Tag Archives: King Solomon

Bible Interpretation, Sunday School

#6 Post of 2016 – Commentary on 1 Kings 11 (Death of Solomon)

Leave a comment

Under Solomon, Israel reached its historical pinnacle with regards to geography, peace with her neighbors, and material wealth for the king and his administration. Solomon also established a large military, trade with nearby nations, and an impressive bureaucracy to administer the kingdom of Israel.

For many years, Solomon more or less obeyed the Torah, as his father David did. But as time passed, Solomon accumulated hundreds of wives who would become his downfall. This is where chapter 11 of 1 Kings picks up the narrative.

In verses 1-3, we learn that Solomon has married hundreds of foreign women, most of them for the purpose of making treaties with other nations. It was common practice for kings of this era to marry princesses from other nations to stabilize political relations. However, Solomon was not the king of a typical nation. Paul R. House, in 1, 2 Kings: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture (The New American Commentary), describes Solomon’s errors:

First, he has disobeyed Moses’ law for marriage, which constitutes a breach of the agreement Solomon makes with God in 1 Kgs 3:1–14; 6:11–13; and 9:1–9. Moses says in Deut 7:3–4 and Exod 34:15–16 that Israelites must not intermarry with noncovenant nations. Why? Because God says ‘they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods’ (Deut 7:4). Judgment will then result. Second, Solomon has broken Moses’ commands for kings (cf. Deut 17:14–20). Moses explicitly says, ‘He must not take many wives or his heart will be led astray’ (Deut 17:17).

In verses 4-8, the author of Kings reports that Moses’s dire predictions all come true with Solomon. Solomon not only tolerates his wives’ gods, he builds worship centers for them. Thus the Lord punishes Solomon in verses 9-13.

Because of Solomon’s sins against God, Solomon’s son would lose part of the kingdom. God tells Solomon,

I will most certainly tear the kingdom away from you and give it to one of your subordinates. Nevertheless, for the sake of David your father, I will not do it during your lifetime. I will tear it out of the hand of your son. Yet I will not tear the whole kingdom from him, but will give him one tribe for the sake of David my servant and for the sake of Jerusalem, which I have chosen.

Solomon’s son, Rehoboam, would rule over the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, but another king would rule over the other 10 tribes of Israel. Who would this other ruler be? The answer lies in verses 26-40.

One of Solomon’s own administrators, Jeroboam, is met on the road out of Jerusalem by the prophet Ahijah. Ahijah tells Jeroboam that God is going to make him king over the 10 tribes of Israel, excluding Judah and Benjamin. The reason he is taking this part of the kingdom away from Solomon’s son (and David’s grandson), Rehoboam, is because Solomon has worshipped other gods and has not followed the Law (or Torah) as his father David did. God promises Jeroboam that if he obeys the Torah, as David did, God will bless him with a dynasty. Solomon learns of this promise to Jeroboam and he tries to kill him, but Jeroboam escapes to Egypt until Solomon dies.

Chapter 11 ends with the death of King Solomon. He ruled 40 years and his son, Rehoboam, succeeded him. What can we learn from chapter 11 about God? Paul R. House writes,

Theologically, the passage reemphasizes God’s faithfulness. This time the author depicts the Lord as the God who keeps promises even when the person who is the object of the promise fails to be righteous. For David’s sake, and for the sake of Solomon, the Lord refuses to obliterate the nation. Despite this mercy, however, Israel must still face the consequences of idolatry. God does judge.

House also emphasizes what the chapter says about leaders who sin:

Further, the text stresses how a leader’s sin can impact others. Although it is doubtful that Solomon can be held responsible for introducing idolatry into Israel (cf. the Book of Judges), his religious open-door policy serves to legitimize the practice in a way that no commoner’s similar actions could. Just as one holy person, such as Abraham or Moses, can bless a whole people, so one significant idolater can create spiritual cancer in a people. Had Solomon continued to seek God’s favor rather than wealth and power, he could have helped Israel continue to enjoy prosperity. Instead, he illustrates the principle that sin always affects others.

A final point to be made is that God still expects obedience even in a multicultural, pluralistic society. Solomon could not use the excuse that he needed to bend the rules of the Torah to survive in the ancient near east. Likewise, we can’t expect God to bend the rules for us today when His principles become unpopular. He simply will not do that.

Bible Interpretation, Sunday School

Commentary on 1 Kings 11 (Death of Solomon)

Leave a comment

Under Solomon, Israel reached its historical pinnacle with regards to geography, peace with her neighbors, and material wealth for the king and his administration. Solomon also established a large military, trade with nearby nations, and an impressive bureaucracy to administer the kingdom of Israel.

For many years, Solomon more or less obeyed the Torah, as his father David did. But as time passed, Solomon accumulated hundreds of wives who would become his downfall. This is where chapter 11 of 1 Kings picks up the narrative.

In verses 1-3, we learn that Solomon has married hundreds of foreign women, most of them for the purpose of making treaties with other nations. It was common practice for kings of this era to marry princesses from other nations to stabilize political relations. However, Solomon was not the king of a typical nation. Paul R. House, in 1, 2 Kings: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture (The New American Commentary), describes Solomon’s errors:

First, he has disobeyed Moses’ law for marriage, which constitutes a breach of the agreement Solomon makes with God in 1 Kgs 3:1–14; 6:11–13; and 9:1–9. Moses says in Deut 7:3–4 and Exod 34:15–16 that Israelites must not intermarry with noncovenant nations. Why? Because God says ‘they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods’ (Deut 7:4). Judgment will then result. Second, Solomon has broken Moses’ commands for kings (cf. Deut 17:14–20). Moses explicitly says, ‘He must not take many wives or his heart will be led astray’ (Deut 17:17).

In verses 4-8, the author of Kings reports that Moses’s dire predictions all come true with Solomon. Solomon not only tolerates his wives’ gods, he builds worship centers for them. Thus the Lord punishes Solomon in verses 9-13.

Because of Solomon’s sins against God, Solomon’s son would lose part of the kingdom. God tells Solomon,

I will most certainly tear the kingdom away from you and give it to one of your subordinates. Nevertheless, for the sake of David your father, I will not do it during your lifetime. I will tear it out of the hand of your son. Yet I will not tear the whole kingdom from him, but will give him one tribe for the sake of David my servant and for the sake of Jerusalem, which I have chosen.

Solomon’s son, Rehoboam, would rule over the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, but another king would rule over the other 10 tribes of Israel. Who would this other ruler be? The answer lies in verses 26-40.

One of Solomon’s own administrators, Jeroboam, is met on the road out of Jerusalem by the prophet Ahijah. Ahijah tells Jeroboam that God is going to make him king over the 10 tribes of Israel, excluding Judah and Benjamin. The reason he is taking this part of the kingdom away from Solomon’s son (and David’s grandson), Rehoboam, is because Solomon has worshipped other gods and has not followed the Law (or Torah) as his father David did. God promises Jeroboam that if he obeys the Torah, as David did, God will bless him with a dynasty. Solomon learns of this promise to Jeroboam and he tries to kill him, but Jeroboam escapes to Egypt until Solomon dies.

Chapter 11 ends with the death of King Solomon. He ruled 40 years and his son, Rehoboam, succeeded him. What can we learn from chapter 11 about God? Paul R. House writes,

Theologically, the passage reemphasizes God’s faithfulness. This time the author depicts the Lord as the God who keeps promises even when the person who is the object of the promise fails to be righteous. For David’s sake, and for the sake of Solomon, the Lord refuses to obliterate the nation. Despite this mercy, however, Israel must still face the consequences of idolatry. God does judge.

House also emphasizes what the chapter says about leaders who sin:

Further, the text stresses how a leader’s sin can impact others. Although it is doubtful that Solomon can be held responsible for introducing idolatry into Israel (cf. the Book of Judges), his religious open-door policy serves to legitimize the practice in a way that no commoner’s similar actions could. Just as one holy person, such as Abraham or Moses, can bless a whole people, so one significant idolater can create spiritual cancer in a people. Had Solomon continued to seek God’s favor rather than wealth and power, he could have helped Israel continue to enjoy prosperity. Instead, he illustrates the principle that sin always affects others.

A final point to be made is that God still expects obedience even in a multicultural, pluralistic society. Solomon could not use the excuse that he needed to bend the rules of the Torah to survive in the ancient near east. Likewise, we can’t expect God to bend the rules for us today when His principles become unpopular. He simply will not do that.

Archaeology, Top Ten Posts of 2015

#7 Post of 2015 – Why Isn’t There More Archaeological Evidence of the Kingdoms of Saul, David, and Solomon? Part 1

Leave a comment

While there seems to be plenty of archaeological evidence of the existence of Israel’s and Judah’s kings after about 850 BC, there is little direct evidence of the existence of Saul, David, and Solomon’s kingdoms. Why is this?

Kenneth A. Kitchen, in his On the Reliability of the Old Testament, dedicates an entire chapter to this topic. At the end of the chapter, he writes a summary which I quote at length below.

The information from external [nonbiblical] sources in terms of explicit mentions of biblical characters such as Saul, David, or Solomon is almost zero, until Shalmaneser III had hostile contact with Ahab of Israel in 853. The reasons for this are stunningly simple and conclusive. From Mesopotamia, no Assyrian rulers had had direct contact with Palestine before 853 — and so do not mention any local kings there. This is not the fault of the kings in Canaan, whether Israelite, Canaanite, or Philistine, and does not prove their nonexistence.

From Egypt we have virtually no historical inscriptions whatsoever mentioning Palestinian powers or entities between Ramesses III (ca. 1184-1153) and Shoshenq I (ca. 945-924). We have just two literary works, Wenamun, referring only to coastal ports (Dor to Byblos), and the Moscow Literary Letter that knows of Seir. Plus the fragmentary triumphal scene of Siamun (ca. 979/978-960/959), overlapping with the early years of Solomon (970-960), when a pharaoh smote Gezer and ceded it to him (1 Kings 9:16). The vast mass of Egyptian records in the Delta and Memphis is long since lost for nearly all periods, including the tenth century. At Thebes, almost all records are local, private, and on funerary religion, not foreign wars.

From the Levant, original texts are so far lost/undiscovered before the ninth century, except at Byblos, whose kings celebrate only themselves. We have nothing from Tyre, Sidon, Damascus, etc., until much later. So, again, there is no mention of the Hebrew tenth-century monarchs — and, again, it is not their fault, and certainly not proof of nonexistence.

In Israel itself, the deplorable state of pre-Herodian remains in oldest Jerusalem (Ophel and the eastern ridge), inaccessibility of much of its terrain, and the fact that it is 95 percent undug/undiggable (100 percent on the Temple Mount, where royal stelae might have been erected) — all these factors almost entirely exclude any hope of retrieving significant inscriptions from Jerusalem at any period before Herodian times. (The Siloam tunnel text [ca. 700] survived precisely because it was in a safely buried location.) So, again, we cannot blame a David or a Solomon for all that happened to Jerusalem after their time. (emphasis in original)

In a nutshell, most of the archaeological records we have from the early first millennium BC originate from the two superpowers of the region, Assyria and Egypt. The Assyrians did not have contact with Israel until 850 BC and there is a 200-year gap in the Egyptian records which overlaps the reigns of Saul, David, and Solomon. Excavation in Jerusalem is difficult because of the location of the Temple Mount.

As an aside, archaeologist Eilat Mazar has more recently claimed to have found walls built by Solomon and sections of David’s palace in Jerusalem, but those findings are hotly contested, so we can’t draw any conclusions yet.

More from Kitchen in part 2 . . .

Archaeology

Why Isn’t There More Archaeological Evidence of the Kingdoms of Saul, David, and Solomon? Part 2

3 Comments

As we continue from part 1, Kitchen claims there are traces of direct evidence for David’s dynasty.

[T]he Tell Dan inscription and with virtual certainty the Moabite Stone each mention ‘the House of David,’ implying his former role as a personal dynastic founder, about 150 years after his death. Then, within barely 50 years of his death (ca. 970), we have what is in all likelihood “the heights of David” in the list of Shoshenq I (ca. 925), with a final t for final d exactly as in Ethiopia. (Alas, no clearly better and indisputable alternative can be offered, it seems!) The political situation of Hadadezer king of Aram-Zobah in circa 990 (reaching across the Euphrates) is extremely likely to find a reflex in the situation there in the time of Assur-rabi II of Assyria, as later reported by Shalmaneser III. So, explicit traces are beginning to emerge, even for the limited possibilities of the tenth century.

Kitchen then reminds his readers that explicit evidence is not the only kind of evidence.

It is equally important to measure off a document or account against what we know independently about the topics it includes. In this light much can be said: a little on Saul’s time, more on David’s, and much more on Solomon’s epoch.

Thus Saul’s regime was profitably compared with the ethos and practices of Levantine kingship. David’s ‘empire’ (inherited by Solomon) belongs to a particular type of ‘mini-empire,’ of a scope and nature only present and feasible within the interval between about 1180 and 870 and at no other time in the first millennium, being known also from Neo-Hittite and Aramean analogues.

Under Solomon, foreign relations do fit the context of his day; his temple and palace complex (and their furnishings) find ample and immediate cultural analogues, in both scale and nature. This is also true of the scale of his revenues; in fact, his 20 tons of gold in a year is poverty compared with the spending of over 380 tons of precious metal by Osorkon I soon afterward, and the 7,000 tons of gold that Alexander the Great lifted from the vanquished Persian Empire later on. Poetry (David) and instructional wisdom (Solomon) belong well in the tenth century, with earlier roots, and ample successors. . . .

The physical archaeology of tenth-century Canaan is consistent with the former existence of a unified state on its terrain then (with some monumental architecture). Jerusalem cannot deliver much on this; but on normal datings, Hazor, Gezer, and Megiddo (largely) can. And the occupation of the rest of the area is also consistent with this; it was not a land of ghosts. . . .

In short, the testing of the biblical text against external data (texts and artifactual contexts) shows precious little fantasy and much realistic agreement in practical and cultural aspects. Much more might be examined, but the subjects reviewed here give some idea of the real situation.

Bible Interpretation, Sunday School

Commentary on 1 Kings 6-8 (Solomon Builds the Temple)

Leave a comment

In chapters 6-8, the author reports the building of the temple that would become the permanent “home” of God among the Israelites. Verses 1-10, in chapter 6, tell us that temple construction began in 966 BC, Solomon’s fourth year as king. The project was completed and the temple dedicated 7 ½ years later. This structure would stand for almost four hundred years until it is destroyed by the Babylonians.

What did the temple look like? Paul R. House, in 1, 2 Kings, The New American Commentary, summarizes:

First, the temple was about ninety feet long, thirty feet wide, and forty-five feet high. By modern standards it was a fairly small worship center [with 2700 square feet of floor space]. Second, it had a portico, or porch (6:3), which ran ‘the width of the temple’ and projected out ‘from the front of the temple’ (6:3). Third, it was a three-story complex (6:6). Fourth, its various portions were carefully shaped at their quarries, then fitted, without hammering, on site (6:7). Fifth, its frame and beams were cedar (6:9). Sixth, the facility included a number of ‘side rooms’ (6:10) that probably were set aside for the priests’ use. In other words, the building was attractive, yet functional.

The rest of chapters 6 and 7 describe the interior of the temple and the bronze furnishings crafted by Huram of Tyre. We also learn in chapter 7 that Solomon built an entire palace complex after completion of the temple. His palace complex would take 13 years to finish, almost twice as long as the temple.

Once the temple construction finishes, it is time to bring the Ark of the Covenant to the Most Holy Place (Holy of Holies) inside the temple. Recall that the Ark has been residing in a specially constructed tent inside the City of David. Solomon has built the temple and his palace just outside the City of David, thus expanding the footprint of the city of Jerusalem, which includes all of it.

Solomon invites all the elders of Israel to witness the carrying of the Ark to the newly completed temple. The movement of the Ark and the subsequent dedication of the temple all take place during the Festival of Booths. Solomon extends the Festival from seven days to fourteen days to celebrate the dedication of the temple.

Once the priests finished placing the Ark in the Most Holy Place, a cloud (the glory of God) filled the temple, thus indicating that God has taken up residence among Israel.

Solomon then speaks to all the leadership of Israel about the meaning of this day. First, Solomon reminds them that God has kept the promise He made to David – that David’s son would build a temple for God. Second, God promised David that Solomon would sit on the throne of Israel, and that has also occurred. Third, Solomon has built a permanent structure for the Ark of the Covenant which contains the two stone tablets that Moses placed in the Ark almost 500 years prior.

Later in chapter 8, Solomon also reflects on God’s fulfillment of His promises to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses. God promised the patriarchs that their descendants would have the land of Canaan – that was complete. God promised Moses that Israel would have a central place of worship – check. God promised that Israel would live in peace with her neighbors – and during Solomon’s reign that was the case. Solomon also prays that God will fulfill His promise of blessing all the nations of the world through Israel and her temple.

The dedication of the temple in 959 BC is regarded by most scholars as the pinnacle of Israel’s success as a nation. She was powerful, wealthy, and at peace. But before we get carried away, we must remember that God repeatedly warns Solomon, as He reminded David, that Israel’s blessings are contingent on Solomon’s obedience to the Torah. Although Solomon was seemingly off to a good start, it wouldn’t be long before Solomon’s disobedience would cost Israel dearly.

For an illustration of what Solomon’s temple may have looked like, click on this link.

To see the geographical boundaries of Israel under Solomon’s rule, click on this link.

Archaeology

Archaeologist Claims to Find City Wall Built by King Solomon

2 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Eilat Mazar has potentially made another astounding discovery.  She has unearthed a section of an ancient city wall of Jerusalem which she believes dates from the tenth century B.C. and would have been built by King Solomon.

According to Biblical Archaeology Review, “If Professor Mazar is correct about the dating, then it would seem to support the Biblical account of Jerusalem, and Israel, as being an organized society with a strong centralized government in the 10th century B.C., the time of King Solomon.”

However, there are skeptics of the dating of the wall and more analysis needs to be done to bolster Mazar’s case.

Science Daily reports, “The section of the city wall revealed, 70 meters long and six meters high, is located in the area known as the Ophel, between the City of David and the southern wall of the Temple Mount.  Uncovered in the city wall complex are: an inner gatehouse for access into the royal quarter of the city, a royal structure adjacent to the gatehouse, and a corner tower that overlooks a substantial section of the adjacent Kidron valley.”

Mazar claims that the wall can indeed be dated to the tenth century and attributed to Solomon.  She says:

A comparison of this latest finding with city walls and gates from the period of the First Temple, as well as pottery found at the site, enable us to postulate with a great degree of assurance that the wall that has been revealed is that which was built by King Solomon in Jerusalem in the latter part of the tenth century B.C.E.

This is the first time that a structure from that time has been found that may correlate with written descriptions of Solomon’s building in Jerusalem.  The Bible tells us that Solomon built — with the assistance of the Phoenicians, who were outstanding builders — the Temple and his new palace and surrounded them with a city, most probably connected to the more ancient wall of the City of David.

Mazar specifically cites the third chapter of the First Books of Kings where it refers to “until he (Solomon) had made an end of building his own house, and the house of the Lord, and the wall of Jerusalem round about.”

We’ll see how this turns out, but it is certainly an exciting find.