v.33 are identified in v.38 as the guard composed of Kerethites and Pelethites.

Gihon (v.33), the site of the anointing, was just outside the city in the Kidron Valley, on the east bank of Ophel. It was at that time Jerusalem’s major source of water and was therefore a natural gathering place of the populace.

The fact that Solomon was mounted on David’s royal mule demonstrated to the populace that this anointing had David’s blessing. The presence of Zadok and Nathan indicated divine approval, and that of Benaiah military approval (House, 93).

NOTES

33 Employment of the mule— (pirdâ, “female mule”)—was a recent innovation in Israel and seems at this time to have been used primarily by the royal court and the aristocracy. It had to be imported (1Ki 10:25; Eze 27:14) because of the prohibition of Leviticus 19:19 with regard to the crossbreeding of animals. According to 2 Samuel 13:29 (the first mention of mules) they were ridden by David’s sons; 18:9 indicates that Absalom was riding a mule at the time of his death. Sometime later, mules seemed to be more common and were used as burden bearers (2Ki 5:17; 1Ch 12:40; Ezr 2:66; see IDB, 3:456).

34 The situation described here is that of a coregency. E. Ball (“The Coregency of David and Solomon,” VT 27 [1977]: 268–79) has shown that there is a strong precedent for such a coregency in Egyptian practice by giving examples from Egypt’s sixth through twenty-third dynasties.

35 The correlation of this event with 1 Chronicles 23:1—“When David was old and full of years he made his son Solomon king over Israel”—is not perfectly clear. The suggestion of Edersheim, 7:55–56, and H. L. Ellison (NBC [rev. ed.], 382–83) that the statement of 1 Chronicles 23:1 is a compact account of 1 Kings 1:28–40 (esp. vv.38–40) seems likely. The coronation was then further confirmed at the great assembly of leaders as described in 1 Chronicles 28–29. First Chronicles 29:22 describes a second confirmatory anointing as was experienced by Saul and David in 1 Samuel 11:15 and 2 Samuel 2:4; 5:3 (with the latter passage referring to a third anointing, this time to be king over the ten northern tribes as well).

40 It is difficult to understand the claim (Jones, 101) that this text implies that the investiture of Solomon at Gihon was somehow “unconstitutional,” as though it were done without public knowledge or consent. The opposite is true. There is no mention of public involvement with Adonijah’s (premature) celebration of kingship, but the passage states clearly that the people were enthusiastically present at Solomon’s anointing. The whole point of the exercise was to let everyone know whom David had chosen to be the new king.

d. Adonijah’s submission (1:41–53)

41Adonijah and all the guests who were with him heard it as they were finishing their feast. On hearing the sound of the trumpet, Joab asked, “What’s the meaning of all the noise in the city?”

42Even as he was speaking, Jonathan son of Abiathar the priest arrived. Adonijah said, “Come in. A worthy man like you must be bringing good news.”

43“Not at all!” Jonathan answered. “Our lord King David has made Solomon king. 44The king has sent with him Zadok the priest, Nathan the prophet, Benaiah son of Jehoiada, the Kerethites and the Pelethites, and they have put him on the king’s mule, 45and Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet have anointed him king at Gihon. From there they have gone up cheering, and the city resounds with it. That’s the noise you hear. 46Moreover, Solomon has taken his seat on the royal throne. 47Also, the royal officials have come to congratulate our lord King David, saying, ‘May your God make Solomon’s name more famous than yours and his throne greater than yours!’ And the king bowed in worship on his bed 48and said, ‘Praise be to the LORD, the God of Israel, who has allowed my eyes to see a successor on my throne today.’”

49At this, all Adonijah’s guests rose in alarm and dispersed. 50But Adonijah, in fear of Solomon, went and took hold of the horns of the altar. 51Then Solomon was told, “Adonijah is afraid of King Solomon and is clinging to the horns of the altar. He says, ‘Let King Solomon swear to me today that he will not put his servant to death with the sword.’”

52Solomon replied, “If he shows himself to be a worthy man, not a hair of his head will fall to the ground; but if evil is found in him, he will die.” 53Then King Solomon sent men, and they brought him down from the altar. And Adonijah came and bowed down to King Solomon, and Solomon said, “Go to your home.”

COMMENTARY

41–53 The swelling sound of the public’s rejoicing and of the instruments reached the ears of Adonijah’s supporters at En Rogel (v.41). Their initial puzzlement soon turned to alarm as they learned from Jonathan, son of Abiathar, that Solomon had been publicly proclaimed king and that this news had been received with great enthusiasm (vv.42–48). This development effectively put an end to Adonijah’s plot, as its participants quickly scattered (v.49).

The report of David’s response to the coronation (vv.47–48) made it clear to all what David’s wishes were in the matter. He was profoundly grateful to a gracious and loving God as he saw the people at large accepting his son Solomon as the new king. He would carry out David’s wish to build a temple for his God. God’s special blessing would be upon him, and with Solomon there would begin the long line of David’s descendants who would ultimately lead to the promised Messiah, who was both the son of David and the Son of God.

Adonijah’s response to this sudden change of events was to seek asylum by grasping the horns of the altar (v.50). He expected Solomon to execute the rival claimant to the throne, as he himself would have done had he been successful. Solomon was more gracious, however; the new king guaranteed safety for Adonijah as long as he conducted himself properly. To be a “worthy man” (v.52) in this context simply means that Adonijah would renounce any claims to the throne, avoid seditious intrigue, and support Solomon’s rights with regard to the kingship over Israel.

NOTES

50 This method of seeking sanctuary was a time-honored custom. In Israel the grasping of the horns of the altar did not provide sanctuary for all types of criminals—only those guilty of the unintentional slaying of another. The horns were the projections at the corners of the altar on which the blood of sacrifice was smeared. To grasp the horns “was to claim the protection of God until the case was judged” (Wiseman, 1 & 2 Kings, 74).

The location of the altar is not mentioned, though it was most likely in the tent that David had erected in Jerusalem to house the ark of the covenant.

e. David’s charge to Solomon (2:1–11)

OVERVIEW

David’s last charge to Solomon comes in two parts. The first has to do with Solomon’s spiritual life (vv.2–4). David’s admonition summarizes the message of Deuteronomy and reminds Solomon of God’s promise and exhortation in 2 Samuel 7:12–16. The second gives instruction concerning the disposition of “unfinished business” pertaining to Joab, to the sons of Barzillai, and to Shimei (vv.5–12).

There can be no doubt that much of Solomon’s early spiritual vitality and dedication to God may be attributed to David’s deep personal relationship to the Lord and desire to honor him. David’s legacy to Solomon was thus much more than a great kingdom with secure borders, tributary nations, and considerable wealth and prestige. Far more importantly, he instilled in Solomon a love for God and his Word.

1When the time drew near for David to die, he gave a charge to Solomon his son.

2“I am about to go the way of all the earth,” he said. “So be strong, show yourself a man, 3and observe what the LORD your God requires: Walk in his ways, and keep his decrees and commands, his laws and requirements, as written in the Law of Moses, so that you may prosper in all you do and wherever you go, 4and that the LORD may keep his promise to me: ‘If your descendants watch how they live, and if they walk faithfully before me with all their heart and soul, you will never fail to have a man on the throne of Israel.’

5“Now you yourself know what Joab son of Zeruiah did to me—what he did to the two commanders of Israel’s armies, Abner son of Ner and Amasa son of Jether. He killed them, shedding their blood in peacetime as if in battle, and with that blood stained the belt around his waist and the sandals on his feet. 6Deal with him according to your wisdom, but do not let his gray head go down to the grave in peace.

7“But show kindness to the sons of Barzillai of Gilead and let them be among those who eat at your table. They stood by me when I fled from your brother Absalom.

8“And remember, you have with you Shimei son of Gera, the Benjamite from Bahurim, who called down bitter curses on me the day I went to Mahanaim. When he came down to meet me at the Jordan, I swore to him by the LORD: ‘I will not put you to death by the sword.’ 9But now, do not consider him innocent. You are a man of wisdom; you will know what to do to him. Bring his gray head down to the grave in blood.”

10Then David rested with his fathers and was buried in the City of David. 11He had reigned forty years over Israel—seven years in Hebron and thirty-three in Jerusalem.

COMMENTARY

1–3 See also 1 Chronicles 22:6–14 and 28:9–10, 20 for other admonitions of David to Solomon. His words here echo those of God to Joshua (Jos 1:6–9) as the latter was about to begin in his role as commander of the hosts of Israel (cf. also Dt 31:6–8, 23). The basic injunction for Solomon was that he should conduct himself in his personal life, and in his role as leader of God’s people, in accordance with God’s Word (cf. also Dt 17:18–20). Solomon was to be strong and show himself to be a man.

The words “strong and courageous” (ḥ^azaq weʾ^emāṣ, Jos 1:6) encouraged Joshua with respect to the carrying out of his commission to lead Israel into her inheritance in the face of the overwhelming power of the Canaanites. Just so was Solomon as the new leader told to face courageously the challenges that would confront him. For both Joshua and Solomon, courage had its source in God. The manner of their leadership was to be based on God’s Word, which would enable them to carry out God’s purpose.

4 David reminds his son of his responsibility to be true to the Lord (2Sa 7:12–13). The Davidic covenant was unconditional with respect to its ultimate goal of bringing the Messiah from the line of David, but each individual king must heed God’s Word from the heart in order to experience the blessing of God.

5–6 The second part of David’s last words left Solomon with some matters that he considered unfinished business. The first had to do with Joab, the commander of David’s armies. Joab had been a mixed blessing to David, fiercely loyal but not always faithful in carrying out David’s wishes. On the good side it can be said that Joab was an outstanding and courageous general. He never wavered in his loyalty to David’s kingship. He also had occasional flashes of spiritual insight, such as his opposition to taking the census (1Ch 21:3–4) that brought grief to David.

On the other hand, Joab had created many problems for David. He had a repeated history of taking matters into his own hands, thereby often creating embarrassing situations for David and forcing his hand. Joab had killed Absalom against David’s express command. In 2 Samuel 3:22–27 he killed Abner in an act of treachery.

After the revolt of Absalom, he treacherously rid himself of Amasa, whom David had appointed to replace him. Now once again Joab was trying to force David’s hand by supporting Adonijah’s attempted usurpation of the succession to the throne.

Why had David not dealt with Joab before? The answer is probably to be found in the fact that David felt under obligation to Joab, and though David was certainly not lacking in courage, he was not able to cope with the mixture of Joab’s loyalty and misdeeds. Yet he realized that Joab’s murder of Abner and Amasa, at least, must not go unpunished. Solomon was the natural one to deal with the matter, since Joab had been guilty of sedition in attempting to forestall the succession to the throne of the man of David’s choice. House, 97, suggests additionally that David might well have been concerned because “Joab [was] . . . a powerful, crafty, and dangerous opponent of Solomon’s accession to the throne.”

7 In the matter of the sons of Barzillai, David was simply asking Solomon to continue to carry out his own promise to Barzillai as a reward for his loyal support during David’s brief exile at the time of Absalom’s revolt (2Sa 19:31–39).

8–9 The matter of Shimei was more difficult. His actions during David’s flight from Absalom (2Sa 16:5–14) were deserving of death, yet on David’s return to Jerusalem the gracious king had pardoned Shimei (2Sa 19:18–23). David doubtless made this promise in a moment of profound relief that the kingdom had been restored to him. But he must have realized that Shimei’s “repentance” was not sincere and that the man was a potential troublemaker. David now left the matter in Solomon’s hands and trusted Solomon’s wisdom to deal properly with the situation.

10–11 David had made extensive preparations for a successful reign for his son, particularly with regard to the plans and materials for the temple (see 1Ch 22–29). Now, having ruled a total of forty years (including the first seven years at Hebron over Judah alone), David died, content in the knowledge that the kingdom was in good hands. Just how long the coregency lasted cannot be stated with any degree of certainty. Estimates range from two or three months to several years.

NOTES

2–3 Jones, 107, shows how David’s language reflects the book of Deuteronomy and lists sample passages: Deuteronomy 4:29; 6:2, 5; 8:6, 11; 9:5; 10:12, 23; 11:1, 22; 29:8.

10–11 DeVries, 36–37, states: “The tombs of the Judahite kings have been identified on the south slope of Ophel . . . on the then-unoccupied southern extremity of the western hill.”

2. His Establishment of the Kingdom (2:12–46)

OVERVIEW

During Adonijah’s attempt to preempt the throne, Solomon himself did not indulge in plotting to make the throne certain for himself. He exercised remarkable restraint. But once he was formally declared king, he acted firmly and with decisiveness and dispatch.

a. His assumption to the throne (2:12)

12So Solomon sat on the throne of his father David, and his rule was firmly established.

COMMENTARY

12 However long or short the coregency was, this verse states that when David died, Solomon’s rule was firmly established. There was no question in anyone’s mind who was king, and Solomon had firm control over the kingdom.

b. Adonijah’s further scheme and execution (2:13–25)

13Now Adonijah, the son of Haggith, went to Bathsheba, Solomon’s mother. Bathsheba asked him, “Do you come peacefully?”

He answered, “Yes, peacefully.” 14Then he added, “I have something to say to you.”

“You may say it,” she replied.

15“As you know,” he said, “the kingdom was mine. All Israel looked to me as their king. But things changed, and the kingdom has gone to my brother; for it has come to him from the LORD. 16Now I have one request to make of you. Do not refuse me.”

“You may make it,” she said.

17So he continued, “Please ask King Solomon—he will not refuse you—to give me Abishag the Shunammite as my wife.”

18“Very well,” Bathsheba replied, “I will speak to the king for you.”

19When Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah, the king stood up to meet her, bowed down to her and sat down on his throne. He had a throne brought for the king’s mother, and she sat down at his right hand.

20“I have one small request to make of you,” she said. “Do not refuse me.”

The king replied, “Make it, my mother; I will not refuse you.”

21So she said, “Let Abishag the Shunammite be given in marriage to your brother Adonijah.”

22King Solomon answered his mother, “Why do you request Abishag the Shunammite for Adonijah? You might as well request the kingdom for him—after all, he is my older brother—yes, for him and for Abiathar the priest and Joab son of Zeruiah!”

23Then King Solomon swore by the LORD: “May God deal with me, be it ever so severely, if Adonijah does not pay with his life for this request! 24And now, as surely as the LORD lives—he who has established me securely on the throne of my father David and has founded a dynasty for me as he promised—Adonijah shall be put to death today!” 25So King Solomon gave orders to Benaiah son of Jehoiada, and he struck down Adonijah and he died.

COMMENTARY

13–17 This section demonstrates that Adonijah was ambitious and not yet finished with his hopes for securing the throne for himself. In asking for the hand of Abishag (v.17), he was almost certainly not pursuing romantic interests but trying to secure for himself a claim to the kingship. De Vaux, 116–17, notes that from some passages it appears that the king’s harem, at least in the early days of the monarchy, used to pass to his successor. In 2 Samuel 12:8 Nathan says that it was Yahweh himself who, by establishing David as king of Israel, had given him the wives of his master Saul. Absalom publicly approached the concubines David had left in Jerusalem, which was his way of asserting that he was now king (2Sa 16:21–22). Ishbosheth’s anger against Abner, who had taken one of Saul’s concubines (2Sa 3:7–8), is readily explained if she had passed by inheritance to Ishbosheth, for Abner’s action would imply that he was disputing the power with him.

Although 1:4 states clearly that David had no marital relations with Abishag, her function being a therapeutic one, she was officially regarded as being one of David’s wives. As such she would provide an additional argument for Adonijah’s royal pretensions. He informed Bathsheba inaccurately that the kingdom had been as good as his and that all Israel had regarded him as king, thus clearly indicating that his aspirations were not really dead.

18–22 Bathsheba agreed to speak for Adonijah, but Solomon saw through the scheme and spoke rather vehemently: “You might as well request the kingdom for him!” (v.22).

It has been suggested that Bathsheba did not naïvely fall into a trap but that she rather wisely and skillfully alerted her son to his brother’s aspirations, while at the same time appearing to be sympathetic to Adonijah. The problem is that the text does not indicate what the state of her mind was. It is probably best to assume that she was too naïve to see through Adonijah’s scheme and that she felt compassion for him. Solomon’s response to her request seems to confirm this.

23–25 Solomon reacted swiftly to Adonijah’s ploy and ordered Benaiah to execute him. Though this action may seem harsh, it was clearly necessary, since to leave Adonijah free to continue his machinations would leave a festering sore in the kingdom.

NOTES

18–19 DeVries, 37, suggests, improbably, that Bathseba was using her apparent acquiescence to “get rid of Adonijah.”

c. The deposition of Abiathar and execution of Joab (2:26–34)

26To Abiathar the priest the king said, “Go back to your fields in Anathoth. You deserve to die, but I will not put you to death now, because you carried the ark of the Sovereign LORD before my father David and shared all my father’s hardships.” 27So Solomon removed Abiathar from the priesthood of the LORD, fulfilling the word the LORD had spoken at Shiloh about the house of Eli.

28When the news reached Joab, who had conspired with Adonijah though not with Absalom, he fled to the tent of the LORD and took hold of the horns of the altar. 29King Solomon was told that Joab had fled to the tent of the LORD and was beside the altar. Then Solomon ordered Benaiah son of Jehoiada, “Go, strike him down!”

30So Benaiah entered the tent of the LORD and said to Joab, “The king says, ‘Come out!’”

But he answered, “No, I will die here.”

Benaiah reported to the king, “This is how Joab answered me.”

31Then the king commanded Benaiah, “Do as he says. Strike him down and bury him, and so clear me and my father’s house of the guilt of the innocent blood that Joab shed. 32The LORD will repay him for the blood he shed, because without the knowledge of my father David he attacked two men and killed them with the sword. Both of them—Abner son of Ner, commander of Israel’s army, and Amasa son of Jether, commander of Judah’s army—were better men and more upright than he. 33May the guilt of their blood rest on the head of Joab and his descendants forever. But on David and his descendants, his house and his throne, may there be the LORD’s peace forever.”

34So Benaiah son of Jehoiada went up and struck down Joab and killed him, and he was buried on his own land in the desert.

COMMENTARY

26 Abiathar was banished to his home in Anathoth, about three and one-half miles north of Jerusalem. (The prophet Jeremiah later came from priestly stock at Anathoth.) He deserved to die because he opposed not only David’s will but also God’s will in the matter of the succession. But since he had served faithfully, having been loyal to David in his hard times and having borne the ark (2Sa 15:24, 29; 1Ch 15:11–15) in his capacity as high priest, Solomon allowed him to live. Notice the words “I will not put you to death now.” The reprieve from execution was dependent on continued good behavior.

27 The removal of Abiathar from the active priesthood and the sole tenancy of Zadok as high priest was a fulfillment of God’s word to Eli (1Sa 2:30–33).

28–29 Having heard of Solomon’s actions with regard to Adonijah and Abiathar, Joab knew that judgment would not be long in coming. In seeking sanctuary by grasping the horns of the altar, he no doubt was thinking only of his involvement with Adonijah’s plot. It would be in keeping with Joab’s character to have dismissed from his mind any thought of blame, much less punishment, in regard to the two murders. In any case Joab’s act of seeking sanctuary would put Solomon’s execution order in as bad a light as possible by making him appear to be violating a commonly accepted sanctuary. Solomon would have to contend with strong emotions on the part of many of the people.

30–33 Joab’s refusal to leave frustrated Benaiah’s mission since Beniah hesitated to touch Joab while he clung to the altar (v.30). When Solomon sent Benaiah back to execute Joab at the altar, Solomon justified the order as an act of justice to remove bloodguiltiness from David and his descendants (v.31). This reasoning was not “specious” (Gray, 109; similarly, Jones 6). Solomon was carrying out David’s wishes (v.32). This matter was of great importance to David’s conscience and the integrity of his reign because the murders were not a private matter (v.33). One might term Joab’s murders as political assassinations. The national interest and conscience were involved.

34 Benaiah carried out Solomon’s order, and no public outcry is recorded. On the contrary, the narrator states in the next section that “the kingdom was now firmly established in Solomon’s hands” (v.46).

NOTES

28 The horns of the altar provided sanctuary for those guilty of involuntary manslaughter but not for those guilty of premeditated or intentional murder. DeVries, 39, reads “Solomon” for “Absalom” (with the LXX [except for B], as opposed to the MT and Vulgate). This reading makes Solomon out to be acting vindictively. But the context clearly shows that he was carrying out the wishes of his father, David.

d. The elevation of Benaiah and Zadok (2:35)

35The king put Benaiah son of Jehoiada over the army in Joab’s position and replaced Abiathar with Zadok the priest.

COMMENTARY

35 Benaiah had been commander of David’s personal guard. Now he is commander-in-chief of the whole army. Zadok now becomes the sole high priest, in fulfillment of God’s word to Eli in 1 Samuel 2:27–36.

The descendents of Zadok retained the priesthood until 171 BC, when Antiochus conferred it on Menelaus. The Essenes at Qumran were at odds with the priests of the day and awaited the restoration of the Zadokites, whom they looked on as the only legitimate priestly family. Ezekiel restricts the eschatological priesthood to the Zadokites since they alone were innocent of apostasy (Eze 44:15–16).

e. The execution of Shimei (2:36–46)

36Then the king sent for Shimei and said to him, “Build yourself a house in Jerusalem and live there, but do not go anywhere else. 37The day you leave and cross the Kidron Valley, you can be sure you will die; your blood will be on your own head.”

38Shimei answered the king, “What you say is good. Your servant will do as my lord the king has said.” And Shimei stayed in Jerusalem for a long time.

39But three years later, two of Shimei’s slaves ran off to Achish son of Maacah, king of Gath, and Shimei was told, “Your slaves are in Gath.” 40At this, he saddled his donkey and went to Achish at Gath in search of his slaves. So Shimei went away and brought the slaves back from Gath.

41When Solomon was told that Shimei had gone from Jerusalem to Gath and had returned, 42the king summoned Shimei and said to him, “Did I not make you swear by the LORD and warn you, ‘On the day you leave to go anywhere else, you can be sure you will die’? At that time you said to me, ‘What you say is good. I will obey.’ 43Why then did you not keep your oath to the LORD and obey the command I gave you?”

44The king also said to Shimei, “You know in your heart all the wrong you did to my father David. Now the LORD will repay you for your wrongdoing. 45But King Solomon will be blessed, and David’s throne will remain secure before the LORD forever.”

46Then the king gave the order to Benaiah son of Jehoiada, and he went out and struck Shimei down and killed him.

The kingdom was now firmly established in Solomon’s hands.

COMMENTARY

36–40 Shimei was not one of the conspirators with Adonijah, but he had considerable potential for stirring up opposition to the house of David. In a gesture of generosity, David forgave him for his cursing and acts of hatred (2Sa 19:18–23). Yet David sensed the insincerity of Shimei’s apology and the probability of a return on Shimei’s part to active hostility at the earliest sign of weakness. He also felt that justice had not been served. Shimei was a scoundrel and needed to be dealt with, yet David was powerless because of his promise (v.37).

By forbidding Shimei to leave Jerusalem on pain of death, Solomon kept him “isolated from his kinsmen of Benjamin, who had been the spearhead of the revolt against David under Sheba (2Sa 20)” (Gray, 111). Shimei was forbidden to go anywhere outside Jerusalem, but the Kidron Valley receives particular mention since it is on the direct route toward Bahurim, Shimei’s hometown.

For three years Shimei obeyed the restriction of the king (vv.38–39); but when two of his slaves fled to Achish of Gath, he violated his parole and went after his slaves personally (vv.39–40). Had Shimei taken the conditions of his confinement seriously and been an honest man, he would have gone to Solomon and requested either that the latter regain his slaves for him or else allow him to make the trip.

41–46a Solomon called Shimei to account for his breach of an oath to God. He had already been the recipient of a gracious pardon from David. But now Solomon was going to mete out justice on the exact terms of the oath. Shimei had taken grace lightly and demonstrated his unrepentant heart. For these shortcomings he would die in strict accord with the terms of their agreement. He was unworthy of another pardon. With Shimei’s execution, justice was fully served, yet in such a way that allowed Shimei to condemn himself.

Solomon’s statement that now “King Solomon will be blessed” indicates that the actions he had taken were fully justified and that past injustices had been dealt with, thus enabling him to begin his reign with a clean moral slate.

46b The theme of this statement is picked up again in 4:1. First Kings 3 demonstrates how the statement was confirmed (see comments on ch. 3). Chapter 4 and the following chapters relate how Solomon conducted his reign.

NOTES

40 Montgomery, 96ff., gives examples of extradition practices involving fugitives in the second millennium BC. In addition to the Hittite and Akkadian documents pertaining to fugitives, the Aramaic vassal treaties also contain provisions on this matter.

B. Solomon’s Love for the Lord—God’s Approval (3:1–28)

OVERVIEW

In this section God graciously appears to Solomon and not only affirms his approval of Solomon’s kingship but also promises his fullest blessing. This latter promise was contingent on Solomon’s continuing to walk in God’s ways.

The approval of God in vv.2–15 is bracketed by the approval and recognition of Pharaoh (v.1) and that of his own people at the end of vv.16–18. In other words, Solomon receives approval by God, but also from external (Egypt) and internal (Israel) human sources.

1. The Marriage of Solomon to Pharaoh’s Daughter: Her Temporary Residence in the City of David (3:1)

1Solomon made an alliance with Pharaoh king of Egypt and married his daughter. He brought her to the City of David until he finished building his palace and the temple of the LORD, and the wall around Jerusalem.

COMMENTARY

1 One might wonder at the placement of the announcement of Solomon’s marriage to Pharaoh’s daughter at this particular point in the narrative. But ch. 3 forms a natural progression to the last statement of ch. 2: “The kingdom was now firmly established in Solomon’s hands.” This chapter points out (1) the respect with which he was held in Egypt—so much so that Pharaoh gave him his daughter to seal an alliance; (2) God’s affirmation and blessing of Solomon and his reign; and (3) the amazement of the people at the unusual wisdom of Solomon in his decision in the case of the disputed baby.

At the same time, however, there is here already an indication that despite Solomon’s devotion to the Lord at this time and God’s favorable response to his prayer, the seeds of his downfall are already being sown. Many writers, including Edersheim, 5:63, who cites Jewish tradition, feel that Solomon did not violate the law in this marriage; but even though the proscription against marrying foreign wives (i.e., Dt 7:3) referred specifically to Canaanite women, it would seem that the principle holds for pagan wives whatever their origin, unless, of course, they were to convert to the Hebrew faith.

Solomon’s marriage to Pharaoh’s daughter was the seal of a political alliance with Egypt. That such a marriage came about gives some indication of the importance of the kingdom Solomon inherited from his father as well as the decline of Egyptian power at this time. Formerly, Egyptian pharaohs consistently refused to allow their daughters to marry even the most important and powerful foreign kings. In this instance it appears that Pharaoh felt it to be advantageous to ally himself with Solomon by giving him not only his daughter but also Gezer as a wedding gift. This would assure him clear trade routes through Palestine. Solomon, on his side, could by this means secure his southern border.

The rendering “made an alliance with Pharaoh” reflects accurately the meaning of the Hebrew, “became Pharaoh’s son-in-law,” which stresses the relationship between father-in-law and bridegroom rather than that between bride and bridegroom. Making alliances through marriage was a common practice as a means of cementing and maintaining international agreements and securing a nation’s borders.

The “City of David” was located on the southern portion of the eastern ridge of Jerusalem (cf. Aharoni and Avi-Yonah, map 4). This area lies between the Kidron Valley on the east and the (now nonexistent) Tyropoeon Valley on the west. It slopes down into the Valley of Hinnom at the point where it joins the Kidron Valley. This was the site of Jebusite Jerusalem and David’s Jerusalem. Solomon extended the city to the north, where he also built the temple.

Solomon kept Pharaoh’s daughter in the older city of David until he had completed his building projects. Then he built a palace for her (1Ki 7:8; 9:24; 2Ch 8:11), presumably as part of his palace complex. The Chronicler indicates that Pharaoh’s daughter was not housed in David’s palace “because the places the ark of the LORD has entered are holy” (2Ch 8:11).

This note concerning her temporary residence is paralleled by the comment in 9:24 that she moved into the palace built for her. The two references bracket the verses concerning the construction of the temple.

NOTES

1 This marriage was not Solomon’s first. Comparing his son Rehoboam’s age (forty-one) at the time of his succeeding to the throne (14:21) with the length of Solomon’s reign (forty years; cf. 11:42–43), it is clear that he had already married Naamah the Ammonitess before he became king.

It is commonly thought that the Egyptian princess was of the relatively weak Twenty-First Dynasty (cf. Leon Wood, A Survey of Israel’s History [rev. ed.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986], 246; Gray, 118–20). A. Malamat (“Aspects of the Foreign Policies of David and Solomon,” JNES 22 [1963]: 12) identifies this pharaoh as Siamun, second to the last of the Twenty-First Dynasty. K. A. Kitchen (“How We Know When Solomon Ruled,” 35–36) agrees with this assessment, as does Wiseman, 1 & 2 Kings, 82, tentatively. For more on this pharaoh, see Notes on 9:16. To the criticism of some on the basis of the remark of Amenophis III (1386–1349) that from times past no pharaoh’s daughter had been given to anyone outside Egypt, Kitchen replies that customs had changed since the reign of Amenophis and cites other examples of royal princesses being given to foreigners in marriage.

2. Worship at Gibeon (3:2–4)

2The people, however, were still sacrificing at the high places, because a temple had not yet been built for the Name of the LORD. 3Solomon showed his love for the LORD by walking according to the statutes of his father David, except that he offered sacrifices and burned incense on the high places.

4The king went to Gibeon to offer sacrifices, for that was the most important high place, and Solomon offered a thousand burnt offerings on that altar.

COMMENTARY

2 The “however” (raq, which also appears in v.3; NIV, “except”) is intended to stress the chief area in which conditions were not yet ideal because of the practice of sacrificing at the “high places” (bāmôt). These latter were open-air sanctuaries that were found mostly on hilltops (1Ki 11:7; 2Ki 16:4) but also in towns (1Ki 13:32) and valleys (Jer 7:31; Eze 6:3). De Vaux, 284–88, points out that they were mounds or knolls, places of eminence for purposes of worship. The simplest ones had merely an altar, but they might also be more elaborate, as in the case of the one at Gibeon (v.4).

The high places were a constant sore point in Israel, and the prophets of God frequently spoke out against them. There were two basic problems with them: (1) they detracted from the principle of the central sanctuary (Dt 12:1–14); and (2) since worship at high places was a Canaanite custom, syncretism was not only a real danger but an all-too-common occurrence. Israel was specifically forbidden to utilize pagan high places and altars (Dt 12:2–4, 13), and as soon as God had established his people in the Promised Land, they were to worship at a sanctuary in the place appointed by God.

The latter half of the verse gives the reasons for the common use of various “high places” for worship. The temple had not yet been built. Before Eli’s time the tabernacle had been at Shiloh; but with the Philistines’ capture of the ark, Shiloh lost its significance as the place of God’s presence among his people. Even after the ark was returned by the Philistines, it remained for years in the house of Abinadab (1Sa 7:1), until David removed it to Jerusalem (2Sa 6) to a tent he had prepared for it there (v.17). In the meantime the tabernacle was removed from Shiloh after the capture of the ark.

The tabernacle next appears at Nob (1Sa 21), where it remained until Saul massacred the priests there (1Sa 22). At some point after this event it was moved to Gibeon, where it is mentioned in connection with Zadok’s high priestly ministry (1Ch 16:39–40). There were then, in effect, two tabernacles during David’s reign. The one in Gibeon was without the ark; the one in Jerusalem had the ark but not the original trappings of the tabernacle (2Ch 1:3–5). This state of affairs matched that of the double priesthood of Zadok and Abiathar.

3 Solomon receives high commendation. He loved the Lord and walked in the ways of David. David had loved God from the heart and was deeply aware of the grace of God at work in his life (Pss 18; 31:19, 23; 34:8–10). The very fact that God chose Solomon, the son of Bathsheba, to be David’s successor demonstrated the forgiving grace of God. Solomon, as the least likely candidate to be God’s choice as king, was certainly fully aware of God’s grace.

What seems to be a qualification in respect to Solomon’s godliness—“except that he offered sacrifices”—may in actuality not be intended to detract from his character. It may well be that both here and in v.2 the statement concerning worshiping in various high places is an allusion to a state of incompleteness that did not end until the temple was completed. Notice that Samuel brought offerings at various high places (cf. 1Sa 9:11–25). These sacrifices were apparently supplementary to the official services connected with the tabernacle. This practice seems to have been legitimate at this time as long as the high places had no associations with Canaanite religions. After the building of the temple, the high places were no longer legitimate.

4 According to 2 Chronicles 1:2–3, the entire leadership of the nation went with Solomon to Gibeon to bring a great offering to God. That one thousand burnt offerings were brought indicates the special importance of this occasion. Its purpose was clearly to bring thanksgiving for establishing Solomon in the kingdom and also to seek God’s blessing on his reign.

NOTES

2–3 There is an alternative opinion with regard to the “except” of v.3, which holds that Solomon’s devotion was imperfect because of his worship at the high place at Gibeon (B. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax [Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990], 670). This view is in keeping with the usual, negative evaluation of the high places in the remaining references to them in the books of Kings. There is, however, some warrant for the view expressed in the commentary in that the same restrictive adverb (raq, “however” [v.2] and “except” [v.3], NIV) occurs in both vv.2 and 3. In v.2 the qualification is explained by the fact that the temple had not yet been built, thus intimating that the same qualification applies to Solomon’s practice of worshiping at the high places before the temple was built.

In any case Solomon’s worship at Gibeon seems to be justified in that the tabernacle was located there and that there David had installed Zadok the high priest to bring offerings on the altar (1Ch 16:39–43).

3. The Appearance of the Lord to Solomon (3:5–15)

OVERVIEW

This is the first of two personal appearances of God to Solomon (the other is recorded in ch. 9). Here God approves of Solomon’s attitude as expressed in his prayer; in the latter passage God approves of the temple Solomon had built but also warns him to continue to remain true to the Lord. That God had in such a remarkable way declared himself willing to pour out his blessing on Solomon and his work makes him all the more culpable in his later apostasy (cf. 1Ki 11:9). With great privilege comes great responsibility.

a. Solomon’s prayer for wisdom (3:5–9)

5At Gibeon the LORD appeared to Solomon during the night in a dream, and God said, “Ask for whatever you want me to give you.”

6Solomon answered, “You have shown great kindness to your servant, my father David, because he was faithful to you and righteous and upright in heart. You have continued this great kindness to him and have given him a son to sit on his throne this very day.

7“Now, O LORD my God, you have made your servant king in place of my father David. But I am only a little child and do not know how to carry out my duties. 8Your servant is here among the people you have chosen, a great people, too numerous to count or number. 9So give your servant a discerning heart to govern your people and to distinguish between right and wrong. For who is able to govern this great people of yours?”

COMMENTARY

5 God’s appearance to Solomon in a dream was an auspicious beginning for him. God had accepted his sacrifices and indicated his approval. The offer God made to Solomon was as much a test of character as it was a willingness to do for him whatever he wished. It served to demonstrate where Solomon’s priorities lay.

6–9 Solomon’s response was basically an expression of gratitude for God’s kindness in placing David’s son on the throne. Though he was correct when he spoke of David’s faithful walk before the Lord, the emotion that swept over his heart was an appreciation of the grace of God.

The term “little child,” or young lad, relates both to his relative youth and to his inexperience in government. Solomon demonstrated commendable humility, and indeed the task before him was daunting. Only a fool would have entered into the kingship with a carefree and arrogant attitude. The responsibilities facing Solomon were all the greater in that Israel was God’s chosen nation. Only if he were armed with wisdom from God would he be able to govern in a manner that would lead his people in God’s ways. As king and shepherd (a common designation for a king [Jer 23; Eze 34]), he was responsible for their spiritual welfare as well as for their economic and political well-being.

Another item of thankfulness and praise is added here—the faithfulness of God in respect to the Abrahamic covenant. The words “too numerous to count or number” reflect the words of God to Abraham in Genesis 13:16. God had greatly blessed and increased Abraham’s progeny in stature and in numbers.

It is not speculative wisdom that Solomon is concerned about. What he asks for is an understanding or discerning heart so that he might be able to govern God’s people justly. This quality of governmental administration, in which truth and justice are paramount and a life lived in the fear of God is at the core, is developed fully in Isaiah 11:2–5. Here Messiah is depicted as the ideal ruler. Solomon represents a type of the Messiah, the Son of David par excellence.

NOTES

5 The two personal appearances of the Lord bracket the construction of the temple.

6 The exact meaning of the important word (ḥesed, “kindness”) has been much debated. The traditional translation was “lovingkindness” (KJV), “mercy,” or “love.” The NIV generally translates it as “love.” The most frequent word used by the LXX is ἔλεος (eleos, “mercy”). The Targums are not perfectly consistent but usually use a derivative of (tāb, “good”; see H. Stoebe, “ [ḥesed],” in TLOT, 449–64). Since the publication in 1927 of N. Glueck’s doctoral dissertation (translated into English as “Hesed in the Bible”), the prevailing scholarly opinion on the meaning of the word became something like “covenant loyalty.” BDB and W. Gesenius and F. Buhl (Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament [1915; repr., Berlin: Springer, 1954]) have the traditional renderings. But KB (first edition) describes it as the “mutual liability of those . . . belonging together.” The 1967 edition has moved back toward the more traditional position in those passages addressing God’s dealings with human beings: “Treue, Güte, Hold,” “faithfulness, goodness, grace/favor”).

Glueck’s view was that ḥesed did not basically involve mercy or love but primarily a strict loyalty and faithfulness to covenantal obligations. Katherine Sakenfeld (The Meaning of Ḥesed in the Hebrew Bible [Missoula, Mont.: Scholars, 1978]) has modified Glueck’s view by seeing the theological usage as (1) deliverance exercised toward the needy who are obedient and (2) forgiveness toward the penitent. This combination of deliverance and forgiveness is an expression of God’s faithfulness to his covenantal people.

The translation “kindness,” or the like, however, seems to be the best fit for the exegetical requirements of the word’s many occurrences. This position has been ably espoused by many recent scholars, such as Stoebe (ibid.); F. Andersen (“Yahweh, the Kind and Sensitive God,” in God Who Is Rich in Mercy, ed. P. T. O’Brien and D. G. Peterson [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986], 41–88); and R. L. Harris (TWOT, 1:305–7). W. Zimmerli (TDNT, 9:381–87) is in substantial agreement.

9 See Psalm 72 for a prayer of Solomon asking for God’s blessing on his people and for the ability to govern with compassion and in righteousness.

b. God’s response (3:10–15)

10The Lord was pleased that Solomon had asked for this. 11So God said to him, “Since you have asked for this and not for long life or wealth for yourself, nor have asked for the death of your enemies but for discernment in administering justice, 12I will do what you have asked. I will give you a wise and discerning heart, so that there will never have been anyone like you, nor will there ever be. 13Moreover, I will give you what you have not asked for—both riches and honor—so that in your lifetime you will have no equal among kings. 14And if you walk in my ways and obey my statutes and commands as David your father did, I will give you a long life.” 15Then Solomon awoke—and he realized it had been a dream.

He returned to Jerusalem, stood before the ark of the Lord’s covenant and sacrificed burnt offerings and fellowship offerings. Then he gave a feast for all his court.

COMMENTARY

10–13 Solomon bypassed the kind of request most men would commonly make—for prosperity, a long life, and victory over enemies. He sought the more essential thing; as a result, God promised to give him the wisdom he sought in such measure that he would stand alone among men (vv.10–12). In addition God granted him what he had not requested—wealth and honor unequaled in his lifetime (v.13).

Solomon’s desire was to be a wise and just shepherd. In granting Solomon “a wise and discerning heart” (lēb ḥākām w^enābôn; v.12), God gave him the ability to judge and rule well. But here also he went beyond Solomon’s request and opened his understanding in areas beyond those having to do with good administration. First Kings 4:29–34 and 10:1–25 sum up his fame and the vast extent of his insight and learning.

14 God’s blessing is not automatic. It would depend on Solomon’s walk before God. This point comes up frequently in these chapters. God’s faithfulness to the Davidic covenant remained fixed; but if Solomon wished to enjoy God’s fullest blessing, he would have to walk in accordance with God’s will.

15 When Solomon awoke, aware that God had spoken to him in a dream, he returned to Jerusalem and brought burnt offerings and fellowship offerings. By so doing Solomon was expressing his thanks for God’s goodness. He brought all his officials together for a feast so that they also might rejoice in thanksgiving at this renewed manifestation of God’s grace toward Israel and the house of David.

NOTES

15 Many interpreters take at least part of this verse—“He returned to Jerusalem, stood before the ark of the Lord’s covenant”—to be a later addition, either to emphasize the primacy of Jerusalem (Montgomery) or to “redeem the orthodox reputation of the builder of the Temple” (Gray, 126–27). This view is not based on objective evidence and is typical of many similar efforts in various places to distinguish between historical fact and Deuteronomistic insertions (i.e., DeVries, Jones). There is a considerable lack of consistency in the identification of these so-called later insertions because of the subjective nature of these views.

W. S. LaSor (NBC, 327) questions the presence of the ark in Jerusalem at this time, but there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of the text (cf. K. A. Kitchen, “Ark” [NBD, s.v.]; P. Feinberg, “Tabernacle” [Wycliffe Bible Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1975), 1653–54]; and W. Lotz et al., “Ark of the Covenant” [ISBE rev., 1:294]).

4. Solomon’s Wisdom Demonstrated—Public Approval (3:16–28)

16Now two prostitutes came to the king and stood before him. 17One of them said, “My lord, this woman and I live in the same house. I had a baby while she was there with me. 18The third day after my child was born, this woman also had a baby. We were alone; there was no one in the house but the two of us.

19“During the night this woman’s son died because she lay on him. 20So she got up in the middle of the night and took my son from my side while I your servant was asleep. She put him by her breast and put her dead son by my breast. 21The next morning, I got up to nurse my son—and he was dead! But when I looked at him closely in the morning light, I saw that it wasn’t the son I had borne.”

22The other woman said, “No! The living one is my son; the dead one is yours.”

But the first one insisted, “No! The dead one is yours; the living one is mine.” And so they argued before the king.

23The king said, “This one says, ‘My son is alive and your son is dead,’ while that one says, ‘No! Your son is dead and mine is alive.’”

24Then the king said, “Bring me a sword.” So they brought a sword for the king. 25He then gave an order: “Cut the living child in two and give half to one and half to the other.”

26The woman whose son was alive was filled with compassion for her son and said to the king, “Please, my lord, give her the living baby! Don’t kill him!”

But the other said, “Neither I nor you shall have him. Cut him in two!”

27Then the king gave his ruling: “Give the living baby to the first woman. Do not kill him; she is his mother.”

28When all Israel heard the verdict the king had given, they held the king in awe, because they saw that he had wisdom from God to administer justice.

COMMENTARY

16–28 The incident of the smothered baby is given to illustrate the unusual sagacity of Solomon. Here was a case where there were no witnesses, so it was impossible to prove by conventional means which of the litigants had a just case. Solomon displayed his extraordinary insight into human nature as well as shocking boldness of action in exposing fraud.

The mother of the dead baby wanted a baby of her own. This desire for a baby to mother was stronger than her grief and love for her dead baby. In trying to attach to herself the other woman’s baby, she was motivated equally strongly by her envy of the other woman, whose baby was still alive. It was this underlying motive that was the target of Solomon’s startling edict: “Cut the living child in two” (v.25). Thus the Gordian knot was cut and true justice was done.

Solomon’s verdict and the way it was achieved spread like wildfire, and the people held him in great awe. Here was clear evidence to an unusual degree of a God-given ability to rule with great discernment.

C. The Glories of Solomon’s Reign (4:1–34 [4:1–5:14])

OVERVIEW

The description of the glories of Solomon’s reign is parallel to that recorded in 9:26–10:29. Both descriptions bracket the construction of the temple. They are a fulfillment of 2 Samuel 7:14–15, namely, that God would richly bless the son of David on the condition that he would remain faithful to his God.

1. The Organization of His Kingdom: His Officials (4:1–19)

1So King Solomon ruled over all Israel. 2And these were his chief officials:

Azariah son of Zadok—the priest;

3Elihoreph and Ahijah, sons of Shisha—secretaries;

Jehoshaphat son of Ahilud—recorder;

4Benaiah son of Jehoiada—commander in chief;

Zadok and Abiathar—priests;

5Azariah son of Nathan—in charge of the district officers;

Zabud son of Nathan—a priest and personal adviser to the king;

6Ahishar—in charge of the palace;

Adoniram son of Abda—in charge of forced labor.

7Solomon also had twelve district governors over all Israel, who supplied provisions for the king and the royal household. Each one had to provide supplies for one month in the year. 8These are their names:

Ben-Hur—in the hill country of Ephraim;

9Ben-Deker—in Makaz, Shaalbim, Beth Shemesh and Elon Bethhanan;

10Ben-Hesed—in Arubboth (Socoh and all the land of Hepher were his);

11Ben-Abinadab—in Naphoth Dor (he was married to Taphath daughter of Solomon);

12Baana son of Ahilud—in Taanach and Megiddo, and in all of Beth Shan next to Zarethan below Jezreel, from Beth Shan to Abel Meholah across to Jokmeam;

13Ben-Geber—in Ramoth Gilead (the settlements of Jair son of Manasseh in Gilead were his, as well as the district of Argob in Bashan and its sixty large walled cities with bronze gate bars);

14Ahinadab son of Iddo—in Mahanaim;

15Ahimaaz—in Naphtali (he had married Basemath daughter of Solomon);

16Baana son of Hushai—in Asher and in Aloth;

17Jehoshaphat son of Paruah—in Issachar;

18Shimei son of Ela—in Benjamin;

19Geber son of Uri—in Gilead (the country of Sihon king of the Amorites and the country of Og king of Bashan). He was the only governor over the district.

COMMENTARY

1 This verse picks up the theme from 2:46b that the kingdom was now firmly established in Solomon’s hand. After showing the threefold manner in which Solomon’s reign was confirmed (ch. 3), the narrative now begins to relate Solomon’s acts as king.

2a We find here an indication of the organizational development of the kingdom under Solomon. There had already been considerable changes made in Israel during the reigns of the previous two kings. Under Saul the loose confederacy of twelve tribes began to be solidified into a kingdom, but his style of government seems to have been relatively modest and simple. There was no great central bureaucracy and no lavish court, and there is no record of any formal system of taxation.

David developed a kingdom in a truer sense, and he had far greater and more lasting success in defeating Israel’s enemies. By the time he died, he had established a great and powerful empire by extending Israel’s borders and exercising control over vassal states from the Gulf of Aqaba and the River of Egypt to the northwestern part of the Euphrates. He captured Jerusalem from the Jebusites and made it a strong and permanent capital. David seems to have had some system of internal taxation, and he certainly received tribute from his various vassal states.

Solomon inherited a stable kingdom. He did not expand the empire but did establish a well-organized and strong central government that was much stronger than ever before. He developed a system of taxation and conscript labor to support his great building projects, the foremost being the temple and palace.

The narrator gives us a picture of the organization of the kingdom in vv.2–19. Verses 2–6 list his chief administrators, vv.7–19 his district governors.

2b–6 Various suggestions have been made with regard to Azariah and the office he held. He is often considered to be the son of Zadok (Jones, 134; House, 114), but it would seem from 1 Chronicles 6:8–9 that he was Zadok’s grandson. He then became high priest after the death or incapacitation of Zadok. (The designation “son” for “grandson” is common OT usage.) Ahimaaz, Azariah’s father, had apparently died or for some reason could not serve. Since Zadok was surely already elderly at the beginning of Solomon’s reign, it would not have been long before Azariah replaced him. The expression “the priest” is a common way of designating the high priest (de Vaux, 378; see Notes for alternative suggestions).

The two “secretaries” (sōp^erîm) served as private secretaries as well as secretaries of state. Their father had served in the same office under David. De Vaux, 131, states that the secretary played a considerable part in public affairs and ranked just below the master of the palace. Jones, 137, suggests that one might have been in charge of internal affairs while the other was responsible for international relations.

The “recorder” (mazkîr) was also a high official. De Vaux, 132, calls him the “royal herald.” The Hebrew literally means “the one who calls, names, reminds, reports.” He was in charge of palace ceremonies, the chief of protocol. He reported public needs to the king and in turn was the king’s spokesman (DeVries, 69).

Benaiah, formerly commander of David’s special guard, now became the “commander-in-chief” of all the armies.

Zadok, being elderly at Solomon’s succession to the throne, probably did not serve long under Solomon. Abiathar was almost immediately deposed, but he would still have continued to carry the honorary title.

Azariah son of Nathan was in charge of the twelve district governors named in vv.7–19.

Zabud was another son of Nathan. His function as priest may have been as a kind of royal chaplain assisting the king in the exercise of his spiritual concerns. Zabud was also called the rē ʿeh of David. This seems to have been a title of honor and distinction and indicated one who was a close and trusted personal adviser. Hushai was so designated (2Sa 15:37, trans. “friend”).

Ahishar was “in charge of the palace.” De Vaux, 129–31, calls him the “master of the palace.” Under Solomon Ahishar’s functions were apparently restricted to that of chief steward of the palace, but his office gradually gained in importance until it was comparable to the office of the Egyptian vizier, the first minister of state and one empowered to speak for the king. A good example of the importance this office took on is found in Isaiah 22:15–24.

Adoniram was in charge of the forced labor, or corvée. This system was widely practiced in the ancient Near East as a means of carrying out public building projects. Samuel (1Sa 8:12–17) warned that this development would be one of the evils of instituting a monarchy. Its extensive use by Solomon, even though there were lighter demands made on Israelites than on foreign subjects and vassals, eventually created great bitterness and dissatisfaction. This introduction of the corvée was one of the major reasons given by the ten northern tribes for their secession from the kingdom (1Ki 12:4).

7–19 The responsibility of these governors was to provide revenue for Solomon’s government and his projects. Each of the twelve had the responsibility for the revenue for one month out of the year. The twelve divisions coincided only in part with the old tribal divisions. In only six instances are tribal names mentioned.

The twelve officers were under the general supervision of Azariah (v.5). De Vaux, 135, holds that though the raising of revenue was the avowed object of this system of district governors, these men held wider responsibilities in the administration of area affairs.

Keil, 46, suggests that the order of the districts is most likely the order in which supplies were to be sent. The territory of Judah is not explicitly mentioned. De Vaux, 135ff., and DeVries, 72, suggest that v.19b should be translated “there was one governor over the land.” “The land” would refer to Judah, which had an unnamed governor, perhaps because he was part of the court itself (i.e., perhaps the Azariah of v.5). This view (rejected by Jones, 145, but accepted in the NRSV) is based on the Assyrian custom of referring to the central province of the empire as mātu, “the land.” The problem with this interpretation is that there would then be thirteen districts instead of the twelve required by v.7.

The rendering of the NIV, NASB, and KJV of v.19—“he [i.e., Geber] was the only governor over the district”—reflects the interpretation that, despite the size of the district governed by Geber, there was only one governor. It would appear that Judah received special privileges, which would tend to foster resentment on the part of the other tribes.

NOTES

2–3 Several views differing from that given in the commentary follow.

(1) The description “priest” refers to Zadok, not to Azariah (so Vul., Syr., KJV). However, to make the sentence say, “Azariah, son of Zadok the priest, (and) Elihoreph and Ahaziah—secretaries” is contrary to the structure of the context: “x son of y—(office).”

(2) The term (kōhēn, “priest”) here refers to a secular office, namely “minister,” “privy counselor”; (Keil, 44–45; Karl C. W. F Bahr, The Books of the Kings [New York: Scribner, Armstrong, 1872], 47; Edersheim, 5:67 n.l.). This view is based chiefly on 2 Samuel 8:18, where David’s sons were “royal advisers” (NIV), “chief rulers” (KJV), “chief ministers” (NASB). Kōhēn is regularly translated “priest,” and BDB and HALOT so understand it. The JB, NEB, NRSV, and NASB also translate “priest” here. S. R. Driver (Notes on the Hebrew Text and Topography of the Books of Samuel [Oxford: Clarendon, 1913], 284–85) maintains that the word must be translated “priest,” that there is “no trace of any secular office” here.

Seemingly supporting Keil’s contention is the fact that the parallel passage in 1 Chronicles 18:17 designates David’s sons as “chief officials at the king’s side.” Notice also that the LXX translates 2 Samuel 8:18 αὐλάρχαι (“chiefs of the court”). The latter passage does afford some difficulty if translated as “priest”; and just in what way David’s sons could have functioned as priests is unclear, though de Vaux, 361, cites examples of non-Levites, such as Samuel, who performed certain priestly functions.

(3) Montgomery (112–16; followed by the NEB) emends the text so that the “Elihoreph” of v.3 reads ʿal-haḥōrep (“over the autumn”), referring to the beginning of the year. He holds that this expression has reference to the Assyrian limmu official by whom the year was designated. There are no valid grounds for such an emendation, which requires yet another to support it: the plural “sons of Shishu” would have to be emended to the singular. Furthermore, it would leave an awkward conjunction “and” before Ahijah—one that would not fit the structural pattern of the rest of the passage. Many writers take the view adopted in the exposition but combine it with the view that the mention of Zadok and Abiathar as priests ought to be deleted (cf. de Vaux, 8; E. W. Heaton, Solomon’s New Men [New York: Pica, 1974], 50, 184 n. 19).

(4) DeVries, 69, suggests that Azariah is the royal chaplain.

(5) Shisha is listed as David’s secretary in 2 Samuel 8:17 (where he is known as “Seraiah”) and in 1 Chronicles 18:16 (where he is known as “Shavsha”; see ISBE [rev.], 4:455).

19 Most Bible atlases describe these twelve divisions, though the exact boundaries are difficult to determine because of the brief description given here. Apart from the discussion of the inclusion or exclusion of Judah, the chief difficulty is in the question of the relationship of v.19 to v.13. The difficulty is compounded by the fact that the LXX (which has a different verse order in vv.16–19) reads “Gad” instead of “Gilead.” Most seem to adopt this rendering, locate Geber’s territory in the southernmost portion of the Transjordanian territories, and label the territory of Reuben as now belonging to Gad. B. Beitzel (Moody Atlas of the Bible [Chicago: Moody Press, 1985], map 49) locates this territory similarly but retains the name “Reuben” for this territory. In either case the mention of the territories of Sihon and Og is taken to be a general reference to the territories conquered by Moses in Transjordan.

2. His Royal Splendor (4:20–28 [4:20–5:8])

OVERVIEW

These verses are mindful of the Abrahamic covenant and give testimony to God’s faithfulness in carrying out his promises. The growth of the nation, numerically and territorially, the prosperity of the people, and their happiness all attest to the blessing of God. The rules of David and Solomon in their broad outlines and at their highest points combine to form a picture of Christ’s future victories and reign. David in his passionate love for the Lord, in his victories over the enemies of God’s people, and in his establishment of a great kingdom is a type of the coming Messiah. Solomon also is a type, but in a different way—in his wisdom and reign of peace.

20The people of Judah and Israel were as numerous as the sand on the seashore; they ate, they drank and they were happy. 21And Solomon ruled over all the kingdoms from the River to the land of the Philistines, as far as the border of Egypt. These countries brought tribute and were Solomon’s subjects all his life.

22Solomon’s daily provisions were thirty cors of fine flour and sixty cors of meal, 23ten head of stall-fed cattle, twenty of pasture-fed cattle and a hundred sheep and goats, as well as deer, gazelles, roebucks and choice fowl. 24For he ruled over all the kingdoms west of the River, from Tiphsah to Gaza, and had peace on all sides. 25During Solomon’s lifetime Judah and Israel, from Dan to Beersheba, lived in safety, each man under his own vine and fig tree.

26Solomon had four thousand stalls for chariot horses, and twelve thousand horses.

27The district officers, each in his month, supplied provisions for King Solomon and all who came to the king’s table. They saw to it that nothing was lacking. 28They also brought to the proper place their quotas of barley and straw for the chariot horses and the other horses.

COMMENTARY

20–21[4:20–5:1] The countries David had conquered remained subject to Solomon and brought him tribute throughout his reign. This was certainly a mark of God’s blessing. The usual experience of ancient empire builders was that when the old king died, the subject nations would withhold tribute and challenge the new king in mounting a rebellion, thus necessitating repeated punitive expeditions by the new king to reinforce the former king’s terms and to prove the ability of the new king to enforce his will. Solomon did not have this problem. God granted him a peaceful reign in which he could focus his energies on the temple and other building projects, as well as on administrative matters and on the building up of extensive and expanding foreign trade. Verses 29–34 attest to achievements that were beyond the normal province of rulers.

4:22–28[5:2–8] This passage gives an indication of the size and splendor of the court of Solomon. This magnificent court, as well as the fabled wisdom of Solomon, stirred great interest throughout the surrounding world (cf. v.34; 10:1–9). The provisions noted here were daily requirements.

The “cor” was a large measure of capacity. It was equivalent to the ḥōmer (“a donkey load”). Estimates vary considerably as to the exact amount involved and range from 48 gallons to 100 gallons. The daily requirement of fine flour amounted to between 150 and 280 bushels, that of coarse flour or meal, between 300 and 560 bushels. Jones, 146–47, suggests that the number of people who could be fed by this amount of food would amount to anywhere between 14,000 and 32,000 persons. He and others consider these quantities to be exaggerated due to a later attempt to glorify Solomon. Others, however, such as DeVries, 73, more plausibly consider that the amounts are “entirely believable, and (that) there is no reason to doubt that its details are factual.” It may well be that the food supported those stationed in the various garrisons as well as those connected with the palace itself.

In addition to the large numbers of domesticated animals, game animals were also brought in. The exact identity of the “choice fowl” (barbûr) is not clear. Gray, 143, suggests geese as a possibility, while G. R. Driver (cited in Gray, 143) suggests “young hens,” and KB a type of cuckoo.

Solomon’s kingdom was a peaceful and prosperous one (v.24). With control over all the kingdoms west of the Euphrates, Solomon was able to provide peace and security for his people. The statement that “each man [sat] under his own vine and fig tree” (v.25) speaks of undisturbed prosperity, and this became a favorite catch phrase used by the prophets to point to the ideal conditions prevailing in Messiah’s kingdom (Mic 4:4; Zec 3:10). The fact that a man could enjoy the fruit of the vine and the fig tree meant that the people were able to develop the land without the disruption of war. Apparently, as well, the crop yields were abundant because of God’s blessing.

The reading “four thousand” reflects the parallel passage in 2 Chronicles 9:25 and some Greek MSS. The MT reads “forty thousand” and is considered an old copying error. (Because of early systems of numerical abbreviation, transmission errors with numbers were more likely than in other portions of the text.) Keil, 53, holds that the fourteen hundred chariots ascribed to Solomon’s court would make four thousand a suitable figure, with two horses per chariot and one in reserve.

The twelve thousand horses (pārāšîm) may also indicate horsemen (so the LXX, NRSV, and NASB, with KB showing that either meaning is possible).

3. His Superior Wisdom (4:29–34 [5:9–14])

OVERVIEW

The one attribute most characteristic of Solomon is wisdom. Interest in wisdom (ḥokmâ) was widespread in the ancient world. In the Gentile world wisdom was primarily associated with the ability to be successful in a given activity or profession. It was not a speculative discipline but intensely practical. It pertained to all walks of life: priests (in connection with well-performed ritual), magicians (in regard to skill in the practice of their arts), craftsmen of all sorts (with respect to skillful workmanship), and administrators (regarding good management). It did not usually deal with pure moral values. When it was associated with religious activity, its concern had to do with ritual and magical skills.

In the OT ḥokmâ is at times used in the broad sense of skill in craftsmanship or administration. An example exists in Exodus 31:3, in which the two craftsmen appointed to make the tabernacle were given wisdom (NIV, “skill”) in carrying out their work. This kind of practical wisdom is more commonly applied to life as a whole—the art of being successful, that is, how best to make one’s way through life (as reflected in Proverbs). Wise men were those who had unusual insight into human nature and in the problems of life in general. Thus they were sought as advisers to kings and rulers. At the very heart, however, of the concept of wisdom in the OT lies the recognition that God is the author and end of life and that a meaningful or successful life is one that has its focus in God. This finds typical expression in the statement of Job 28:28: “The fear of the Lord—that is wisdom.” He who fears the Lord receives wisdom from him, that is, the ability to see things from God’s perspective. Thus true wisdom gives discernment in spiritual and moral matters. It also enables human beings to discriminate between that which is helpful and that which is harmful. Every aspect of human endeavor is included: the spiritual, intellectual, secular, and practical. It covers our relationship to God as well as our his relationship to other people.

29God gave Solomon wisdom and very great insight, and a breadth of understanding as measureless as the sand on the seashore. 30Solomon’s wisdom was greater than the wisdom of all the men of the East, and greater than all the wisdom of Egypt. 31He was wiser than any other man, including Ethan the Ezrahite—wiser than Heman, Calcol and Darda, the sons of Mahol. And his fame spread to all the surrounding nations. 32He spoke three thousand proverbs and his songs numbered a thousand and five. 33He described plant life, from the cedar of Lebanon to the hyssop that grows out of walls. He also taught about animals and birds, reptiles and fish. 34Men of all nations came to listen to Solomon’s wisdom, sent by all the kings of the world, who had heard of his wisdom.

COMMENTARY

29–34[5:9–14] The expression “breadth of understanding” refers to a comprehensive understanding and is illustrated by the numerous areas of knowledge in which Solomon was at home (vv.32–33). Egypt and Mesopotamia were noted for their wise men and for the great body of literature they produced. These areas were regarded as major seats of learning and culture, yet Solomon’s wisdom and fame exceeded those of the various noted wise men of the nations surrounding Israel.

Solomon’s wisdom was recognized to be greater than that of any other man. He is compared in particular with four men noted for their wisdom as expressed in proverbs and songs. The names “Ethan” and “Heman,” both Ezrahites, occur in the titles of Psalms 89 and 88, respectively. “Calcol” and “Darda,” apart from their appearance with “Ethan” and “Heman” in the genealogical list in 1 Chronicles 2:6, are otherwise unknown. “Mahol” is treated in most translations as a proper name. It may be, however, that the expression “sons of Mahol” is a designation of membership in a guild or profession. “Singers” (māḥôl) is literally “dance,” but sacred dance and song were closely related.

Solomon was skilled and learned in many areas. He was an astute observer of life and nature. He seems to have had interest in scientific inquiry. Beyond his interest in the realm of nature, however, he was skilled in the interpretation of proverbs and riddles and also in their composition. Many of his proverbs are recorded for us in Scripture. The fact of his later defection is a standing reminder of the importance of the personal application of knowledge.

The name “Solomon” soon became synonymous with a superior wisdom, so much so that kings of distant nations sent representatives to Jerusalem—out of more than simple curiosity. It was a mark of respect and perhaps in many instances a desire to profit from Solomon’s wisdom and learning. The account in ch. 10 of the visit of the Queen of Sheba provides a concrete example of this desire and also helps to draw attention to the symmetry of the Solomonic narrative as it is built around the construction of the temple.

NOTES

30[5:10] Gray, 146, notes that qedem may denote time as well as place, so that (kol-b^enê-qedem, “all the men of the East”) might be translated “all the men of old” (i.e., the ancients). This understanding is unlikely, however, in view of the fact that the other comparison is geographical. Some interpreters think that not Mesopotamia but Edom is meant, since it was the home of Job’s comforters.

31[5:11] The relationship between the four wise men named here and those listed in 1 Chronicles 2:6 as sons of Zerah of the tribe of Judah is unclear. Some scholars (e.g., J. B. Payne, “1 Chronicles,” EBC, 4:334, following K&D), suggest that the mention of these names in the Chronicles passage does not indicate direct lineal descent but later descendants. Others (e.g., Jones, 149), suggest the possibility that the word Ezrahite may not be intended to be a patronymic but a word meaning “native”) i.e., one of those who lived in the land before the conquest. The names “Heman” and “Ethan” appear in 1 Chronicles 15:17, 19 among the Levitical singers of the family of Korah, thus making the connection to 1 Chronicles 2:6 dubious. If the Ethan and Heman of the Psalm titles are the same men as those named here, then the narrator would obviously be referring to people living after Solomon’s time, since Psalm 89 is a Psalm written in times when the kingdom of Judah was at a low ebb. The narrator invokes the Davidic covenant in praying for a revival of the kingdom. See also Marvin E. Tate (Psalms 51–100 [WBC 20; Dallas: Word, 1990], 395).

D. Preparations for the Building of the Temple (5:1–18 [15–32])

OVERVIEW

The section 5:1–9:9 comprises the central and most important part of the Solomonic history, the construction of the temple. Here Solomon is able to accomplish what David had wanted to do; that accomplishment fulfills God’s promise to David that his son would carry out the desire of David’s heart. The rest of the narrative is built around this portion in concentric symmetry, as pointed out in the Introduction.

1. Solomon’s League with Hiram of Tyre (5:1–12 [15–26])

OVERVIEW

After he had firmly established himself and his administration, Solomon began laying the groundwork for the carrying out of what was the major achievement of his reign—the building of the temple and palace complexes. The planning and oversight of the construction program of a project of such magnitude required considerable managerial skill, and Solomon demonstrated here again the unusual gifts granted to him by God. Assyrian and Babylonian kings prided themselves in large building projects that they considered to be monuments to their wisdom, power, and glory (e.g., Nebuchadnezzar in Da 4:30).

The fact that Solomon’s other building projects—his palace, a residence for Pharaoh’s daughter, a hall of justice—are mentioned more or less in passing, while the matters concerning the temple receive such extensive treatment, indicate the importance of this project in the author’s mind. This is history “with God at its core” (House, 121).

1When Hiram king of Tyre heard that Solomon had been anointed king to succeed his father David, he sent his envoys to Solomon, because he had always been on friendly terms with David. 2Solomon sent back this message to Hiram:

3“You know that because of the wars waged against my father David from all sides, he could not build a temple for the Name of the LORD his God until the LORD put his enemies under his feet. 4But now the LORD my God has given me rest on every side, and there is no adversary or disaster. 5I intend, therefore, to build a temple for the Name of the LORD my God, as the LORD told my father David, when he said, ‘Your son whom I will put on the throne in your place will build the temple for my Name.’

6“So give orders that cedars of Lebanon be cut for me. My men will work with yours, and I will pay you for your men whatever wages you set. You know that we have no one so skilled in felling timber as the Sidonians.”

7When Hiram heard Solomon’s message, he was greatly pleased and said, “Praise be to the LORD today, for he has given David a wise son to rule over this great nation.”

8So Hiram sent word to Solomon:

“I have received the message you sent me and will do all you want in providing the cedar and pine logs. 9My men will haul them down from Lebanon to the sea, and I will float them in rafts by sea to the place you specify. There I will separate them and you can take them away. And you are to grant my wish by providing food for my royal household.”

10In this way Hiram kept Solomon supplied with all the cedar and pine logs he wanted, 11and Solomon gave Hiram twenty thousand cors of wheat as food for his household, in addition to twenty thousand baths of pressed olive oil. Solomon continued to do this for Hiram year after year. 12The LORD gave Solomon wisdom, just as he had promised him. There were peaceful relations between Hiram and Solomon, and the two of them made a treaty.

COMMENTARY

1[15] Hiram of Tyre, who had made peace with David and was a good friend, now sent an embassy to extend his best wishes to Solomon on his accession to the throne. Here is another example of the benefits accruing to Solomon because of his father David. The latter had been on good terms with Hiram, who now offered Solomon a continuation of friendly relations. The expression Hiram “had always been on friendly terms with David” is literally “Hiram had always loved David.” This is correctly understood by most interpreters as an expression of friendly covenantal relations. Some suggest that there may well have been much more here than simply covenantal terminology, that there was genuine friendship and love between the two monarchs.

2[16] Solomon responded in kind and in a preliminary to a trade agreement disclosed to Hiram his intentions with regard to the building project.

3[17] “You know” is a good indication that Hiram’s relationship to David was more than one of peaceful coexistence or even of healthy commercial relations. David had let Hiram know what his intentions had been in regard to the building of the temple.

The building of the temple had been a matter very much on David’s heart (2Sa 7:1–17; 1Ch 17:1–15). It is one of the outstanding examples of the mentality of this “man after God’s own heart.” He loved God with all his being and sincerely wanted to honor him. He felt it to be inappropriate that he should live in a fine palace when God’s “house” was in reality a tent. Even after he was told that he would not be allowed to build the temple (and was given instead the great promise of the Davidic covenant), he did all he could in the planning and preparation for the temple (1Ch 22; 29) and gave Solomon as much help as possible.

4–5[18–19] God firmly established Solomon in the kingdom. There was peace within the kingdom, and there were no threats from the outside. Solomon was prepared to carry out his father’s wishes. David’s injunctions to Solomon with regard to the temple are recorded in 1 Chronicles 22:11–16; 28:9–21. Solomon must surely have caught something of David’s enthusiasm for this project.

Solomon was aware of his great responsibility both toward God and toward his father, as is made clear by his quoting God’s word to David (v.5b). Solomon’s speech also evidences his conviction that God would enable him to complete the task: “Your son . . . will build the temple for my Name.”

6[20] Solomon now asked Hiram for a trade agreement similar to the one that had existed between David and Hiram, but on a much larger scale (cf. 2Sa 5:11; 1Ch 22:4). The cedars of Lebanon were famed for their beauty and were greatly desired by the rulers of Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Syro-Palestine for their building projects. Hiram’s work force, skilled in felling and transporting timber, would be supplemented by labor sent by Solomon. The payment for goods and services was to be set by Hiram.

7–9[21–23] On receiving Solomon’s message, Hiram responded favorably. Solomon’s request would initiate a major trade agreement beneficial to both parties. He agreed to Solomon’s proposal and stated that he would be responsible for shipping the timbers by log rafts to the port that Solomon designated. From that point they would be Solomon’s responsibility. In return Solomon was to provide Hiram with provisions for his court.

Though Hiram offered to have his own men do the cutting and shipping without the proffered assistance of Solomon’s men, in actual fact Solomon did send men to Lebanon to help with the cutting (v.14).

10–11[24–25] There would be an ample supply of timber for Solomon. In return he provided Hiram with wheat and olive oil, commodities not found in abundance in mountainous Phoenicia, whose economy was primarily based on an extensive shipping trade and export of timber.

12[26] The quality of wisdom is once again attributed to Solomon, seen here as a fulfillment of God’s promise. The aspect of wisdom referred to here is that of managerial and diplomatic prowess.

NOTES

1[15] “[‘Hiram’] is an abbreviation for ‘Ahiram,’ attested for a king of Byblos ca. 1200 B.C.” (DeVries, 81).

3[17] Hiram had already assisted David in supplying for him many of the materials he was stockpiling for the future temple (1Ch 22:4). For more on the mutual benefits of the pact between Israel and Tyre, see B. Peckam, “Israel and Phoenicia,” in Magnalia Dei: The Mighty Acts of God (ed. F. M. Cross, W. E. Lemke, and P. D. Miller Jr.; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1976), 231–33.

5[19] On the temple (lit., “house”), see comment on 6:1. The “Name” of God signifies “the active presence in the fullness of (his) revealed character” (Motyer, NBD, 863; cf. W. Kaiser, “Name,” ZPEB, 4:360–66). This expression refers to the fact that God saw fit to identify himself openly and actively with the temple and with Israel.

6[20] “So (give orders)” is literally “so now (give orders)” (, w^eʿattâ). This Hebrew expression is used to introduce the main point of the letter (Jones, 155; DeVries, 80). The latter also points out that the (w^eʿattâ) of v.4 has the rarer temporal use rather than the more common situational one. In the form in which the letter is given in 2 Chronicles 2, the same expression is used in v.7[6] (translated in the NIV as “[Send me, therefore . . .”]). It is of interest to note that in the Aramaic correspondence in Ezra 4–6 there is a corresponding usage, with (k^eʿan) “now” (Ezr 4:13–14; 5:17; 6:6).

The fact that Hiram, king of Tyre, was asked to supply timber and skilled lumbermen indicates that his authority and sphere of influence extended well beyond Tyre (where no cedars grew). Notice that the lumbermen Hiram would use are called “Sidonians,” thus indicating Tyrian influence over Sidon (though it is possible that the name “Sidonian” may have been used generally to designate people of what was later called “Phoenicia,” since Sidon was the oldest Phoenician city).

7[5:21] DeVries, 82, finds that the expression “this great people” (NIV, “great nation”) is unthinkable from the mouth of Hiram and must therefore be a mark of the so-called Deuteronomist (see Introduction). This expression is indeed found in Deuteronomy 4:6–8; in vv.6 and 7 (ʿam) is used (as in our passage here). In v.8 (gôy) is used, as is also the case in Genesis and Exodus in the restatements of the Abrahamic covenant). However, at this time in history Israel was clearly the more powerful of the two nations—a fact Hiram acknowledged.

As for Hiram’s expression of praise to the Lord, Jones, 156, comments that it “need not cause difficulty, as there are many examples of naming another people’s deity, both in the Bible (Jdg. 11:21; 2 Kg. 18:25ff) and outside (cf. the Amarna letters and the Moabite Stone).” In Ezra 1:2 Cyrus gives credit for his successes to “the LORD, the God of heaven.” (Though the comment might sound as though Cyrus believed in Yahweh, it is known that the king rendered similar obeisance to the gods of other conquered nations.)

8–9[22–23] Montgomery, 135, cites an inscription of Nebuchadnezzar’s found in Lebanon: “What no former king had accomplished, I cleaved high mountains, limestone I broke off, I opened. I cut a road for the cedars, and before Marduk my king (I brought) massive, tall, strong cedars, of wonderful beauty, whose dark appearance was impressive, the mighty product of the Lebanon.” In a special purchase of wood for Egypt, Wen-Amon (ca. 1000 BC) relates how three hundred men and three hundred oxen were sent to fell the trees, which lay in the forest over the winter; then in the “third month of summer they were dragged to the shore” (ibid.).

11[25] On the unit of capacity, see Note on 4:22.

2. Solomon’s Labor Force (5:13–18 [27–32])

13King Solomon conscripted laborers from all Israel—thirty thousand men. 14He sent them off to Lebanon in shifts of ten thousand a month, so that they spent one month in Lebanon and two months at home. Adoniram was in charge of the forced labor. 15Solomon had seventy thousand carriers and eighty thousand stonecutters in the hills, 16as well as thirty-three hundred foremen who supervised the project and directed the workmen. 17At the king’s command they removed from the quarry large blocks of quality stone to provide a foundation of dressed stone for the temple. 18The craftsmen of Solomon and Hiram and the men of Gebal cut and prepared the timber and stone for the building of the temple.

COMMENTARY

5:13–14[27–28] The following verses give information on the labor force Solomon raised to carry out the great task of gathering materials and then building the temple. The thirty thousand conscripted laborers were taken from all the tribes of Israel and sent in shifts of ten thousand to help the Phoenicians in the felling and transporting of the timbers from Lebanon. Each shift stayed one month at a time, so that each man worked for Solomon four months per year. The other eight months he worked on his own fields. This method of providing labor (called corvée) for large public projects was common in the ancient world but a fairly recent innovation in Israel. In the list of David’s officials, Adoniram is said to be over the forced labor, thus indicating that David used the corvée system to a limited degree; but nothing further is said about it. Solomon, however, used the system extensively. The more splendid the royal court, the greater the demand on the people.

5:15–16[29–30] The seventy thousand carriers and eighty thousand stonecutters were non-Israelites (2Ch 2:17–18). They constituted a permanent “slave labor force” (1Ki 9:21), with the more onerous tasks to perform. Gray, 150, notes that the verb ḥāṣab, from which the word “stonecutter” is derived, “denotes the splitting of blocks from the living rock rather than the more skilled operation of hewing or dressing (pāsal).” The dressing of the stones was done by Israelite and Phoenician craftsmen. The stone was most likely quarried in Israel, probably much of it in Jerusalem itself. The thirty-three hundred foremen and overseers here were mostly Canaanites, with a smaller group of Israelites acting as higher supervisors.

5:17[31] The “large blocks of quality stone” for the foundation of the temple were squared off so that each stone would fit perfectly. According to 6:7 these large ashlar blocks were cut and squared at the quarry.

5:18[32] Other stones were prepared along with wooden beams by skilled craftsmen, some from Israel but most from Phoenicia. The city Gebal (Byblos) is particularly mentioned as providing a large number of these artisans. Again, according to 6:7, these men performed their craft at a place apart from the building site itself. The logistics required careful planning and measuring, and the system illustrates how well organized the whole program was and how skillfully the work was done.

NOTES

14[28] First Chronicles 29:1–9 describes David’s efforts to gather materials for the temple. Mentioned are gold, silver, bronze, iron, wood, onyx, turquoise, various other gems, and marble. These materials were utilized for the finish work, including plating and overlay work, and for the furniture.

13[27] There is a further description of Solomon’s labor force in 9:15–23. It consisted of conscript laborers (corvée [, mas] here, and [mas-ʿōbēd, “slave labor force”] in 9:21). The former, Israelites, worked for four months per year and were considered free men, whereas the latter constituted a permanent body of forced laborers. Verses 22–23 describe the kind of obligations required of the Israelites. They were chiefly used in the armed services and in skilled and supervisory positions. See also Jones, 158, and House, 125.

16[30] The numbers of supervisors as given here (3,300) and in 9:23 (550) does not seem to agree with the numbers given in 2 Chronicles 2:18 (3,600) and 2 Chronicles 8:10 (250). Keil, 63–64, following Michaelis, suggests a reasonable solution by noting that the two sets of numbers agree when added: Kings—3,300 + 550 = 3,850; Chronicles—3600 + 250 = 3,850. The differences in the figures arise from the fact that the two authors use a “different method of classification”; that is, Chronicles distinguishes the Canaanite overseers (3,600) from the Israelite (250), while Kings distinguishes between classes of overseers (3,300 lower and 550 higher overseers). Of the latter, 250 were Israelites and 300 Canaanites.

E. The Building and Dedication of the Temple (6:1–9:9)

1. The Building of the Temple (6:1–38)

OVERVIEW

Solomon’s major achievement is described in this chapter, an achievement for which he was justly famous. The annals of Mesopotamian kings abound with proud claims of their great building projects, particularly temples to their gods. These projects attested not only to their administrative skills but also to the fact that they had enough wealth and control over their kingdoms that they were able to execute plans that required such vast expenditures of funds and manpower.

The temple is in reality a permanent tabernacle as far as its symbolism and typology are concerned. It is basically the dwelling place of God with his people, but its spiritual and symbolic continuity transcend the structure itself. Whether it be (1) a tent in the wilderness, (2) the splendid, awe-inspiring structure Solomon built, (3) the relatively simple building erected by the returned exiles, (4) the lavish and ornate edifice it became through Herod’s efforts, or (5) its future millennial form, it is the house of God, where God condescends to meet his people. This purpose is seen, for example, in the exchange between David and God in 2 Samuel 7, in which God is described as living among his people in a tent, moving with them from place to place. Later, David’s son would build a house for God’s Name. From God’s perspective there is no essential difference, whether the house be a tent or a splendid structure of stone and cedar.

Perhaps even clearer is Haggai 2:3, 7, 9. Solomon’s temple had been destroyed. Now, seventy years later, a new building had been put up—two different buildings, yet in v.3 both together are referred to as “this house.” Verse 9 also sees one house, with its “latter glory . . . greater than the former” (NASB, versus NIV). God’s house had displayed great glory in Solomon’s day. In Haggai’s time it was physically poor by comparison, but Haggai stated that the time would come when its latter glory would far outshine the former.

When Hebrews 9 compares the earthly sanctuary (v.1) with the perfect, heavenly one (v.11), it is the tabernacle that is discussed in terms of its symbolism and typology. The reason lies in the fact that it is in connection with the tabernacle, for which Moses received specific construction specifications from the Lord, that the proper procedure for sacrifice and worship is given. Since the tabernacle is the forerunner of the temple, the same manner of sacrifice and ritual procedure pertained to both.

Throughout this section the term used for the temple is “house.” There is another term that is used throughout the OT in reference to the temple: hêkāl. This latter term may also designate a palace and is derived from the Sumerian E.Gal (“big house”), used in Mesopotamia in reference to the largest or most important building in a city. When used in Scripture to designate God’s temple, the stress is always on God’s administrative activities, whereas the designation “house” has primary reference to its salvific function. The basic plan of the temple proper was the same as that of the tabernacle, except that the dimensions of the sanctuary were doubled. Notice that according to 1 Chronicles 28:11–12, it was David who drew up the plans for the temple as “the Spirit had put in his mind.”

Critical orthodoxy has held that the tabernacle was an invention of the priestly school writing during or after the exile. In this view, it was the temple of Solomon that was the original model for the tabernacle rather than the reverse (cf., e.g., de Vaux, 314). But F. M. Cross has defended the priority of the tabernacle in a paper delivered at a colloquium held in Jerusalem on March 14, 1977 (reported by Valerie Fargo in “Temples and High Places: A Colloquium,” BA 40 [1977]: 55). Cross holds this view because of similarities in the description of the tabernacle to ancient Canaanite descriptions of the tent of the assembly of the gods. Richard Friedman (“The Tabernacle in the Temple,” BA 40 [1981]: 161–70), a student of Cross, supports the priority of the tabernacle by giving biblical and extrabiblical evidence that it was actually housed in the temple of Solomon. To make the tabernacle a late priestly fabrication is the result of unjustified text-critical assumptions.

a. The outer structure (6:1–14)

1In the four hundred and eightieth year after the Israelites had come out of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, the second month, he began to build the temple of the LORD.

2The temple that King Solomon built for the LORD was sixty cubits long, twenty wide and thirty high. 3The portico at the front of the main hall of the temple extended the width of the temple, that is twenty cubits, and projected ten cubits from the front of the temple. 4He made narrow clerestory windows in the temple. 5Against the walls of the main hall and inner sanctuary he built a structure around the building, in which there were side rooms. 6The lowest floor was five cubits wide, the middle floor six cubits and the third floor seven. He made offset ledges around the outside of the temple so that nothing would be inserted into the temple walls.

7In building the temple, only blocks dressed at the quarry were used, and no hammer, chisel or any other iron tool was heard at the temple site while it was being built.

8The entrance to the lowest floor was on the south side of the temple; a stairway led up to the middle level and from there to the third. 9So he built the temple and completed it, roofing it with beams and cedar planks. 10And he built the side rooms all along the temple. The height of each was five cubits, and they were attached to the temple by beams of cedar.

11The word of the LORD came to Solomon: 12“As for this temple you are building, if you follow my decrees, carry out my regulations and keep all my commands and obey them, I will fulfill through you the promise I gave to David your father. 13And I will live among the Israelites and will not abandon my people Israel.”

14So Solomon built the temple and completed it.

COMMENTARY

1 Solomon began the actual building of the temple in the fourth year of his reign. Since this event is linked to the exodus of Israel from Egypt, this verse is one of the major pieces of internal evidence for the dating of the exodus. Thiele, 205, believes the ending date for the reign of Solomon to be 931/932 BC, thus putting the beginning of his forty-year reign at 971/970, his fourth year at 967/966, and the date of the exodus at 1447/1446.

Wiseman, 1 & 2 Kings, 104, gives numerous examples in pointing out that it was common for Mesopotamian kings to date building projects in relation to some national event. Some of the preceding events antedate the new project by as many as 720 years. To relate the building of the temple to the exodus is not surprising, since it marked the fulfillment of the latter part of Moses’ song of Exodus 15. This song celebrated the power of God in bringing Israel through the Red Sea and concluded (15:17) with the prophetic statement that God would plant his people on the mountain of his inheritance, the place he had appointed for his dwelling, his sanctuary. This event was indeed one to be celebrated, another landmark event in the history of Israel.

2–10 These verses give the general dimensions of the temple. These dimensions are interior measurements and do not include the thickness of the walls. The temple (lit., “house”) is here the main, central structure of the temple complex. Its dimensions were sixty cubits long by twenty wide by thirty high. (The cubit varied somewhat but may for most general purposes be considered approximately eighteen inches in length; see Notes.) It was exactly twice the size of the tabernacle proper.

Many scholars assume that Solomon modeled the temple after existing Canaanite and Syrian tripartite temples, but none have been found that match the measurements of Solomon’s structure (Jones, 162). It has also been suggested that Solomon remodeled an existing Jebusite temple (cf. the reference to the study by Konrad Rupprecht in DeVries, 97). But these views tend to be based on the critical assumption that the tabernacle is a late fiction.

There was a portico (or porch, vestibule—ʾûlām) attached to the front of the “main hall of the temple” (hêkāl habbayit; hêkāl most often refers to a palace or a temple, or, as in this passage, the main room of the temple, distinct from the d^ebîr, “Most Holy Place”). It measured ten by twenty cubits, with its long side going along the breadth of the temple proper.

The description in vv.4–10 includes many technical architectural terms that are no longer perfectly clear today. The “clerestory windows” (ḥallônê š^equpîm) were probably on the side walls above the side chambers (v.5). The exact nature of the windows is not known. Some interpreters have suggested slatted or latticed windows. Others, following the Targums (“open inside and closed outside”) and Aquila (“broad within and narrow without”), suggest windows narrower outside than inside.

Against the outside walls of the temple proper (its main hall and inner sanctuary), Solomon built (vv.5–6) a three-tiered structure divided into an unspecified number of rooms. (Ezekiel’s temple [Eze 41:5–11], which also has three tiers of side rooms, has thirty rooms per level.) Verse 10 gives the height of these rooms as five cubits each. At each level of the side rooms, the thickness of the outside of the temple wall was decreased by one cubit so that the floor beam of the side chamber rested on the resulting offset ledge. Thus the width of each successive story increased by one cubit. By this means the beams had supports without being “inserted” or bonded into the inner temple wall. They were not structurally a part of the temple.

It is not necessary to see at v.7, with Gray, 165, and Jones, 165–66, a concession to the “long-standing taboo in the religion of Israel” against using iron in the construction of the altar (Ex 20:25), since iron was indeed used at the quarries. The biblical text does indicate excellent organization and planning. The erection of the temple could go much faster and with far less confusion by utilizing precut and preformed materials. In addition, the relative quiet would be consistent with the sacredness of the undertaking.

The entrance to the side room (v.8) was on the righthand (south) side, probably in the middle (see Notes). Access to the second and third levels is most often understood to have been by means of a spiral staircase (lûlîm) that led through the middle story to the third floor.

The first part of v.9 is repeated in v.14, the latter being resumptive, continuing on with the main narrative (DeVries, 95). The information given to us between v.9a and v.14 is the record of (1) the completion of the external structure, and (2) God’s message of encouragement to Solomon. Verses 9b–10 record the addition of the roof and the attachment of the side structure. When the narrative begins again in v.14, the following verses relate the finishing of the interior. Verses 11–13 insert the word of encouragement to Solomon after the temple structure had been completed but before the finishing of the interior.

11–13 First Kings 9:2 states that after the dedication of the temple, the Lord appeared to Solomon a second time (the first time having been at Gibeon [1Ki 3]), referring to direct personal appearances of the Lord. In the present passage God evidently spoke to Solomon through a prophet.

These are encouraging words, assuring Solomon of God’s blessing on the building of the temple, which was still in progress. God was indeed with Solomon in this massive undertaking, and he would recognize the temple as his dwelling place among his people. There is the reminder, however, that Solomon, if he wished to continue to experience the blessings of the Davidic covenant (see Notes), must exhibit the faith and obedience of David toward the Word of God. The same holds true for succeeding generations of the people Israel. Thus the temple in all its splendor and ritual is by itself not sufficient. God requires obedient hearts. In this matter alone there stands a great gulf between the faith of Israel and the cultic ritual of the surrounding Gentile nations. The call of God issued through Isaiah (Isa 55) was echoed by generations of godly prophets, and Isaiah 55:3 is pertinent to this passage: “Give ear and come to me. . . . I will make an everlasting covenant with you, my faithful love promised to David.”

14 This verse concludes the description of the exterior structure (see comments at v.9). The following verses describe the work done on the interior.

NOTES

1 The view that the 480 years is not to be taken literally is adopted by a great many scholars, including conservatives. They understand this to represent the passing of twelve generations, calculated at forty years each. Since the actual passing of generations is much less, the figure 480 cannot be used in calculating the actual date of the exodus. Some take this figure to be a literary device “setting the building of the Temple exactly halfway between the Exodus and the Exile” (Jones, 162–63). There is, however, nothing in the context to suggest anything other than a literal understanding. The literalness of the 480 years tends to be supported by the practice of Mesopotamian kings mentioned in the commentary.

The site of the building of the temple is not given here, but 2 Chronicles 3:1 states that it was “on Mount Moriah, where the LORD had appeared to his father David. It was on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite, the place provided by David.” This was also the site of the (aborted) sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham (Ge 22:2). It lay on the rocky platform just to the north of the city of David on the eastern ridge of Jerusalem, “on an eminence appropriate to its character” (Stigers, 622–66).

On the precise location of the temple, see Stigers (ibid.). A. S. Kaufman (“Where the Ancient Temple of Jerusalem Stood,” BAR 9 [1983]: 42) suggests that the temple stood approximately 330 feet to the northwest of the present Dome of the Rock, rather than on the site of the Dome itself, as has been usually assumed. However, more recently Leen Ritmeyer (archaeological architect for a number of excavations in Jerusalem) has argued persuasively that Herod’s temple, and Solomon’s as well, stood over the rock (al-Sakhra) over which the Muslim mosque the Dome of the Rock is built. He positions the ark of the covenant on the rock itself (“Locating the Original Temple Mount,” BAR 18 [1992]: 24–45, 64–65; and “The Ark of the Covenant: Where it Stood in Solomon’s Temple” BAR 22 [1996]: 46–55, 70–73). Still more recently, D. Jacobson (“Sacred Geometry: Unlocking the Secret of the Temple Mount, Part I,” BAR 25 [1999]: 42–53, 62–65; and “Sacred Geometry: Unlocking the Secret of the Temple Mount, Part II,” BAR 25 [1999]: 54–63, 74), using a different methodology, also positions the temple where the Dome of the Rock now stands, but with the difference that it was the middle of the main hall (not the Most Holy Place) of the temple that stood over al-Sakhra.

The month Ziv, the second month, corresponds to our April/May.

2 The cubit is the measure of the distance between the elbow and the tip of the middle finger. Since this length varies somewhat from person to person, the exact length had to be standardized for building projects. Bible dictionaries generally give the length of the common cubit to be seventeen and one-half inches. This measurement has been determined by comparing the length of Hezekiah’s tunnel (1,749 ft.) with the statement in the Siloam inscription that it was 1,200 cubits long (a round figure?), thus resulting in a cubit length of 17.5 inches. There was also a longer cubit in use, estimated to be about 20.5 inches in length. For a detailed discussion of the various lengths of the medium cubit, see Kaufman, “Ancient Temple,” 48–49.

5 The meaning of the word translated “structure”— (yāṣîaʿ, Qere), , yāṣûaʿ (Kethiv)—is somewhat uncertain. The Hebrew (yāṣûaʿ) means “bed, couch.” Thus it has been suggested that the rendering here ought to be “foundation” or “platform.” Ezekiel 41:8 is cited as bolstering this translation, since in that passage there is clearly a supporting platform built for the three levels of side chambers. Keil, 70, suggests “outwork” (lit., “stratum”), “here, the lower building or outwork erected against the rooms mentioned.” Jones, 164–65, after some discussion, agrees that it must refer to a structure built around the temple, a sidewing. The NRSV concurs with the NIV in translating the word as “structure.”

7 The stone that was quarried was white limestone and famous for its beauty (called the “royal stone” by the Arabs). It is reduced to lime when exposed to a hot fire. Thus when the temple burned (2Ki 25:9), it was not only the wood that burned; the stones themselves were reduced to powdered lime.

8 The NIV, with other modern versions (NASB, NEB, JB), follows the LXX in reading “the entrance to the lowest [, hattaḥtōnâ] floor.” This attractive possibility enjoys some strong support in the Targums and a similar passage in Ezekiel 41:7. Yet the MT deserves serious consideration. It reads (hattîkōnâ, “the middle”). “The middle” then refers to the middle of the wing rather than to the middle floor. In this case the word (ṣēlāʿ, “floor”) is not to be understood in the collective sense of “side rooms” but as a single side room. The translation then is, “The entrance was at the middle side chamber on the south wing.” The lower floor is not specifically mentioned because it would be the obvious place for the door. The NKJV, NRSV read “middle.”

The rendering “spiral staircase” for (lûlîm) is suggested by the LXX, Targums, and Vulgate. The remains of such a staircase have been found in a palace of the eighteenth century BC at Achana. Other suggestions have been made such as a series of ladder-like steps, a flying wing, or stairs with landings.

9 Apart from the statement that the roof was constructed of beams and cedar planks, no details are given. Stigers, 5:628, states that the wooden planks formed “a bed on which clay was packed and covered with a pulverized limestone marl, rolled flat, smooth, and hard, providing a cement-like surface which was practically impervious to water.”

10 The use to which these side chambers were put is not mentioned, but they were doubtless intended, at least in part, for storage purposes.

12 “I will fulfill through you” is probably better rendered, “I will fulfill with regard to you my promise that I made with David your father” (cf. also NASB, NEB, JB). There is more involved here than the fulfillment of promise in the completion of the temple. There is also the matter of the conditions on which God could bless Solomon.

b. The inner structure (6:15–35)

15He lined its interior walls with cedar boards, paneling them from the floor of the temple to the ceiling, and covered the floor of the temple with planks of pine. 16He partitioned off twenty cubits at the rear of the temple with cedar boards from floor to ceiling to form within the temple an inner sanctuary, the Most Holy Place. 17The main hall in front of this room was forty cubits long. 18The inside of the temple was cedar, carved with gourds and open flowers. Everything was cedar; no stone was to be seen.

19He prepared the inner sanctuary within the temple to set the ark of the covenant of the LORD there. 20The inner sanctuary was twenty cubits long, twenty wide and twenty high. He overlaid the inside with pure gold, and he also overlaid the altar of cedar. 21Solomon covered the inside of the temple with pure gold, and he extended gold chains across the front of the inner sanctuary, which was overlaid with gold. 22So he overlaid the whole interior with gold. He also overlaid with gold the altar that belonged to the inner sanctuary.

23In the inner sanctuary he made a pair of cherubim of olive wood, each ten cubits high. 24One wing of the first cherub was five cubits long, and the other wing five cubits—ten cubits from wing tip to wing tip. 25The second cherub also measured ten cubits, for the two cherubim were identical in size and shape. 26The height of each cherub was ten cubits. 27He placed the cherubim inside the innermost room of the temple, with their wings spread out. The wing of one cherub touched one wall, while the wing of the other touched the other wall, and their wings touched each other in the middle of the room. 28He overlaid the cherubim with gold.

29On the walls all around the temple, in both the inner and outer rooms, he carved cherubim, palm trees and open flowers. 30He also covered the floors of both the inner and outer rooms of the temple with gold.

31For the entrance of the inner sanctuary he made doors of olive wood with five-sided jambs. 32And on the two olive wood doors he carved cherubim, palm trees and open flowers, and overlaid the cherubim and palm trees with beaten gold. 33In the same way he made four-sided jambs of olive wood for the entrance to the main hall. 34He also made two pine doors, each having two leaves that turned in sockets. 35He carved cherubim, palm trees and open flowers on them and overlaid them with gold hammered evenly over the carvings.

COMMENTARY

15–18 When the exterior structure was complete, Solomon lined the interior walls with cedar planks from floor to ceiling. The floors were also covered with wood, in this case pine or fir. Whatever the exact identity of this wood, it was often used together with cedar. The two were highly regarded and became a symbol of luxuriousness and stateliness. From this and the following verses in this chapter, and in ch. 7, it is quite evident that Solomon spared no expense in building the temple; he used the finest and costliest materials available. His prayer in ch. 8 makes it clear that in doing so Solomon was giving expression to his sincere love for, and devotion to, God. Though God could not be enriched, Solomon was demonstrating in a practical way that nothing but the best is owed to God. This is an abiding principle for believers of all ages and ought to find expression in every area of life.

The inner sanctuary, or “Most Holy Place,” was partitioned off from the main hall by cedar planks (v.16). No stone was visible anywhere in the temple (v.18). Not only was everything lined with cedar, but also the wood paneling was covered with fine, delicate carvings.

19–22 The inner sanctuary (d^ebîr) was the Most Holy Place, or Holy of Holies, because it housed the ark of the covenant, a symbol of the presence of God. First Samuel 4:4 and 2 Samuel 6:2 speak of God as being enthroned between the cherubim. In Exodus 25:21–22 God said that he would meet with Moses there and give to him all the divine commands for the Israelites. The top of the ark could be called the “mercy seat” or “place of propitiation” in view of the annual sprinkling of the blood of atonement by the high priest. It was from between the cherubim that the glory of the Lord began his departure from the temple in Ezekiel 10:4. Thus the ark in the Most Holy Place is the focal point of the temple and its ritual, not as an object of worship or superstitious awe, but as the place where God manifested his presence in communicating with his people. Thus in this and the following verses everything is designed to express the awesome dignity, splendor, and holiness of God’s presence.

The room was a perfect cube, overlaid in its entirety with gold, as was the cedar altar of incense (cf. v.22). This altar was physically placed in the main hall, or Holy Place, directly before the entrance into the Most Holy Place (Ex 30:6); but functionally and symbolically the altar was associated with the Most Holy Place. Thus v.22 notes that it “belonged to the inner sanctuary” (cf. also Heb 9:4). In using this altar, the priest could daily burn incense for the worship of God, who was symbolically enthroned between the cherubim in the inner sanctuary.

Not only the inner sanctuary, but also all the inside walls of the temple were overlaid with gold. The golden chains, stretched across the front of the inner sanctuary, served to strengthen the concept of the inaccessibility of this Most Holy Place.

23–28 Two cherubim made of olive wood and covered with gold were placed in the inner chamber (vv.23, 28). Each had a wingspan of ten cubits (vv.24–26). They were positioned so that they faced the door (2Ch 3:13). Thus their combined wingspan reached from one wall to the other (v.27). (Notice that the two cherubim on the ark faced each other.) These composite figures (cf. Eze 1:4–14) represented the cherubim associated with the throne and government of God (Eze 1:22–28). They also served as the guardians of the way to God (Ge 3:24). The impact on the beholder of these representations of the cherubim would be to impress on that person the awesomeness of God’s holiness. Approaching God is not a light or frivolous matter and must be undertaken in the exact way he has prescribed—through the blood of the sacrifice.

29–35 Doors of olive wood were made for the entry to the inner sanctuary, and larger, double-leaved doors of pine or fir were made for the entry to the main hall. Second Chronicles 3:14 does not mention the doors but does mention the veil that was hung between the two chambers. The jambs for both sets of doors were of olive wood. The doors as well as the walls (vv.20–22), and even the floors, were covered with gold (v.30). Gold was also hammered into the carvings on the door (v.32). The covering of the floors with gold has often been scoffed at as being preposterous; yet it is in keeping with Solomon’s desire to show forth in the temple, as much as humanly possible, the glory of God. It was his testimony to the greatness of God, and indeed the fame of this temple spread far and wide so that honor and glory accrued to God as a result (10:9).

NOTES

20 The fact that the Most Holy Place was twenty cubits high when the Holy Place or main hall was thirty cubits high has occasioned some discussion. The best evidence suggests that the floor level was the same for both rooms and that there was an attic above the Most Holy Place (Stigers, 5:633).

31 The translation “five-sided jambs” expresses the generally current view of a Hebrew phrase that has occasioned some difficulty. (ḥ^amišît) may be rendered “one-fifth” or “five-sided” (HALOT). Gray, 173, suggests that the doorposts together with a gabled lintel, forming a pentagon, may be in view here. Jones, 171–72, noting the appearance of a temple with a five-sided doorway on a coin from Byblos, supports this view.

c. The court (6:36)

36And he built the inner courtyard of three courses of dressed stone and one course of trimmed cedar beams.

COMMENTARY

36 An inner court, called in 2 Chronicles 4:9 the court of the priests, was built with three courses of dressed stone and then one layer of trimmed cedar beams. Ezra 6:4 describes the same construction method. This type of construction is well attested at Ras Shamra, Cnossus, Mycenae, and other ancient cities and gave some protection against earthquakes.

Though not stated here, this court contained the bronze altar and the bronze Sea, described in ch 7.

d. The conclusion (6:37–38)

37The foundation of the temple of the LORD was laid in the fourth year, in the month of Ziv. 38In the eleventh year in the month of Bul, the eighth month, the temple was finished in all its details according to its specifications. He had spent seven years building it.

COMMENTARY

37–38 Seven years were required to complete the temple. An enormous amount of labor and a lavish expenditure of funds were involved. All the plans and specifications of David were carried out. It must have been a moment of great satisfaction to Solomon to see the fulfillment of his father’s dream; and when God acknowledged the temple by filling it with his glory, Solomon’s joy knew no bounds.

2. Solomon’s Other Structures (7:1–12)

OVERVIEW

The narrator gives a brief description of the building of Solomon’s palace and other structures. The temple was included in this complex along with the palace. Both were enclosed within one courtyard (v.12). This was intended to give visual expression to the fact that the king was to act on behalf of God. He himself was to walk in God’s ways and, as shepherd of the people, lead and direct them to God. As such he was a type of Christ, the Son of David, who will rule the earth from Jerusalem and who even now is seated at the right hand of God.

The descriptions of the various parts of the palace are extremely sketchy, so it is difficult to make an accurate reconstruction. No remains of the palace have been found, but the unearthing of two Solomonic “palaces” at Megiddo may furnish some indications of the basic plan. David Ussishkin, 78–105, summarizes the general conclusions that have been drawn from comparative archaeological data. The “palaces” at Megiddo were built on the plan of the bît-ḥilāni, an architectural style in use in northern Syria and southern Anatolia. The term was probably originally used to designate a magnificent style of porticoed entry hall, a long room entered on the broad side through a portico with several pillars. Then it came to include the whole complex of rooms served by this entry hall. The throne room was considerably larger than the entry and was also entered on the broad side.

In addition to these two major halls, there were a number of smaller rooms and also apparently one or more courtyards. There was also at least one upper story. The two Megiddo “palaces” follow this plan, as do four bît-ḥilānis found in the acropolis of Zinjirli (ancient Samal, an Aramean city of northern Syria). These buildings were constructed in the tenth through the eighth centuries BC. Verses 6–9 seem to suggest a similar style of construction. These factors may mean that all the buildings except the Palace of the Forest of Lebanon were part of one massive structure, but this is by no means certain. In any case, the Palace of the Forest of Lebanon was a separate building.

The brief treatment given to this section is further testimony that, however grand and imposing the palace complex was, the temple was Solomon’s most important achievement, and it is this fact that the narrator wishes to stress. Jones, 174, agrees with this assessment, though he attributes the lack of more information on the magnificent features of the palace complex to the work of the Deuteronomist. Chronicles does not mention the palace construction.

1It took Solomon thirteen years, however, to complete the construction of his palace. 2He built the Palace of the Forest of Lebanon a hundred cubits long, fifty wide and thirty high, with four rows of cedar columns supporting trimmed cedar beams. 3It was roofed with cedar above the beams that rested on the columns—forty-five beams, fifteen to a row. 4Its windows were placed high in sets of three, facing each other. 5All the doorways had rectangular frames; they were in the front part in sets of three, facing each other.

6He made a colonnade fifty cubits long and thirty wide. In front of it was a portico, and in front of that were pillars and an overhanging roof.

7He built the throne hall, the Hall of Justice, where he was to judge, and he covered it with cedar from floor to ceiling. 8And the palace in which he was to live, set farther back, was similar in design. Solomon also made a palace like this hall for Pharaoh’s daughter, whom he had married.

9All these structures, from the outside to the great courtyard and from foundation to eaves, were made of blocks of high-grade stone cut to size and trimmed with a saw on their inner and outer faces. 10The foundations were laid with large stones of good quality, some measuring ten cubits and some eight. 11Above were high-grade stones, cut to size, and cedar beams. 12The great courtyard was surrounded by a wall of three courses of dressed stone and one course of trimmed cedar beams, as was the inner courtyard of the temple of the LORD with its portico.

COMMENTARY

1 It took Solomon almost twice as long to build his palace complex as to build the temple. This rather startling statement is commonly thought to reflect negatively on Solomon. But it might be said in his defense that Scripture does not condemn him for the magnificence of his palace complex. The longer construction time might be due to the fact that numerous public and private building units were being constructed, five of which are briefly described in this passage. Also note that in the case of the temple there had been extensive advanced planning and acquisition of materials. Such was not the case with the palace.

2–5 The Palace of the Forest of Lebanon was so named because of its cedar construction. It was an imposing structure one hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide, and thirty cubits high. Its exact function is not perfectly clear, though it is referred to in 10:17 as the repository of three hundred shields of gold, which might indicate that it was used in part as a treasury. Isaiah 22:8 also speaks of armor placed in the “Palace of the Forest.” This latter passage is in a context of warfare, so that it would appear that real weapons, not ceremonial shields, are involved, thus indicating that the building was at least in part an armory, though Wiseman, 1 & 2 Kings, 111, believes that this was not its essential function.

6–8 The colonnade was a magnificent porticoed entry hall. It is not clear whether this hall was related to the previous building (Jones, 176), was a waiting room for those awaiting hearings in the Hall of Justice (Wiseman, 1 & 2 Kings, 112), or perhaps was an imposing entry to the latter building.

The throne hall or royal audience chamber also served as the Hall of Justice, where the king personally heard complaints and meted out justice in cases that could not be handled by lesser officials (cf. 3:16–28). The layout of this throne room was most likely similar to that of contemporaneous throne rooms in Syria and Assyria. “Thus, almost certainly it was a rectangular hall with the official entrance in its long side. The throne was placed on a rectangular dais or raised base, constructed at the far side of the hall adjacent to its short wall and centrally placed” (Ussishkin, 90). Usually the throne was placed at the end of the hall, left of the entry. The throne itself is described in 10:18–20.

As to the private residence of Solomon and that for Pharaoh’s daughter, nothing is said except that they were similar in design and set away from the public building.

9–12 The stones used in the palace complex were of high quality, precisely cut, and trimmed on both inner and outer faces (v.9). The foundation stones were large, measuring twelve to fifteen feet in length (v.10). Similar ashlar stones have been found above the foundations of the southern “palace” at Megiddo. Burke Long, 178, suggests that the description of the building materials applies to all the Solomonic buildings, including the temple.

The large outer court “enclosed both the Temple and the palace works of Solomon” (Stigers, 5:531). The construction—three layers of stone and one of cedar beams (v.12)—was the same as that of the wall of the inner court. This typically Phoenician construction style is represented at Megiddo in the Solomonic gate as well as in the gate of the court to the southern palace (Ussishkin, 105).

NOTES

1 That the thirteen years are to be understood of the palace alone, apart from the construction of the temple, is seen from 9:10, where twenty years is given as the total building time. House, 130 n. 58, points out that the expression (ʾet-kol-bêtô; lit., “all his house/palace”) implies a joint structure.

3. The Vessels of the Temple (7:13–51)

a. Hiram the craftsman (7:13–14)

13King Solomon sent to Tyre and brought Huram, 14whose mother was a widow from the tribe of Naphtali and whose father was a man of Tyre and a craftsman in bronze. Huram was highly skilled and experienced in all kinds of bronze work. He came to King Solomon and did all the work assigned to him.

COMMENTARY

13–14 Hiram (NIV, “Huram”; so also in 2Ch 2:13; 4:11) was an outstanding master craftsman brought from Tyre. He is obviously to be distinguished from the king of the same name. He was half-Phoenician and half-Israelite, his mother being from the tribe of Naphtali. Our text describes him as being skilled in bronze work. Second Chronicles 2:14 adds that he was likewise skilled in working with gold, silver, iron, stone, wood, and various dyes and fine linen. This description is strongly reminiscent of the skills of Bezalel the craftsman, whom God chose to make the tabernacle (Ex 31:2–3; 35:30–31).

Hiram was “highly skilled and experienced.” More literally, “he was filled with wisdom [ḥokmâ] and understanding [t^ebûnâ] and knowledge [daʿat] in doing every kind of bronze work.” This description illustrates the broad semantic range of the words “wisdom” and “understanding.” Hiram’s wisdom consisted in his practical skills. Notice that Solomon not only utilized the finest materials, but he also spared no expense in hiring the finest workmen. Since Hiram’s skills are so similar to those of Bezalel, who is described in Exodus 31:3 as being especially prepared and enabled by God for the task of building the tabernacle, it is not inappropriate to see in Hiram one also prepared and enabled by God for this special project, though such is not expressly stated. It ought also to be noted that Hiram was the son of a widow—a considerable handicap in the ancient world. That he should achieve such renown in his craftsmanship attests not only to his diligence but also to the grace of God.

NOTES

14 The writer of 2 Chronicles 2:14 records Hiram the king as saying that the mother of Hiram the craftsman was from Dan. This apparent contradiction has a ready solution if one considers that the city of Dan and its territories were by Solomon’s time part of the general region of Napthali (cf. Aharoni and Avi-Yonah, map 3). Thus Hiram’s mother could easily be of the tribe of Napthali, yet have lived in Dan.

b. The two bronze pillars (7:15–22)

15He cast two bronze pillars, each eighteen cubits high and twelve cubits around, by line. 16He also made two capitals of cast bronze to set on the tops of the pillars; each capital was five cubits high. 17A network of interwoven chains festooned the capitals on top of the pillars, seven for each capital. 18He made pomegranates in two rows encircling each network to decorate the capitals on top of the pillars. He did the same for each capital. 19The capitals on top of the pillars in the portico were in the shape of lilies, four cubits high. 20On the capitals of both pillars, above the bowl-shaped part next to the network, were the two hundred pomegranates in rows all around. 21He erected the pillars at the portico of the temple. The pillar to the south he named Jakin and the one to the north Boaz. 22The capitals on top were in the shape of lilies. And so the work on the pillars was completed.

COMMENTARY

15–20 These two pillars are the first of the objects made by Hiram/Huram. They were cast of bronze and were large: eighteen cubits high with a circumference of twelve cubits. They were hollow, four fingerbreadths thick (Jer 52:21), and cast in molds (v.46).

The capitals, also bronze, were cast separately and were five cubits in length (v.16). They were bowl shaped (v.42; 2Ch 4:12–13) and adorned with pomegranates, lily petals, and a network of interwoven chains (vv.17–20). D. J. Wiseman and C. J. Davey (Illustrated Bible Dictionary [Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale, 1980], 2:726) suggest that “the capital had four opened and inverted lotus petals [šûšan; “lily-work,” RSV] four cubits in width . . . and above this an inverted bowl [gullâ].” This view is based on evidence from the text and from the known examples of the period. If this picture is correct, then the chain network fringed with the two hundred pomegranates encircled the bowl above the inverted lily. (See Wiseman [NBD, 593, fig. 6] for a reconstruction of the pillar according to the model suggested above.)

21–22 It is probable that these pillars were freestanding, not structurally a part of the portico. They were placed “at” (l^e) the portico, not “in” (b^e) it (DeVries, 110). Though there are examples of Syrian temples of the same type as Solomon’s, in which there were two pillars inside the portico (Tell Tainat [with double pairs of lions] and Ebla [Volkmar Fritz, “Temple Architecture,” BAR 13 (1987): 38–49]), there also are numerous examples in the ancient Near East—from Egypt, Assyria, Phoenicia, and Cyprus—of similar pairs of freestanding pillars. The fact that they are described here rather than in ch. 6 tends to confirm their structural independence.

The pillar placed on the right hand, or southern, side of the entrance to the portico was named “Jakin.” The other, on the left hand or northern side, was named “Boaz.” Jones, 182–83, after giving a rather comprehensive list of views, suggests that these pillars “contained oracles confirming the establishment and sustaining of the dynasty by God . . . [and] symbolized the covenant between God and his people, and especially between him and the Davidic dynasty.”

In practical terms the pillars were to be ever-present reminders to each successive king of the fact that he was ruling by God’s appointment and by his grace, and that his strength lay in God.

NOTES

15 Second Chronicles 3:15 states: “In front of the temple he made two pillars, which [together] were thirty-five cubits long.” The insertion of the word “together” reflects the view that this figure is the combined length of the shafts of the two columns. “The additional cubit of length most likely was a separate cast base” (Stigers, 5:629). Others (e.g., Keil, 97) hold that the Chronicles passage reflects a scribal error. Second Kings 25:17 and Jeremiah 52:21 both give the length as eighteen cubits.

16 The height of the capitals is given in 2 Kings 25:17 as three cubits. The apparent discrepancy has been explained by some as an error in textual transmission, by others as being due to the fact that the capitals may have been reduced in size during a renovation of the temple during the reign of Joash (2Ki 12:6–14), and by still others as involving a different point of measurement that “would refer to the upper portion of the capital, leaving two cubits for the height of the lily work” (Stigers, 5:629). This last suggestion appears most tenable, particularly since the passage that is largely parallel to 2 Kings 25:17 (i.e., Jer 52:22), reads “five cubits” (thus ruling out the idea of a shortening of the capital).

18 The MT rendered literally is, “he made pillars . . . capitals on top of the pomegranates.” (Fifty Hebrew manuscripts read “pillars” instead of “pomegranates.”) The NIV’s rendering reflects a textual change suggested by most commentators. It is assumed that the words “pillars” and “pomegranates” were somehow switched, as seems to be confirmed by v.19. The NASB renders the MT as it stands.

21 R. B. Y. Scott (“The Pillars Jachin and Boaz,” JBL 58 [1939]: 143–47) has suggested that the names “Jakin” and “Boaz” are the initial words of a dedicatory inscription of the type found on a pillar east of Gudea’s temple in Lagash that records Enlil’s choice of King Gudea as his high priest. He suggests that the full inscription might have read something like, “He (Yahweh) will establish the throne of David, and his kingdom to his seed forever,” and “In the strength of [revocalizing (bō ʿaz) to (b^eʿōz)] Yahweh shall the king rejoice.” This suggestion is adopted by Wiseman (NBD, 593).

The suggestion of S. Yeivin (“Yachin and Boaz,” PEQ 91 [1959]: 6–22) that the pillars are reminiscent of the pillars of fire and smoke during the exodus and are thus symbols of the divine presence has been taken up by many who have adopted the view that the pillars were giant incense stands or cressets where the fat of sacrifices was burnt (cf. W. F. Albright, “Two Cressets from Marina and the Pillars of Jachin and Boaz,” BASOR 85 [1942]: 18–27; H. G. May, “The Two Pillars before the Temple of Solomon,” BASOR 88 [1942]: 19–27). But there is no indication that these pillars were cressets. The names of the pillars are not appropriate to this suggested symbolism, nor is the archaeological evidence compelling.

c. The bronze Sea (7:23–26)

23He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it. 24Below the rim, gourds encircled it—ten to a cubit. The gourds were cast in two rows in one piece with the Sea.

25The Sea stood on twelve bulls, three facing north, three facing west, three facing south and three facing east. The Sea rested on top of them, and their hindquarters were toward the center. 26It was a handbreadth in thickness, and its rim was like the rim of a cup, like a lily blossom. It held two thousand baths.

COMMENTARY

23–26 The great Sea, made of cast bronze, was another marvelous example of the superb craftsmanship of Hiram/Huram. It was cast in one piece, including the lily-like rim and the two rows of gourds below the rim (v.24). The bronze bulls were cast separately, since they were later removed by Ahaz and replaced with a stone base (2Ki 16:17). The exact shape is not known. Calculations attempting to determine the exact relationship between the measure of volume, the bath, and the cubit are marred by this lack of information. Some have assumed it to be cylindrical, others, hemispherical in shape. Something approaching a hemisphere is indicated by the fact that it required a support (2Ki 16:17).

The statement regarding the circumference of thirty cubits has been much discussed and criticized, since it yields a value for pi of three (rather than 3.14). Various solutions have been suggested involving different means of taking the measurements. The simplest solution is also the most obvious and most likely, that the figures are not intended to be mathematically precise to three or four significant figures, but only to one, yielding a value for pi of three. Jones, 184, also adopts this view.

The Sea, together with the ten movable basins, served the same function as the laver had served in the tabernacle—for ceremonial cleansing. Second Chronicles 4:6 informs us that the Sea was used by the priests for their washing, while the basins were used for the rinsing of the burnt offerings. The ceremonial stipulations for the priesthood with regard to the cleansing required in connection with their ministry and approach to God (Ex 30:18–21) were intended to teach a truth that transcends mere ritualism, namely, that he who would approach God and serve him needs to be cleansed from the pollution of the world. In that great passage speaking of the future conversion of Israel (Eze 36:25–28), Ezekiel speaks of the cleansing that God will perform for Israel, removing all filthiness and idolatry from them, giving them a new heart, and causing them to live in the land of God’s appointment.

NOTES

25 It has often been claimed that the combination of the bulls and the Sea is related to the pagan myths involving the divine creative activity in overcoming the sea. Actually, the word , bāqār, “bull”) is the generic term for cattle generally and may indicate oxen as well as cows. The distinctive word for “bull” (, šôr) is not used here. It would have been unthinkable for David and Solomon to try to bring about a syncretization of faith in the Lord with pagan mythology. When occasionally religious forms and terms overlapped with those of the world at large, it was not because biblical revelation adopted pagan superstitions. The terms and forms were clearly defined so there could be no mistaking the uniqueness of God’s revelation of himself and of the God-ordained way of humanity’s approach to God.

26 The volume of the Sea was 2,000 baths, generally calculated to be about 11,500 gallons. A difficulty arises with reference to the statement in 2 Chronicles 4:5, which says that the value was 3,000 baths (ca. 17,500 gallons). It has been suggested that the discrepancy was occasioned by the type of transmissional error susceptible to numbers given in shorthand form (cf. Keil, 104). The suggestion advanced by G. Goldsworthy (ZPEB, 5:318) is the possibility that different standards of measurement were used for the cubit and bath. This seems to be a viable solution since the measure of the bath varied considerably from place to place and time to time. (Compare Jones, 184–85, who cites examples of containers said to measure a bath that have volumes ranging from 22 to 45 liters.)