# comment

text:
<p>Now therefore command that they cut me cedar trees out of Lebanon. My servants shall be with your servants; and I will give you wages for your servants according to all that you shall say. For you know that there is not among us any who knows how to cut timber like the Sidonians- </p><p>Perhaps this was connected with the Divine wisdom about cedar trees which God had given Solomon (<a href='B:110 4:33'>1Ki 4:33</a>). The irony is that David had told God that he was unhappy living in a house of cedar, and wanted to build God a house; and God had specifically said that He did not want such a house as David had, i.e. of cedar.</p>


text:
<p>It happened, when Hiram heard the words of Solomon, that he was very pleased and said, Blessed is Yahweh this day, who has given to David a wise son over this great people- </p><p>Hiram's usage of the Yahweh Name could suggest he had become a proselyte and was therefore eager to assist with building the temple.</p>


text:
<p>Hiram sent to Solomon saying, I have heard the message which you have sent to me. I will do all your desire concerning timber of cedar and concerning timber of fir- </p><p>"Fir" is LXX pine wood. This would have created a distinctive and pleasant smell in the temple.</p>


text:
<p>My servants shall bring them down from Lebanon to the sea. I will make them into rafts to go by sea to the place that you shall appoint me, and will cause them to be broken up there, and you shall receive them. You shall accomplish my desire, in giving food for my household- </p><p>The appointed place was Joppa (<a href='B:140 2:16'>2Ch 2:16</a>). Tyre was built on a small island, and so as a maritime trading nation, regular provision of fresh food was greatly sought after by them.</p>


text:
<p>So Hiram gave Solomon timber of cedar and timber of fir according to all his desire-</p><p>There is the hint that Solomon's work for the temple was really not so much for God, as a fulfilment of his own desires. He served God only insofar as it was attractive to him. We note from Ecclesiastes that he was obsessed with building work; and his work for the temple was just part of that. We need to learn the lesson; that service of God is not according to what we want to do, but according to what people need and what will glorify God.</p>


text:
<p>Solomon gave Hiram twenty thousand measures of wheat for food for his household, and twenty measures of pure oil. Solomon gave this to Hiram year by year-</p><p>The different figures in <a href='B:110 5:11'>1Ki 5:11</a> cp. <a href='B:140 2:10'>2Ch 2:10</a> could be because part of the amount was for Tyre generally, and part for Hiram's personal household. Twenty measure of pure oil appears relatively small; but it is the same word used for the oil of the tabernacle rituals (<a href='B:20 27:20'>Exo 27:20</a>), and as a proselyte Hiram may well have built his own kind of tabernacle system. I suggest on <a href='B:330 28:14'>Eze 28:14</a> that he indeed did so, but it turned into apostacy.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh had given Solomon wisdom, as He promised him; and there was peace between Hiram and Solomon; and they two made a treaty together- </p><p>The implication is that the way of peace is the way of wisdom.</p>


text:
<p>King Solomon raised a levy out of all Israel; and the levy was thirty thousand men- </p><p>Solomon's lack of sensitivity to God’s word led him to be tragically insensitive to people; in short, he showed no love. The way Solomon raised a "levy" or tribute from Israel, whereby the men of Israel had to serve him one month out of three and 'bear burdens', with 3,300 taskmasters over them (<a href='B:110 5:13-15'>1Ki 5:13-15</a>), who 'bore rule' over (Heb. 'trampled down') the people (<a href='B:110 5:16'>1Ki 5:16</a>)... is all reminiscent of Samuel's warning about the kind of King which Israel would have. And the language also recalls their bondage in Egypt; note that the levy was also in order to build treasure cities for Solomon, just as Pharaoh did (<a href='B:110 9:19'>1Ki 9:19</a>). The Hebrew word for "levy" in <a href='B:110 5:13'>1Ki 5:13</a> strictly means 'a burden causing to faint', and is rendered "taskmaster" in the record of Israel's suffering in Egypt (<a href='B:20 1:11'>Exo 1:11</a>). One even wonders if Solomon's father-in-law- who also happened to be a Pharaoh of Egypt- influenced him (consciously or unconsciously) to act like the Exodus Pharaoh. Possibly Solomon justified this abuse of northern labour to build things in Judah through the assumption that northeners were lazy. For he uses the same word in Prov. 12:24 "The hands of the diligent ones [Judah and his family] shall rule, but the slothful shall be under tribute". Or maybe he milfully misinterpreted Gen. 49:15 about Issachar in the north of the land, who would "become a servant under tribute".</p>


text:
<p>He sent them to Lebanon, ten thousand a month by courses; a month they were in Lebanon, and two months at home; and Adoniram was over the men subject to forced labour-</p><p>The emphasis upon the forced labour brigades is significant (<a href='B:110 4:6'>1Ki 4:6</a>; <a href='B:110 5:13-14'>1Ki 5:13-14</a>; <a href='B:110 12:18'>1Ki 12:18</a>), and it was Solomon's brutal treatment of his people which led to the complaint after his death that he had whipped the people and abused them. This was exactly as Samuel had warned the people would happen if they chose a human king rather than God as their king; for God is kinder than men. We see therefore that Solomon was no better than Saul. All his wisdom failed to make him value the meaning of the human person. It was therefore only held by him in theory not in practice. Making men work one month out of three meant that labour would have been lacking in their homes- and that meant reduced food for families.</p>


text:
<p>Solomon had seventy thousand who bore burdens, and eighty thousand who were stone cutters in the mountains-</p><p><a href='B:110 5:13-16'>1Ki 5:13-16</a> reveals that Solomon had&nbsp;153,000&nbsp; full&nbsp; time&nbsp; and&nbsp; 90,000&nbsp; part&nbsp; time male servants:&nbsp;Israel's&nbsp; complaint&nbsp; that&nbsp; Solomon&nbsp; had&nbsp; whipped them implies&nbsp; that&nbsp; he&nbsp; treated them like slaves, with himself as the slave-driver. 600,000&nbsp; adults came out of Egypt (<a href='B:20 12:37'>Exo 12:37</a>), and assuming&nbsp; the&nbsp; population&nbsp;only&nbsp; rose&nbsp; slightly over the next 550 years,&nbsp;we&nbsp; have&nbsp; the picture of an Israel where almost half the males&nbsp; (i:e. probably the majority of the working population) were pressganged into slavery to a despotic King Solomon.</p><p>This huge number of men involved in quarrying and transportation of the stones was because of the obsession with building projects which Solomon admits he had in Ecclesiastes. Just as Solomon's abundance of wives led to having a few thousand mouths to feed, and Israel needed to provide for that; so his obsession with thousands of horses meant that there was a need for a huge amount of fodder for them (<a href='B:110 4:28'>1Ki 4:28</a>). And all Israel had to provide this- all for the sake of Solomon's obsessive desires. That he reigned for as long as he did was truly a sign of God’s grace to him for the sake of his father David, and is a tacit reflection of how much God loved David despite all his failures.</p><p>The huge amount of labour required- 80,000 men hewing stone alone- was nothing more than Solomon acting like Pharaoh, using taskmasters to trample down / rule over the people to achieve his quotas and enable his building fantasies to become reality. The Hebrew word translated "bear rule over' (Heb. 'to trample down') in <a href='B:110 5:16'>1Ki 5:16</a> is that which we find in the Law's prohibition of this in <a href='B:30 25:46'>Lev 25:46</a>: "But over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule over one another with rigour". Solomon knew the Law, and he rambles on in Proverbs about the need to read, love and obey that law. And yet he thought that he could give that one a miss, 'because I am doing God’s work and building His house'. And how many a believer has ended up missing the entire point of God’s law, the very essence of Christianity, because of their obsession with serving God in a form which is effectively merely serving themselves, excusing their fantasies in the name of doing God service. It's the process of Solomon's apostacy which is so instructive; for he justified himself by saying that he was doing God’s work. He didn’t simply quit on God.</p>


text:
<p>besides Solomon’s chief officers who were over the work, three thousand three hundred, who bore rule over the people who laboured in the work- </p><p>See on :13. This levy was evidently one of the reasons which led the next generation to complain that Solomon had chastised the people with whips (<a href='B:110 12:11'>1Ki 12:11</a>; the happiness of the people which the Queen of Sheba observed in <a href='B:110 10:8'>1Ki 10:8</a> was therefore just an impression Solomon arranged for her to receive). Yet "this is the reason of the levy which king Solomon raised: in order to build the house of the Lord, and his own house..." (<a href='B:110 9:15'>1Ki 9:15</a>). Solomon justified his zest for power and control by saying it was in order to do the Lord's work, to build His house... and yet had he listened to God’s word more carefully, he would have realized that the true house of Yahweh was in fact people... yet Solomon abused people in order to build a visible house for God. And so very often religious people have gone down the same path- devaluing the meaning and value of persons, because they want to be seen as achieving something visible for God, no matter how many people they abuse on the way. The ends simply don't justify the means; Solomon told himself that they did, and he ended up as bad as Saul and Pharaoh, who are alluded to in the records of his levy of slaves from Israel. And yet the 1 Kings record gives the impression of all happily working together to create a great temple for God. When we probe deeper, we find this was far from the case.</p><p>David had prophesied that his great son would "have dominion from sea to sea" (<a href='B:230 72:8'>Psa 72:8</a>). 'Have dominion' is again the Hebrew word translated 'rule over' in <a href='B:110 5:15'>1Ki 5:15</a>. David’s vision of his Messianic son having a world-wide Kingdom, in which all people blessed him for his grace and beneficence, was abused by Solomon into justifying 'having dominion' over people as his personal slaves; and they certainly didn’t bless him for it but rather complained (<a href='B:110 12:11'>1Ki 12:11</a>). It's as if Solomon grabbed the word 'rule over / have dominion', wrenched it out of context, and used it to justify his actions, giving a quasi-Biblical justification to his pure selfishness. This is where knowledge of God’s word can be a dangerous thing; leading people into a stronger self-justification than they would otherwise have had if they were guided by self-recognized greed alone.</p><p>We note the similarities to Israel's forced labour in Egypt, and so we can read an irony in 1 Kings 6:1, just a few verses later, when Israel's coming out of slavery in Egypt is mentioned as a time marker.</p>


text:
<p>The king commanded, and they cut out great stones, costly stones, to lay the foundation of the house with worked stone- </p><p>But <a href='B:110 9:15'>1Ki 9:15</a> says that all this labour regarding quarrying was not simply for the temple; but also for his own house, which was far larger than God’s house, and took nearly twice as long to build. He justified his own serving of his own desires under the guise of serving God. He justified the temple as being merely a place for sacrifice. But God had asked men to build Him altars of dirt, or unhewn stones. Yet there is huge emphasis upon Solomon's cutting and hewing of stones. He is presented [to the thoughtful, Biblically aware reader] as fake all the way through, justifying his own passions in the name of God... we think of William Golding's novel "The Spire". God had promised that He would build a house / family for His Name. The foundation stone of that house would be His begotten Son, to be begotten after David "slept with his fathers". Solomon was focused upon himself and not upon the future Christ. Is. 28:16 clearly states that the foundation of God's house will be a person, not some stones cut by Hiram: "I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious cornerstone of a sure foundation. He who believes shall not be ashamed". These words are quoted in the New Testament about the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>Solomon’s builders along with Hiram’s builders and the Gebalites cut them, and prepared the timber and the stones to build the house- </p><p>The idea of Israelites and Gentiles working together to build God’s house looks ahead to the greater fulfilment in the things of the Kingdom of the Lord Jesus. The kingdom of Solomon can indeed be viewed as a type of the future kingdom of the Lord Jesus (see on <a href='B:110 4:2'>1Ki 4:2</a>). But in reality it was rather that Solomon had been potentially empowered to be the Messianic seed with a Messianic kingdom as promised to David, but he failed. And the Lord Jesus fulfilled the potentials of the seed perfectly, leaving Solomon and his kingdom as a failed, marred reflection of Him.</p>


text:
<p>&nbsp; It happened in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel had come out of the land of Egypt-</p><p>The difficulties in chronology with the 480 years are probably because the periods of the judges involved some overlap between them; and some judges may have judged one part of Israel whilst others judged another at the same time.  LXX gives the 440th year. Sometimes the Biblical record is vague, other times exact. This reflects how God is not seeking to cover His back against critics. He is of an altogether higher nature than that. There are times when the Spirit uses very approximate numbers rather than exact ("about the space of four hundred and fifty years", <a href='B:510 13:20'>Act 13:20</a> cp. <a href='B:110 6:1'>1Ki 6:1</a>). As noted on :38, the temple was built in seven and a half years, but this is summarized as seven years. The reference to "seventy" in <a href='B:70 9:56'>Jdg 9:56</a> also doesn't seem exact. Seven and a half years (<a href='B:100 2:11'>2Sa 2:11</a>) becomes "seven years" (<a href='B:110 2:11'>1Ki 2:11</a>); three months and ten days (<a href='B:140 36:9'>2Ch 36:9</a>) becomes "three months" (<a href='B:120 24:8'>2Ki 24:8</a>). And <a href='B:110 7:23'>1Ki 7:23</a> gives the circumference of the laver as “thirty cubits”, although it was ten cubits broad. Taking ‘pi’ to be 3:14, it is apparent that the circumference would have been 31:4 cubits; but the Spirit says, summing up, “thirty”.</p><p>In the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month Ziv, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of Yahweh- </p><p>The note in the LXX at the end of 1 Kings 5 says that the preparation of the materials took three years. Which would mean that Solomon began the project immediately he came to the throne, wrongly seeing the building of the temple as some kind of proof that he was indeed the Messianic son of David promised in 2 Samuel 7. But :37 makes it clear that the foundations of the temple were only laid in Solomon's fourth year, despite David having prepared everything ahead of time. Why the delay? If we read the entire record into 1 Kings 7, the answer may be that he got distracted with building his own house and his other building projects, seeking to create a huge palace-temple complex where effectively the temple was just the royal chapel which was connected to his own [double the size] palace, by an "ascent" or magnificent ramp which the Queen of Sheba noticed. He didn't make the temple a priority, and it was only part of his own huge palace complex.  </p>


text:
<p>The house which king Solomon built for Yahweh, its length was sixty cubits, and its breadth twenty, and its height thirty cubits- </p><p>This was twice the size of the tabernacle. The overall size of Solomon's temple was much larger than this 60 x 20 measurement, because of the porch, the chambers and court surrounding it. The actual "house" wasn't that large, only 90 x 30 x 45 feet high. Psalm 127 is prefaced with the information that it is a Psalm for Solomon- perhaps given by some nameless prophet (Gad? Nathan?) to warn him of where he was going. Verse 1 reminds him that God must be the builder of any house, or else the builders labour in vain. There is good reason to think that Solomon utterly failed to appreciate this. The records stress time and again that Solomon&nbsp; built the temple (<a href='B:110 6:2'>1Ki 6:2</a>; <a href='B:110 6:14'>1Ki 6:14</a>; <a href='B:110 9:10'>1Ki 9:10</a>; <a href='B:110 9:25'>1Ki 9:25</a>; <a href='B:110 10:4'>1Ki 10:4</a>; <a href='B:130 6:10'>1Ch 6:10</a>; <a href='B:130 6:32'>1Ch 6:32</a>; <a href='B:140 8:1'>2Ch 8:1</a>; <a href='B:140 8:12'>2Ch 8:12</a>; <a href='B:140 9:3'>2Ch 9:3</a>; <a href='B:510 7:47'>Act 7:47</a>); yet the house referred to in the Davidic promises was to be built by God, through David’s Messianic Son, the Lord Jesus. Zechariah prophesied at the time of the rebuilding of the physical temple. It is significant, in this context, that <a href='B:450 6:12'>Zec 6:12</a> reminds Israel that the true temple of God will be built by the Branch, the Lord Jesus. Indeed the point is laboured twice: "The man whose name is the Branch... he shall build Yahweh’s temple; even he shall build Yahweh’s temple; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule on His throne" (Zech. 6:12,13).</p>


text:
<p>The porch before the temple of the house, twenty cubits was its length, according to the breadth of the house. Ten cubits was its breadth before the house- </p><p>The height of the porch was 120 cubits, or 180 feet (<a href='B:140 3:4'>2Ch 3:4</a>). This is out of proportion to the length and breadth. And it would have dwarfed the actual sanctuary (see on :2). In this case, we can say that form eclipsed content, as always with Solomon. For the sanctuary would have been dwarfed by the massive porch; just as is seen in Egyptian temples, which it seems were what Solomon was imitating. But perhaps what is meant is that the height of each of the four walls has been added together, which would give a height of 30 cubits. This style is to be found in <a href='B:140 3:11'>2Ch 3:11</a>, where the length of the wings of the cherubim is given as 20 cubits, but this was a way of saying that each of the four wings was five cubits long. We have another example in the way that the two pillars are said to be 18 cubits high (<a href='B:110 7:15'>1Ki 7:15</a>), but in <a href='B:140 3:15'>2Ch 3:15</a> they are 35 cubits high. What that means is that there were two cubits of 17:5 cubits high each, summarized as 18 cubits high in <a href='B:110 7:15'>1Ki 7:15</a>.</p>


text:
<p>He made windows of fixed lattice work for the house- </p><p>"Windows broad within and narrow without" (AVmg:). They were for ventilation, not for light. There was no natural light in the temple just as there wasn't in the tabernacle. The hope was that it would be lit by the light of God’s glory; and likewise there is no natural light in the spiritual temple, only that of God’s glory. But we could argue that they were in fact for light; because Solomon was more interested in natural light than in the light provided by God's glory. Yet despite this, God by grace still sent the shekinah glory into this temple to give His light, all the same.</p>


text:
<p>Against the wall of the house he built storeys all around, against the walls of the house all around, both of the temple and of the oracle; and he made side rooms all around-</p><p>The idea is that three stories (R:V:) of small chambers were built around two sides and one end of the temple. Josephus says there were 30 of these side rooms / chambers, which were accessed by passing through each room, i:e. there was no corridor. These rooms are alluded to by the Lord in <a href='B:500 14:1-3'>Joh 14:1-3</a>, where He speaks of how there is a chamber or abiding place for each of us in God’s temple which He was enabling to be built by His death. We each will have our own personal existence and place in God’s Kingdom; our personality will be preserved, and not subsumed into some kind of nirvana. These are the chambers used for storage and even living in <a href='B:160 13:5'>Neh 13:5</a>; <a href='B:300 36:10'>Jer 36:10</a>; <a href='B:300 36:20'>Jer 36:20</a>.</p>


text:
<p>The lowest storey was five cubits broad, and the middle was six cubits broad, and the third was seven cubits broad- </p><p>This refers to the gap between the wall of the temple and the outer wall of the three stories of chambers described in :5. The temple wall was very thick at the bottom, seeing that at&nbsp; five cubits height there was a kind of ledge of one cubit wide, upon which rested the floor of the middle chambers. Then five cubits above that, there was another such ledge upon which was put the floor of the third story; and finally at a point 15 cubits high there was another ledge to support the roof beams of the top story. The wall of the holy place continued up for another 15 cubits, in which there were the "windows" or, effectively, ventillation slats. Assuming that upper wall was two cubits thick, the base of the temple wall must have been five cubits thick. Remember that each story of the side chambers was one cubit wider than the one below it.</p><p>For on the outside he made offsets in the wall of the house all around, so that the supporting beams should not be inserted into the walls of the house- </p><p>The idea is that there was no hole made in the wall of the temple or holy place.</p>


text:
<p>The house, when it was in building, was built of stone prepared at the quarry; and there was neither hammer nor axe nor any tool of iron heard in the house, while it was in building- </p><p>This was perhaps an attempt to follow the spirit of the law which commanded that no iron tool should be used in the shaping of stones for an altar (<a href='B:20 20:25'>Exo 20:25</a>; <a href='B:50 27:5'>Deu 27:5</a>). But typical of Solomon, it is a getting around of God’s law; because all the same, iron tools were used in preparing the stones. The Lord Jesus is presented as the builder of the spiritual temple, in which the stones should fit together without strife (<a href='B:560 2:21'>Eph 2:21</a> alludes to <a href='B:110 6:7'>1Ki 6:7</a>). This means that we as the stones are being prepared in this life; every knock and blow we receive is intended to shape us to fit next to other stones, eternally. And the final assembly of the stones at the day of judgment will not be the time for shaping; that is going on now. However in the immediate context, this is likely one of many reasons to think that the building of the temple was in line with pagan myths about temples. For there is evidence from various Ancient Near Eastern literature that it was believed that human noise could repel the divine presence and drive away the deity from the holy space. Therefore there is evidence that the images of the idols were made away from the temple in order to preserve the quiet sanctity of the supposed holy ground. And the Mosaic law was that no iron tool should be used on stones used for an altar; and yet Solomon in mock humility describes the temple as merely an altar. He sidesteps the Divine intention- that God just wants some earth kicked together, or rough stones. For that is the basis of our sacrifice to Him. But Solomon sought to get around that and make a grandiose fancy altar, which God didn't want.</p>


text:
<p>The door for the middle side rooms was in the right side of the house: and they went up by winding stairs into the middle storey, and out of the middle into the third- </p><p>LXX has "lowest" instead of "middle", which makes sense because otherwise there is no way of accessing the lowest chambers. "The right side" is Heb. 'shoulder', and refers to the face of the temple building.</p>


text:
<p>So he built the house, and finished it- </p><p>This seems to refer to the actual temple building, as the storeys of surrounding chambers of :5 are mentioned separately as being built (:10).</p><p>And he covered the house with beams and planks of cedar- </p><p>This refers to the roof. No cedar trunk would have yielded wood long enough to cover the required length, and so there would have been supporting beams. The inspired record makes such good sense, and is not open to serious criticism from a practical point of view. This roof would have imitated the covering upon the tabernacle and would probably therefore have been pitched at an angle.</p>


text:
<p>He built the storeys against the whole house, each five cubits high: and they were attached to the house by cedar beams-</p><p>These beams rested on the shoulders or ledges of :6.</p>


text:
<p>The word of Yahweh came to Solomon saying- </p><p>As shown in :12, God was concerned that Solomon thought that simply having built the temple meant that he was fulfilling the promises of 2 Samuel 7 and was therefore the promised Messianic seed. God noticed how Solomon was bypassing in his mind the conditional nature of the promises.</p>


text:
<p>Concerning this house which you are building, if you will walk in My statutes, and execute My ordinances, and keep all My commandments to walk in them; then will I establish My word with you, which I spoke to David your father- God constantly warned Solomon about the conditionality of the promises, before the building started (<a href='B:100 7:14'>2Sa 7:14</a>), during it (<a href='B:110 6:11-13'>1Ki 6:11-13</a>) and immediately after completing it (<a href='B:110 9:2-9'>1Ki 9:2-9</a>). God stresses that "you are building" this house- when His intention was that He would build a house of people through the future Messianic seed. Solomon struggled with the grace of all this and wanted something tangible and physical, the work of his own hands and not God's.
</p><p>Thanks to Solomon’s prayer, and if he had been obedient, all Israel would have been blessed and experienced Yahweh dwelling amongst them (<a href='B:110 6:12-13'>1Ki 6:12-13</a>). Moses prayed for God to forgive Israel; and He responded: “I have pardoned, according to your word” (<a href='B:40 14:20'>Num 14:20</a>)- rather than according to their repentance and prayer. Indeed it would seem from <a href='B:650 11:28'>Heb 11:28</a> that Israel were delivered from the Egyptians due to Moses’&nbsp; faith in the Christ whom the sprinkled Passover blood pointed forward to. And so Israel's blessing was dependent on Solomon's obedience (<a href='B:110 6:12-13'>1Ki 6:12-13</a>); their joy was because of the honour God had given Solomon (<a href='B:140 7:10'>2Ch 7:10</a>). The blessing of others can be dependent upon a third party (e.g. <a href='B:480 2:5'>Mar 2:5</a>).</p>


text:
<p>I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will not forsake My people Israel- </p><p>Yahweh's dwelling amongst Israel is therefore not predicated upon the splendour of the temple, but upon walking in God's ways (:12). He was aware that Solomon misunderstood this.</p><p>The Lord Jesus was well aware of the connection between God’s refusal to answer prayer and His recognition of sin in the person praying (<a href='B:100 22:42'>2Sa 22:42</a> = <a href='B:230 2:2-5'>Psa 2:2-5</a>). It is emphasized time and again that God will not forsake those who love Him (e.g. <a href='B:50 4:31'>Deu 4:31</a>; <a href='B:50 31:6'>Deu 31:6</a>; <a href='B:90 12:22'>1Sa 12:22</a>; <a href='B:110 6:13'>1Ki 6:13</a>; <a href='B:230 94:14'>Psa 94:14</a>; <a href='B:290 41:17'>Isa 41:17</a>; <a href='B:290 42:16'>Isa 42:16</a>). Every one of these passages must have been well known to our Lord, the word made flesh. He knew that God forsaking Israel was a punishment for their sin (<a href='B:70 6:13'>Jdg 6:13</a>; <a href='B:120 21:14'>2Ki 21:14</a>; <a href='B:290 2:6'>Isa 2:6</a>; <a href='B:300 23:33'>Jer 23:33</a>). God would forsake Israel only if they forsook Him (<a href='B:50 31:16-17'>Deu 31:16-17</a>; <a href='B:140 15:2'>2Ch 15:2</a>). We can therefore conclude that His desperate “Why have You forsaken me?” was because He was so intensely identified with our sins that in the crisis of the cross, He indeed felt forsaken because of sin. He did not sin, but felt like a sinner; He thereby knows how sinners feel.</p><p>God said that He accepted the temple not so much as a place to dwell in (as Solomon assumed it was) but as a place facilitating sacrifice, prayer etc:, for the glorification of His Name through these things; He emphasized that He dwelt amongst His people (<a href='B:110 6:13'>1Ki 6:13</a>; <a href='B:140 7:12-16'>2Ch 7:12-16</a>). There are several other places where God’s response to Solomon’s words seems to be corrective rather than affirmatory. Thus Solomon says that God will hear the prayers of His people because the temple is called by God’s Name; but God’s response is that “my people, which are called by my name” would pray to Him themselves and be heard, quite apart from the temple (<a href='B:140 6:33'>2Ch 6:33</a> cp. 7:14). He sees them as bearing His Name rather than the temple building, as Solomon perceived it. God goes on to parallel the temple and His people in <a href='B:140 7:21-22'>2Ch 7:21-22</a>, saying that if He punishes the temple He will punish the people. Solomon seems to have thought that the temple would still stand favourably in God’s eyes even if the people were punished. The record records that the temple was “perfected” whereas Solomon’s heart wasn’t perfect [s:w:] (<a href='B:110 11:4'>1Ki 11:4</a> cp. <a href='B:140 8:16'>2Ch 8:16</a>).</p>


text:
<p>So Solomon built the house, and finished it- </p><p>There appears no particular need for the phrase "Concerning this house which you are in building" in :12- it appears somewhat redundant, until we realize that God is saying 'OK I see you are building this house, thinking you are so obedient to my word; well, get on and keep my word in reality, and then the promises to David will apply to you'. Activity supposedly in God’s service can lead us to think that of course we are being obedient to His word... when the very obsession of the activity may be blinding us to the fact that we aren't at all. There's no record that Solomon responded positively to God’s warning words- <a href='B:110 6:14'>1Ki 6:14</a> states that "So Solomon built the house, and finished it". We are expecting to hear Solomon respond to God- but instead, he gets on with building again.</p><p>Ps. 89:4 speaks of how Yahweh's promise was to eternally build up David's throne and house, which would be His house. It will become true in the Lord Jesus, whose throne will be eternally built up in that His rulership will eternally expand. That opens up a vista of us eternally extending His rule- in our own hearts, over other beings and dimensions. "Build up" is also translated "to obtain children". It's as if the seed continues to grow eternally, the throne is built up in that more people submit to the king, so His "kingdom", those beneath His dominion, increase eternally. This suggests we will spend eternity bringing other beings beneath that dominion, and we can begin living that spirit now in our witness and bringing others into that dominion. The contrast was with David wanting to "build [up]" a house for God. His response was that He didn't want David spending a few years building up a house for Him; but rather He would spend eternity building up David's house in the sense of his family, who would also be God's family and kingdom (2 Sam. 7:5,7 etc.). Solomon totally missed the point of all this in reasoning that David could not build the house because of his bloodshed, but therefore he [Solomon] was intended to physically build a house for Yahweh (1 Kings 5:3,5). Perhaps this is why we read several times that Solomon built [up] the house and finished it (1 Kings 6:9,14), he was building the house seven years and then finished it (1 Kings 6:38), which appears to be stating the obvious until we see the intended contrast- Yahweh's building up of David's house, which was also to be His house, would be eternal and never finish. And 1 Kings 8:13 is almost comical in the contrast; Solomon proudly says that "I have surely built [up] for You a house to dwell in, a settled place for You to abide in for ever". But no, Yahweh is about eternally building up a house for David where He will live, in the hearts of an ever and eternally expanding group of people who would be David's true seed. Solomon built a physical house for God's Name... but how can a Name, Yahweh's characteristics, abide in a cold stone building? They can only be found in the hearts of humans made in His image. This is why Ps. 89:2,4 parallel the "building up" of the throne and "Mercy shall be built up for ever". The ever expanding dominion of God in hearts and minds is all of His grace and mercy, and that will continue to grow and be magnified for ever. Although David set Solomon up for failure with his insistence on building up a physical house rather than let Yahweh build up his spiritual house, David does also 'get it' that it is Yahweh who is the builder and not him. He does often admit this in his Psalms: "Do good unto Zion, build Thou the walls of Jerusalem... Yahweh built up His sanctuary... Jerusalem is builded up as a city compacted together... Except Yahweh builds up the house they labour in vain who build... Yahweh builds up Jerusalem... " (Ps. 51:18; 78:69; 122:3; 127:1; 147:2). And this time of building up would not be until the Lord Jesus returned: "When Yahweh shall build up Zion, he shall appear in His glory" (Ps. 102:16). This is the time of the new covenant: "I will build you [up] and you shall be built, O virgin of Israel... I will watch over them to build them up... I will build them [up] as at the first... I Yahweh build up the ruined places / people... in that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David and will build it [up]" (Jer. 31:4,28; 33:7; Ez. 36:36; Am. 9:11).</p><p>"And finished it" may not mean that all the internal decorations were finished; see on 1 Kings 7:1 where Solomon finished all his house, perhaps implying he didn't finish all the internals of the temple. Because here we have a description of the basic stonework structure in :2-8; then the roof and some basic structural woodwork in :9,10; now the statement that Solomon "finished" the house; and then in :15-38 the descriptions of the internal woodwork and massive scale gold plating of everything, even the floor and walls. This would have required a huge amount of gold and would in any case have not been practicable in daily usage. And we cannot but note the similarities between the language here and the Mesopotamian inscriptions of how monarchs claimed to have built houses and temples with specifications far above what were achieved in practice- with the same rubric / completion formula "built and finished it". Nabonidus left many such examples. </p><p>
Ps. 89:4 speaks of how Yahweh's promise was to eternally build up David's throne and house, which would be His house. It will become true in the Lord Jesus, whose throne will be eternally built up in that His rulership will eternally expand. That opens up a vista of us eternally extending His rule- in our own hearts, over other beings and dimensions. "Build up" is also translated "to obtain children". It's as if the seed continues to grow eternally, the throne is built up in that more people submit to the king, so His "kingdom", those beneath His dominion, increase eternally. This suggests we will spend eternity bringing other beings beneath that dominion, and we can begin living that spirit now in our witness and bringing others into that dominion. </p><p> The contrast was with David wanting to "build [up]" a house for God. His response was that He didn't want David spending a few years building up a house for Him; but rather He would spend eternity building up David's house in the sense of his family, who would also be God's family and kingdom (2 Sam. 7:5,7 etc.). Solomon totally missed the point of all this in reasoning that David could not build the house because of his bloodshed, but therefore he [Solomon] was intended to physically build a house for Yahweh (1 Kings 5:3,5). Perhaps this is why we read several times that Solomon built [up] the house and finished it (1 Kings 6:9,14), he was building the house seven years and then finished it (1 Kings 6:38), which appears to be stating the obvious until we see the intended contrast- Yahweh's building up of David's house, which was also to be His house, would be eternal and never finish. And 1 Kings 8:13 is almost comical in the contrast; Solomon proudly says that "I have surely built [up] for You a house to dwell in, a settled place for You to abide in for ever". But no, Yahweh is about eternally building up a house for David where He will live, in the hearts of an ever and eternally expanding group of people who would be David's true seed. Solomon built a physical house for God's Name... but how can a Name, Yahweh's characteristics, abide in a cold stone building? They can only be found in the hearts of humans made in His image. This is why Ps. 89:2,4 parallel the "building up" of the throne and "Mercy shall be built up for ever". The ever expanding dominion of God in hearts and minds is all of His grace and mercy, and that will continue to grow and be magnified for ever. Although David set Solomon up for failure with his insistence on building up a physical house rather than let Yahweh build up his spiritual house, David does also 'get it' that it is Yahweh who is the builder and not him. He does often admit this in his Psalms: "Do good unto Zion, build Thou the walls of Jerusalem... Yahweh built up His sanctuary... Jerusalem is builded up as a city compacted together... Except Yahweh builds up the house they labour in vain who build... Yahweh builds up Jerusalem... " (Ps. 51:18; 78:69; 122:3; 127:1; 147:2). And this time of building up would not be until the Lord Jesus returned: "When Yahweh shall build up Zion, he shall appear in His glory" (Ps. 102:16). This is the time of the new covenant: "I will build you [up] and you shall be built, O virgin of Israel... I will watch over them to build them up... I will build them [up] as at the first... I Yahweh build up the ruined places / people... in that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David and will build it [up]" (Jer. 31:4,28; 33:7; Ez. 36:36; Am. 9:11). </p><p>
We note the constant emphasis on Solomon being the builder of the temple (:1,2,14; 1 Kings 7:51). But it was Hiram who was the craftsman and slaves who did the building. I suggest again the record is giving us the self perspective of Solomon, who considered he had built the temple himself and this fulfilled the promises to David.
</p>


text:
<p>He built the walls of the house within with boards of cedar: from the floor of the house to the walls of the ceiling, he covered them on the inside with wood; and he covered the floor of the house with boards of fir- </p><p>"Fir" is LXX "pine", which along with the huge amount of cedar would all have been brought from Hiram.</p>


text:
<p>He built twenty cubits on the back part of the house with boards of cedar from the floor to the ceiling: he built them for it within, for an inner sanctuary, even for the most holy place- </p><p>"The back part", AV "sides", uses a word elsewhere describing inner recesses, e.g. of a cave (<a href='B:90 24:4'>1Sa 24:4</a>) or forest (<a href='B:290 37:24'>Isa 37:24</a>). The reference is to the 'back part' of the temple as one looked into the temple from the entrance- which was the wall at the end of the Most Holy Place. This was separated from the rest of the Holy Place by a door (:31) with "chains of gold" across it (:21) and a veil across it all (<a href='B:140 3:14'>2Ch 3:14</a>).</p>


text:
<p>In front of the temple sanctuary was forty cubits- </p><p>The reference is to the holy place; the preceding verses have just described the most holy place.</p>


text:
<p>There was cedar on the house within, carved with buds and open flowers: all was cedar; there was no stone seen-</p><p>"Open flowers" means open flower buds. "Buds" is a guess at translation, for the Hebrew word is very obscure, literally "wild gourds", a poisonous plant (s:w. <a href='B:120 4:39'>2Ki 4:39</a>). It is unlikely this plant is in view. But there are observable similarities with the decoration of Egyptian holy places. Seeing that Solomon had married an Egyptian, and the Song of Solomon reflects Solomon's deep admiration for things Egyptian, it seems likely that even in the temple, Solomon allowed Gentile influence. And that was to be a theme of this temple until its destruction. See on :29. No wonder God told Jeremiah that He had been furiously angry with the temple from the day it was built to the day He destroyed it.</p>


text:
<p>He prepared an inner sanctuary in the midst of the house within, to set there the ark of the covenant of Yahweh- </p><p>"Inner sanctuary" is AV "oracle", and is the Hebrew word usually translated "word". It refers to the most holy place, but perhaps the idea is that God’s word is ultimately where we are to find the presence of God represented by the ark.</p>


text:
<p>Within the inner sanctuary was twenty cubits in length, and twenty cubits in breadth, and twenty cubits in its height; and he overlaid it with pure gold: and he covered the altar with cedar- </p><p>The idea is that within the inner sanctuary there was a space of 20 cubits length. The altar within the Most Holy was the altar of incense. The altar is described in some manuscripts as "made" with cedar, and this surely must be the case. It was the cedar which was overlaid with pure gold as in <a href='B:20 25:11'>Exo 25:11</a>.</p><p>The Outer Court was 30 cubits high, while the Holy of Holies was 20 cubits high, about 4 meters lower. We would have expected the Holy of Holies to be higher. But the likely reason for this was that the design of the temple reflected that of other temples unearthed in and around the land of Israel. They have a forecourt, an outer court, a 'holy of holies' <em>lower than the outer court</em>, two large pillars [cp. Jachin and Boaz] and some kind of large water tank [cp. the "molten sea"]; and the king's palace adjacent. </p>


text:
<p>So Solomon overlaid the house within with pure gold: and he drew chains of gold across before the inner sanctuary; and he overlaid it with gold- </p><p>The most holy place, or "inner sanctuary", was separated from the rest of the Holy Place by a door (:31) with "chains of gold" across it and a veil across it all (<a href='B:140 3:14'>2Ch 3:14</a>).</p>


text:
<p>The whole house he overlaid with gold, until all the house was finished: also the whole altar that belonged to the inner sanctuary he overlaid with gold- </p><p><a href='B:140 3:8'>2Ch 3:8</a> says this was 600 talents of gold. One talent is 26 kilograms (57 pounds). 1 kilogram of gold is currently worth about 40,000 US$ [2020], meaning the value was around 625 million US$ in current terms. But in the poor, subsistence farming economy of those times, this sum was far greater in real terms. But this was not even all the gold which came to Solomon in the course of one year (<a href='B:110 13:18'>1Ki 13:18</a>), so it was not particularly generous.</p>


text:
<p>In the inner sanctuary he made two cherubim of olive wood, each ten cubits high- </p><p>"Olive" is s:w. "pine", and may also have been brought from Gentile Hiram- to be worked into God’s glory.</p>


text:
<p>Five cubits was the one wing of the cherub, and five cubits the other wing of the cherub: from the uttermost part of the one wing to the uttermost part of the other were ten cubits- </p><p>This means that the wings of the cherubim touched each other. There was a complete covering over the mercy seat, or top of the ark where the blood of atonement was sprinkled each year, and above that but below the wings of the cherubim the shekinah glory of God was seen. The ark and mercy seat were placed under the cherubic wings (<a href='B:140 8:6'>2Ch 8:6</a>). It was only a relatively small space, as noted on :26.</p><p>In the tabernacle the wings were "spread out on high" (<a href='B:20 25:20'>Exo 25:20</a>; <a href='B:20 27:9'>Exo 27:9</a>), but here their wings touch each other. Although Solomon claims he built everything according to Divine revelation, we wonder whether in fact he felt free to liberally reinterpret the tabernacle features. And he changes wings uplifted to God’s glory to wings which are closed in upon each other; the mercy seat, or cover of the ark, is no longer exposed to Heaven, as it were, but now closed over.</p>


text:
<p>The other cherub was ten cubits: both the cherubim were of one measure and one form- </p><p>This "one form" is significant, as the various Biblical visions of the cherubim seem to present them as having slightly different forms in each vision. Like everything to do with God’s glory and manifestation, the form is constantly variable over time. They stood upon their own feet in this vision (<a href='B:140 3:13'>2Ch 3:13</a>).</p>


text:
<p>The height of the one cherub was ten cubits, and so was it of the other cherub-</p><p>See on :24. The ark and mercy seat were placed under the cherubic wings (<a href='B:140 8:6'>2Ch 8:6</a>). The ark was one and a half cubits high (<a href='B:20 25:10'>Exo 25:10</a>) and the cherubim were ten cubits high. In this relatively small space, the shekinah glory of God was manifest. For God doesn't need much space in which to reveal Himself; which is an abiding principle.</p>


text:
<p>He set the cherubim within the inner house; and the wings of the cherubim were stretched forth, so that the wing of the one touched the one wall, and the wing of the other cherub touched the other wall; and their wings touched one another in the midst of the house- </p><p>We note that "the wall" refers to the interior of the wall. If this is likewise how "the walls" are described elsewhere, then the thickness of the walls is not included in the dimensions given.</p>


text:
<p>He overlaid the cherubim with gold- </p><p>Considering the construction of the cherubim leads us to reflect that they were not somehow supernatural, they were made of ordinary materials and didn’t fall down from Heaven, as claimed by many of the religious cults.</p>


text:
<p>He carved all the walls of the house around with carved figures of cherubim- </p><p>The idea was that the glory and presence of God represented by the cherubim was not only in the most holy place, but extended beyond it. David had often perceived this in his Psalms whilst on the run from Saul.</p><p>And palm trees and open flowers- </p><p>Perhaps the reference was to David’s imagery of the righteous flourishing like the palm tree (<a href='B:230 92:12'>Psa 92:12</a>). But Solomon had likened his Egyptian lover to a palm (<a href='B:260 7:7-8'>Son 7:7-8</a>), and the palm and open flowers feature in Egyptian architecture. See on :18. Seeing that Solomon had married an Egyptian, and the Song of Solomon reflects Solomon's deep admiration for things Egyptian, it seems likely that even in the temple, Solomon allowed Gentile influence, although mixing it with the imagery of the cherubim of Yahweh's manifestation. And that was to be a sad theme of this temple until its destruction.</p><p>Inside and outside- </p><p>The idea is "within and without", "the inner and outer", and I suggest the reference is to the inner and outer areas just described, i:e. the most holy place ['inner'] and holy place ['outer'].</p>


text:
<p>The floor of the house he overlaid with gold, inside and outside- </p><p>David had perceived that "Holiness adorns Your house, Yahweh, forever" (<a href='B:230 93:5'>Psa 93:5</a>). David realized in that Psalm that if God’s throne was David’s throne, then David’s house was to as Yahweh's house, adorned with holiness. Solomon interpreted this in physical terms, adorning the temple with symbols of holiness (the cherubim) and gold; but the real adornment was of personal holiness, which Solomon failed in ultimately because of his obsession with the external and material.  This overlaying with gold was typical of Egyptian temples; again we see the influence of his Egyptian wife and probably other such wives. Overlaying a floor with gold was impractical as gold is a soft metal; and likewise the description of an altar overlaid with cedar wood in a place where there was no altar in the tabernacle (:20). We therefore immediately perceive that Solomon's interest was not on practical utility / usage, but rather on external appearance and creating a legend that his temple was paved with gold even on the floor.</p>


text:
<p>For the entrance of the inner sanctuary he made doors of olive wood- </p><p>The most holy place, or "inner sanctuary", was separated from the rest of the Holy Place by a door with "chains of gold" across it (:21) and a veil across it all (<a href='B:140 3:14'>2Ch 3:14</a>).</p><p>The lintel and door posts were a fifth part of the wall- </p><p>The wall was 20 cubits high, so the length and breadth of the door posts / lintel were 4 x 4 cubits.</p>


text:
<p>So he made two doors of olive wood; and he carved on them carvings of cherubim and palm trees and open flowers, and overlaid them with gold; and he spread the gold on the cherubim, and on the palm trees- </p><p>"Two doors" means two leaves meeting in the middle- just as was the recent rage at the time in Egyptian temples. Likewise the spreading of the gold on the cherubim means that the gold was hammered and nailed over the protruding shapes of the cherubim- again, just as in Egyptian temples.</p><p>See on :29 for the significance of the carvings. The floors and walls were covered with gold plating, but the carved work had to be covered with gold spread or beaten onto it. Seeing gold seemed in plentiful supply, we wonder why Solomon didn’t make the cherubim of solid gold. Perhaps he was careful to imitate how they had been made in the tabernacle, or perhaps it was Divinely overruled that he didn’t make them of solid gold. For the significance of the stress upon overlaying with gold was that God works with very ordinary materials, wood and stone, and turns them into something far more beautiful in response to our faith, which is the real gold.</p>


text:
<p>In the same way he also made for the entrance of the temple door posts of olive wood, out of a fourth part of the wall- </p><p>The wall was 20 cubits high, so the length and breadth of the door posts / lintel were 5 x 5 cubits. "The entrance" in view could be that into the holy place from the porch.  "Out of a fourth part of the wall" can be rendered simply as meaning there were four doorposts. So I suggest that in the entrance from the Forecourt to the Outer Court there were four doorposts of olive wood (1 Kings 6:33 Heb.). At the entrance between the Outer Court and the Holy of Holies, there were five doorposts of olive wood (1 Kings 6:31 Heb.). What does this signify and why is it recorded? It's hard to say this has any meaning- until we realize that this was typical of other temples. Thus in the elaborate stone building model from Khirbet Qeiyafa there is exactly the same design.</p>


text:
<p>and two doors of fir wood: the two leaves of the one door were folding, and the two leaves of the other door were folding- </p><p>This means there were four leaves. Two collapsed together on one wall and two on the other. This meant that the opening could be just a quarter of the entire door, or more or less the entire aperture could be opened.</p>


text:
<p>He carved cherubim and palm trees and open flowers; and he overlaid them with gold fitted on the engraved work- </p><p>See on :29 for the significance of the carvings. <a href='B:140 3:6'>2Ch 3:6</a> adds that the gold was from Parvaim, and that precious stones were also used:&nbsp; The context is of the doors, so the idea may be that the carvings and embossed parts of the doors were overlaid rather than the entire doors.</p>


text:
<p>He built the inner court with three courses of cut stone, and a course of cedar beams- </p><p>This other court would be the "court of the priests" (<a href='B:140 4:9'>2Ch 4:9</a>), the "higher court" of <a href='B:300 36:10'>Jer 36:10</a>. Perhaps it was made "higher" by the three layers of stone and the cedar decking placed upon it. Perhaps the idea was that the people in the outer court could see what the priests were doing. This building of a temple on a platform of three rows of stone was, again, exactly the style of Egyptian temples.
</p>


text:
<p>In the fourth year was the foundation of the house of Yahweh laid, in the month Ziv- </p><p>This was the fourth year of Solomon's reign (:1).</p>


text:
<p>In the eleventh year, in the month Bul, which is the eighth month, was the house finished throughout all its parts, and according to all its fashion. Thus he was seven years in building it- </p><p>Comparing with :1, the period was seven and a half years. But s noted on :1, the Bible is often not exact about time periods.</p>


text:
<p>Solomon was building his own house thirteen years, and he finished all his house-</p><p>The record of Solomon's building of his own house is clearly framed to reveal the sad fact that his zeal for God’s house was only an outcome of his own natural zeal and passion for building which he comments upon in Ecclesiastes;&nbsp;but that tremendous energy was given far more scope in achieving his own ends:&nbsp;So often apparently active brethren are only so because the Truth is only compounding their own naturally active characters. For example, those who naturally like travelling can seem zealous Gospel missionaries. The style of the record makes this clear of Solomon:</p>&nbsp;&nbsp;<p> "So was he seven years in building (God’s house)...</p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<p>but &nbsp;Solomon was building his own house thirteen years" (<a href='B:110 6:38'>1Ki 6:38</a>; <a href='B:110 7:1'>1Ki 7:1</a>).</p><p>His own house (cp. our family and mortgage) assumed almost double the importance of God’s house. In this we see Solomon's apostacy:&nbsp; The architectural detail given concerning Solomon's house and "the house of the forest of Lebanon" seems to be given in such a format as to compare with that concerning God’s house. The question is whether all these building projects happened chronologically, one after another, or whether they in fact were all going on at the same time. If chronologically, we would expect a note to that effect at this point. Instead we are left to conclude that the building of the temple, of his own house, of "the house of the forest of Lebanon" and the "house for Pharaoh’s daughter (whom Solomon had taken as wife)" (:8) all happened at the same time. We could conclude that he was distracted from building God's house by his other building projects, and that's why the building of the temple took seven years. This may appear to be contradicted by the statements in 1 Kings 9:10 and 2 Chron. 8:1: "It happened at the end of twenty years, in which Solomon had built the two houses, the house of Yahweh and the king’s house...". However the context of those verses goes on to state that Solomon had given twenty cities to Hiram in return for his labour and materials for the building of the houses. So we could legitimately read those passages as meaning that at the end of the twenty year period over which the two houses had been built and twenty cities given to Hiram... that Hiram became dissatisfied.  The recurrence of the number twenty could hint that he was paid one city a year for twenty years. </p><p>
He had initially justified building the temple because of the fact that Israel were worshipping in "high places" contrary to God's expressed intention. That however was a fake excuse anyway, because they could have simply assembled wherever the ark was. And if indeed Solomon was so concerned about this matter, he would have made building the temple a priority and not delayed it because of his other building projects. We can also conclude that the list of all his building projects here in 1 Kings 7 is again the record's way of making an implicit criticism of Solomon. His appeal for wholehearted devotion to God in 1 Kings 8:61 is therefore hypocritical. We recall David already had a grand cedar house for himself, so grand he felt guilty about it, which had prompted his desire to build a house for God. But this wasn't enough for Solomon; he spent 13 years building himself an even grander palace. The references to all the windows and openings in the house of the forest of Lebanon were for the air to circulate, suggesting it was a grand summer house.  And so we have a scene reminiscent of other eastern monarchs. A grand palace, a house for his chief wife, a summer house, a judgment hall and throne (:7) and a royal chapel, which in Solomon's case was Yahweh's temple- all within the same palace-temple complex. The queen of Sheba will later be awed at "the ascent" by which Solomon entered the temple- some grandiose entrance ramp from his own house to the temple, which was effectively his royal chapel. </p><p>
"He finished all his house" could hint that he never in fact finished all the temple [for what elaborate architectural plans are finished to the end?]; but he did finish his house. We read simply that he built and finished the temple (1 Kings 6:14; I suggest there that this refers only to the basic structure). This might explain why the temple rather fades from view in Solomon's later reign and in the accounts of the kings after him. We wonder how much it was ever used at the time. 
</p>


text:
<p>For he built the house of the forest of Lebanon; its length was one hundred cubits, and its breadth fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits, on four rows of cedar pillars, with cedar beams on the pillars- </p><p>It was called the house of the forest of Lebanon because of the resemblance of the mass of cedar pillars to the Lebanon cedar forest. The length of “a hundred cubits” (150 feet) was nearly twice as long as the entire temple without the porch. </p><p> 
LXX "three rows". This must be correct because the three rows of 15 pillars make the 45 pillars of :3. Building using 45 pillars is exactly what we find in the surrounding nations- the 45 pillar layout is most clearly seen in the palace of Cyrus at Pasargadae.  
</p><p> The Temple was smaller than Solomon's house; he took nearly twice as long to build it. Clearly he spent more effort at housing his own glory than he did housing God’s. The comparisons are intended to show this. The following comparisons put the temple first, and then Solomon's house.</p><p>Length: 60 cubits, breadth 20, height 30 (<a href='B:110 6:2'>1Ki 6:2</a>)cp:Length: 100 cubits, breadth 50, height 30 (<a href='B:110 7:2'>1Ki 7:2</a>)</p><p>Used cedar pillars and beams (<a href='B:110 6:9-10'>1Ki 6:9-10</a>) cp. <a href='B:110 7:2'>1Ki 7:2</a></p><p>Inner court built with three rows of hewn stone and a row of cedar beams (<a href='B:110 6:36'>1Ki 6:36</a> RV) cp. “The great court round about had three rows of hewn stones, and a row of cedar beams, like as the inner court of the house of the Lord” (<a href='B:110 7:12'>1Ki 7:12</a>)</p><p>Hiram called in to build it (<a href='B:110 5:1-5'>1Ki 5:1-5</a>)cp. <a href='B:110 7:13'>1Ki 7:13</a></p><p>The Most Holy within God’s house (<a href='B:110 7:8'>1Ki 7:8</a>)cp:The "another court within the porch" in his house seems to have been a replica of the Most Holy within God’s house. Here Solomon’s wives worshipped their idols.</p><p>Built on large foundation stones cp. The record of the foundation stones (7:10) is similar to that of the temple foundations.</p><p>The temple had a “porch” (<a href='B:330 8:7'>Eze 8:7</a>; <a href='B:330 8:16'>Eze 8:16</a>) cp. The porch of Solomon's house matches that of the temple (<a href='B:330 8:7'>Eze 8:7</a>; <a href='B:330 8:16'>Eze 8:16</a>), which in Ezekiel's time was a place of apostacy.</p><p>Open flowers design of the temple&nbsp;cp. The two pillars with their pomegranates and lily-work seem to have matched the open flowers of the temple, and they have ominous connections with Absalom's pillar of self-glorification (<a href='B:100 18:18'>2Sa 18:18</a>).</p><p>The way the record of Solomon's house follows straight on from that of God’s house (1 Kings 6, 7) seems to highlight the similarity between them:&nbsp;&nbsp; The house of Yahweh and Solomon's house are often spoke of together (e.g. <a href='B:140 7:11'>2Ch 7:11</a>; <a href='B:140 8:1'>2Ch 8:1</a>; <a href='B:140 9:11'>2Ch 9:11</a>) to make us reflect on this. Indeed, the record of Solomon's house in <a href='B:110 7:1-12'>1Ki 7:1-12</a> is a parenthesis out of historical sequence;&nbsp; 5:2-6:38 and 7:13-9:9 are about the temple;&nbsp; 7:1-12 is a clear parenthesis to demonstrate Solomon's weakness.</p><p>The size and grandeur of Solomon's house would have dwarfed the temple; when it should have been the other way around. Indeed it could be argued that the temple then appeared as his royal chapel, similar to how many kings in the area built a huge personal palace with a chapel to their god nearby.</p>


text:
<p>It was covered with cedar above over the forty-five beams, that were on the pillars; fifteen in a row- </p><p><a href='B:290 2:6-13'>Isa 2:6-13</a> condemns Israel for their pride whilst making many allusions to Solomon:&nbsp;"Full of silver and gold, neither is there any end of their treasures... full of horses... chariots... idols... the work of their own hands... the cedars of Lebanon" (i:e. Solomon's armoury of <a href='B:110 7:2-3'>1Ki 7:2-3</a>; <a href='B:110 10:17'>1Ki 10:17</a>):&nbsp;The amount of cedar used for Solomon's house as well as the temple would have probably resulted in the deforestation of parts of Lebanon in order to provide this number of mature cedar trees. To cover an area of 100 x 50 cubits with a roof of cedar would have required 5000 square cubits of cedar wood if it were a flat roof, and more if the roof was angled; although it could be that not all the area was covered, i:e. there may have been a courtyard:&nbsp;But if it was, then we can better understand why it was called "the house of the forest of Lebanon" (<a href='B:110 10:17'>1Ki 10:17</a>; <a href='B:290 22:8'>Isa 22:8</a>). About a whole forest of Lebanon would have been felled and transported to Jerusalem for all this building work.</p>


text:
<p>There were window frames in three rows, and window was over against window in three ranks- </p><p>The words used here are generally different to those in <a href='B:110 6:4'>1Ki 6:4</a> and speaks more of windows for light. There was no natural light in the temple just as there wasn't in the tabernacle. The hope was that it would be lit by the light of God’s glory; and likewise there is no natural light in the spiritual temple, only that of God’s glory. But there were windows admitting natural light in Solomon's own house.</p><p>There is the implication here that the building was of three stories, as was the temple (<a href='B:110 6:6'>1Ki 6:6</a>). His house was a conscious imitation of God’s house, but on a far grander scale.</p>


text:
<p>All the doors and posts had square frames: and window was opposite window in three tiers- </p><p>These windows were for light; AV "light against light". There was no natural light in the temple; but Solomon's house was full of natural light. The difference is significant. For the temple was to be illuminated by God’s glory, whereas Solomon's own house was all about his own natural light.</p>


text:
<p>He made the porch of pillars; its length was fifty cubits, and its breadth thirty cubits; and a porch before them; and pillars and a threshold before them- </p><p>It's hard to determine which building this porch joined to, but it was a colonnade, and perhaps a separate building; and the point to note is that it was far grander than the porch built for Yahweh's house. It was an Egyptian propylaea, a kind of "pillar hall", and reflects Egyptian influence upon Solomon.</p>


text:
<p>He made the hall of judgment for the throne where he was to judge, even the porch of judgment: and it was covered with cedar from floor to floor-</p><p>This was effectively replicating the most holy place of the temple; and Solomon was placing his throne of judgment as the equivalent to the ark in the most holy place. He was playing God, exalting his judgment over that of Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>His house where he was to dwell had another court within the porch, which was of the same plan. He made also a house for Pharaoh’s daughter (whom Solomon had taken as wife), like this porch- </p><p>"His house" may differ from the one just described from :1-7, which was called the house of the forest of Lebanon, and was really a glorious law court, with Solomon's throne exalted as the judge of all (see on :7).</p><p>The porch of Solomon's house matches that of the temple (<a href='B:330 8:7'>Eze 8:7</a>; <a href='B:330 8:16'>Eze 8:16</a>), which in Ezekiel's time was a place of apostacy:&nbsp;&nbsp; Solomon's own house was undeniably larger than God’s, although built with the same layout (e.g. <a href='B:110 6:2'>1Ki 6:2</a> cp. 7:2;&nbsp; 6:36 cp. 7:12;&nbsp; 5:1-5 cp. 7:13):&nbsp;The "another court within the porch" in his house seems to have been a replica of the Most Holy within God’s house (<a href='B:110 7:8'>1Ki 7:8</a>), yet it was here that Solomon's wives worshipped their idols:&nbsp;Likewise the record of the foundation stones (7:10) is similar to that of the temple foundations.</p>


text:
<p>All these were of costly stones, even of cut stone, according to measure, sawn with saws, inside and outside, even from the foundation to the coping, and so on the outside to the great court- </p><p>"According to measure" may mean as in AV that the precious stones were cut and used to a similar size as building brick, the cut stone. "Inside and outside" seems to mean that the precious stones were cut or polished on the inside as well, i:e. the side not exposed to view. This opulence and grandeur is far greater than what Solomon invested in the building of God’s house.</p>


text:
<p>The foundation was of costly stones, even great stones, stones of ten cubits, and stones of eight cubits- </p><p>This could mean that precious stones were inserted in even the foundation; see on :9. It seems these stones were smaller than those used in the temple, meaning that more effort was put into Solomon's own house than God’s house. And that is the challenge of these specifications to us.</p>


text:
<p>Above were costly stones, cut stone, according to measure, and cedar wood- </p><p>That is, above the foundation stones of :10. The stones built upon them were "cut stones", implying they were smoothed. Again as noted on :10, more effort was put into Solomon's own house than God’s house. As discussed earlier, the record is implicitly criticizing Solomon all the way through. His building efforts for his own house dwarfed his efforts for God's house, and this was to be the complaint of Haggai centuries later.</p>


text:
<p>The great court around had three courses of cut stone, and a course of cedar beams; like the inner court of the house of Yahweh, and the porch of the house-</p><p>Again we see Solomon playing God. His house  had two courts [like the temple, 1 Kings 6:36] and was a conscious replica of the temple, the house of Yahweh, but to a grander scale and with far more effort put into it. Again we note that Egyptian and Assyrian palaces always had such an external court, and then one or more inner courts or quadrangles.</p>


text:
<p>King Solomon sent and fetched Hiram out of Tyre- </p><p>This contrasts with how Solomon's communications with Hiram regarding the temple had been by messenger. But for the matters of building his own house, he wants him present in person. Again we see how more effort was put into Solomon's own house than God’s house.</p><p>However I suggest that the actual Hiram king of Tyre is not necessarily in view, but a man called Huram (<a href='B:140 4:11'>2Ch 4:11</a>), of similar spelling, who is described as a "father" to Hiram the king (<a href='B:140 2:13'>2Ch 2:13</a>); in the sense in which Joseph was a father to Pharaoh (<a href='B:10 45:8'>Gen 45:8</a>), his leading official. Thus we read in <a href='B:140 4:16'>2Ch 4:16</a> that "the vessels thereof did Huram his father make for king Solomon". However the point is established that a leading political figure within Tyre, who was known for his craftsmanship, was summoned personally to work on Solomon's own house, whereas this wasn't done for the work of God’s house.</p><p>Another possibility is that this craftsman was Hiram's own representative, and is therefore spoken of as being "Hiram".</p>


text:
<p>He was the son of a widow of the tribe of Naphtali, and his father was a man of Tyre, a worker in brass- </p><p><a href='B:140 2:14'>2Ch 2:14</a> says "Hiram" was "son of a woman of the daughters of Dan", whereas 1 King 7:14 says he was "the son of a widow of the tribe of Naphtali". Dan may refer to the town called Dan or Laish which was in the territory of Naphtali, but inhabited by Danites (<a href='B:60 18:27'>Jos 18:27</a>; <a href='B:60 19:47'>Jos 19:47</a>; <a href='B:70 18:7'>Jdg 18:7</a>). Here we see how an apparent discrepancy on a surface level reveals a deep evidence of the way the records do not contradict but dovetail perfectly, as we would expect of a Divinely inspired writing. But this is only apparent to those who respectfully search the entire scriptures, rather than bandying around a surface level contradiction with an eagerness which speaks more of their own fears the Bible is inspired than of deep factual persuasion.</p><p>And he was filled with wisdom and understanding and skill, to work all works in brass. He came to king Solomon, and performed all his work- </p><p>This is similar language as to how Solomon had been filled by God with wisdom. But this man was filled with human wisdom. The contrast is similar to the fact that God’s house had no natural light, whereas Solomon's did.</p>


text:
<p>For he fashioned the two pillars of brass, each eighteen cubits high: and a line of twelve cubits encircled both of them around- </p><p>"Fashioned" is as AV "cast", and reflects Egyptian influence:&nbsp; The paintings of Thebes show this casting being done in Egypt, and it clearly was copied by Solomon. In connection with his wife being Pharaoh's daughter, he likely visited Egypt several times.</p><p>The two pillars with their pomegranates and lily-work seem to have matched the open flowers of the temple, and they have ominous connections with Absalom's pillar of self-glorification (<a href='B:100 18:18'>2Sa 18:18</a>):&nbsp;Worst of all, Solomon's throne seems to have been built with allusion to Yahweh's enthronement upon the praises of Israel in the Most Holy.</p><p>The two pillars are said to be 18 cubits high (<a href='B:110 7:15'>1Ki 7:15</a>), but in <a href='B:140 3:15'>2Ch 3:15</a> they are 35 cubits high. What that means is that there were two cubits of 17:5 cubits high each, summarized as 18 cubits high in <a href='B:110 7:15'>1Ki 7:15</a>. We have another example of this kind of reckoning in the way that the&nbsp;&nbsp; height of the porch was 120 cubits, or 180 feet (<a href='B:140 3:4'>2Ch 3:4</a>). This is out of proportion to the length and breadth. Perhaps what is meant is that the height of each of the four walls has been added together, which would give a height of 30 cubits. This style is to be found in <a href='B:140 3:11'>2Ch 3:11</a>, where the length of the wings of the cherubim is given as 20 cubits, but this was a way of saying that each of the four wings was five cubits long.</p>


text:
<p>He made two capitals of molten brass, to set on the tops of the pillars: the height of the one capital was five cubits, and the height of the other capital was five cubits- </p><p>The capitals were placed on the tops of the pillars. "Tops" is "heads", and the Hebrew for "capitals" suggests "crown". The idea is that everywhere in his house, Solomon was glorifying his own kingship; forgetting that it was by grace, and conditional upon his obedience. These bronze pillars replicated those before the temple (<a href='B:120 25:17'>2Ki 25:17</a>; <a href='B:140 3:15'>2Ch 3:15</a>). Solomon was modelling his house upon God’s house. Although the height of the crowns in the pillars before his house was five cubits, but only three cubits for the pillars before God’s house (<a href='B:120 25:17'>2Ki 25:17</a>).</p>


text:
<p>There were nets of chequer work, and wreaths of chain work, for the capitals which were on the top of the pillars; seven for the one capital, and seven for the other capital- </p><p>"This decoration consisted of seven twists arranged as festoons, which were hung round the capitals of the pillars" (Keil). The language is more appropriate for metalwork than stone work.</p>


text:
<p>So he made the pillars; and there were two rows around on the one network, to cover the capitals that were on the top of the pillars: and he did so for the other capital- </p><p>LXX reads "pomegranates" for "pillars". I consider that any attempt to find spiritual significance in the pomegranates used in Solomon's building is misplaced, because I don't think he was at all thinking in that way. Rather is this another example of his simply copying what he had seen in Egypt, from where his queen came from. For such pomegranate designs are common in Egyptian architecture of the time, and Egypt was famed for pomegranates (<a href='B:40 20:5'>Num 20:5</a>).</p>


text:
<p>The capitals that were on the top of the pillars in the porch were of carved lilies, four cubits- </p><p>Again, this reflects Egyptian influence on Solomon, rather than any great spiritual symbolism. For "the capitals of Egyptian pillars took the form of the lotus", and here he uses carved lilies, although they may effectively be the same as the lotus motif of Egyptian architecture. It seems that this refers to another capital superimposed upon those we have just had described (:20). Again, we see how more effort was put into Solomon's own house than God’s house. The lotus or lily was common the river Nile, and it opened every morning and closed every night, just as some of their gods were perceived as doing. We note that the lily / lotus motif is absent in Ezekiel's temple, where we have only cherubim and palm trees as a decorative motif. Even Solomon's use of the winged cherubim as a motif may be intended to imitate the common motif of winged griffins in contemporary Phoenician temples.</p>


text:
<p>There were capitals above also on the two pillars- </p><p>This would mean that there were in fact two capitals on each pillar, as noted on :19. There was only one such capital on the pillars erected before God’s house. But Solomon was far more painstaking and ornate in building his own house, and it therefore took him nearly twice as long.</p><p>Close by the cushion which was beside the network: and the pomegranates were two hundred, in rows around on the other capital- </p><p>See on :18 for "pomegranates". There were 100 in each row, but on one row there were 96 facing the courts, meaning the other four were at the corners (<a href='B:300 52:23'>Jer 52:23</a>). The internal corroboration between records written hundreds of years apart is impressive, and reflects Divine inspiration of the entire Old Testament.</p>


text:
<p>He set up the pillars at the porch of the temple: and he set up the right pillar- </p><p>I suggest there were two sets of pillars, one before Solomon's house and another before the temple. Now the focus of the record returns to the temple, as now we will also read of the huge laver Solomon built before the temple. But pillars before a temple was a reflection of pagan influence. "The Phoenicians used isolated metal columns as sacred ornaments, so that Hiram would be familiar with such a mode of ornamentation" (Rawlinson). "Whenever in coins or histories we get a representation of a Phoenician temple, it always has a pillar or pillars standing within or before it" (Stanley). It seems that the contact with Tyre had resulted in their religion coming to influence Solomon's design of the temple. And so it happens when we claim to serve God according to the religious ideas of pagans. This is another reason why I query whether in fact he did receive the designs of the temple from God as he claimed. Indeed it was a common feature of the surrounding temples that the king claimed to have been given the plans by his god, and I suggest Solomon and David were no different.</p><p>And called its name Jachin; and he set up the left pillar, and called its name Boaz- </p><p>"Jachin" means "He will establish", and Boaz "in Him [God] is strength", which is the idea in <a href='B:290 45:24'>Isa 45:24</a>. They were a statement that God would establish the line of Solomon, and perhaps Boaz is also a reference to his ancestor of that name. But that establishment of the Kingdom was conditional upon Solomon's obedience, according to the promises to David in 2 Samuel 7. But Solomon liked to think that by building these pillars, he had himself established his dynasty, and shown it to be established. Putting the two names together, we have 'He will establish by strength’, and this seems to be deconstructed by the restoration prophecy of <a href='B:450 4:6'>Zec 4:6</a>, given after these two pillars had been removed, never to be restored.</p><p>"Boaz" may simply be a reference to David's ancestor Boaz. It was his line through David which David believed would be permanently established ['Jachin']. In this case, this would be similar to how Babylonian temple columns were named according to the first word in a sentence, which pronounced eternal dynasty to the king. Jeremiah records the removal of the pillars by the Babylonians, as if to underscore how God did not in fact permanently establish the line of kings from Solomon and David. David's hope was that his "throne shall be established [yikkon] forever as the moon" (Ps. 89:38). Ps. 93:2 claims that his throne is nakhon ("firmly established"), from the same root as jakhin. But it wasn't. The eternal establishment was to be through his greater Son, and not through an unbroken line of kings from him. Yet this is how the pillars were understood, for in 2  Kings 11:14 we read of the king "standing by the pillar, as was the custom" to receive an official position.</p><p>
The significance of the Jachin and Boaz pillars may however be little more than that like many features of the temple, they correspond closely to the design of other temples in the area. Free standing pillars before temples were common; Cleopatra's Needle in London may be a surviving example of such a free-standing obelisk. Quite possibly these pillars were Hiram's idea, because  in Tyre two pillars stood outside the temple of Hercules. Solomon's temple was clearly influenced by his desire to be like the nations, and possibly reflect the influence of his idolatrous wives who were from those nations. 
</p>


text:
<p>On the top of the pillars was lily work: so was the work of the pillars finished- </p><p>The lily motif is stressed in the final description of the pillars, and I suggested on :19 that they were pagan lotus symbols.</p>


text:
<p>He made the molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass, and its height was five cubits; and a line of thirty cubits encircled it- </p><p>This gives the circumference of the laver as “thirty cubits”, although it was ten cubits broad. Taking ‘pi’ to be 3:14, it is apparent that the circumference would have been 31:4 cubits; but the Spirit says, summing up, “thirty”. Sometimes the Biblical record is vague, other times exact. This reflects how God is not seeking to cover His back against critics. He is of an altogether higher nature than that. There are times when the Spirit uses very approximate numbers rather than exact ("about the space of four hundred and fifty years", <a href='B:510 13:20'>Act 13:20</a> cp. <a href='B:110 6:1'>1Ki 6:1</a>). The reference to "seventy" in <a href='B:70 9:56'>Jdg 9:56</a> also doesn't seem exact. Seven and a half years (<a href='B:100 2:11'>2Sa 2:11</a>) becomes "seven years" (<a href='B:110 2:11'>1Ki 2:11</a>); three months and ten days (<a href='B:140 36:9'>2Ch 36:9</a>) becomes "three months" (<a href='B:120 24:8'>2Ki 24:8</a>). This is not how we are used to history being written; but we are reading the Hebrew genre of history, not our own.</p>


text:
<p>Under its brim around there were buds which encircled it, for ten cubits, encircling the sea: the buds were in two rows, cast when it was cast- </p><p>The size of this laver was unrealistic if it were to be useful. The huge size was therefore for show, and not because Solomon really wished there to be cleansing in practice. "Buds" is AV "knops". "Buds" is a guess at translation, for the Hebrew word is very obscure, literally "wild gourds", a poisonous plant (s:w. <a href='B:120 4:39'>2Ki 4:39</a>). It is unlikely this plant is in view. But there are observable similarities with the decoration of Egyptian holy places. Seeing that Solomon had married an Egyptian, and the Song of Solomon reflects Solomon's deep admiration for things Egyptian, it seems likely that even in the temple, Solomon allowed Gentile influence. And that was to be a theme of this temple until its destruction:&nbsp; .</p>


text:
<p>It stood on twelve oxen, three looking toward the north, three looking toward the west, three looking toward the south and three looking toward the east; and the sea was set on them above, and all their hinder parts were inward- </p><p>This massive laver was therefore a political statement, implying the twelve tribes of Israel were only to be cleansed by this huge laver. I discussed on 1 Kings 4 how Solomon sought to bring all Israel under his personal control. He constantly mixes spiritual appearance with his own unspiritual agendas.</p>


text:
<p>It was a handbreadth thick: and its brim was worked like the brim of a cup, like the flower of a lily: it held two thousand baths- </p><p>We several times read of the lily motif in Solomon's building. But the word can as well refer to the lotus. And "the lotus was the religious flower of the Indian and Egyptian religions". So we have a case of Solomon allowing himself to be influenced by the pagan religions of his wives and those he traded with, and importing it into his own version of Yahweh worship.</p><p>It was 10 cubits [5 meters] in diameter, 30 cubits in circumference and five cubits high- and placed upon ornamental oxen. This would have been at least 2.5 meters off the ground and probably higher if we count the 24 oxen beneath it. 2 Kings 16:17 describes how they "took down the sea from off the brazen oxen that were under it, and put it upon the pavement of stones”. Far too high for priests to have easily cleansed themselves or sacrifices. I have several times commented that some of the temple features were not at all useful in practice. A cedar wood coated altar, gold hinges and a gold floor, the Jachin and Boaz pillars... amongst others. The huge bronze sea or laver is quite likely another example. The huge size made it impractical to wash anything in. There is no mention of steps or ladders, and surely they would have been required.</p><p> Such water reservoirs were typical of surrounding temples, and I suggest Solomon simply replicated them but on a larger scale. The Egyptian Book of the Temple describes a “purification lake” adorned with lotus / lily flowers. Just as with this huge laver. Surely Solomon was copying this. "The lotus held political and religious significance as one of the incarnations of the sun god, Khafre- who rises every morning from the primordial waters in Egypt- and accordingly served as a symbol of Upper Egypt and featured on most of its temples in the New Kingdom period". Ezekiel's Divinely inspired plans for a rebuilt temple carefully omit any equivalent of this "molten sea". Indeed there were similar symbolic water containers in various temples. A similar object was found at Amathus, Cyprus and currently resides at the Louvre Museum in Paris. A similar water vat existed at the Marduk temple in Babylon. No wonder Jeremiah prophesied that God was furious with the temple from the day it was built to the day He destroyed it. He agreed to dwell in it, but the whole thing was idolatrous from the start.</p><p>
2000 baths here contrasts with the parallel record stating 3000 baths (2 Chron. 4:2-5). It has been suggested that the figure of 2000 refers to liquid, and 3000 to how much it could contain of dry material. A ration of liquid to dry volume of 3:2 is realistic. Given a circumference of 30 cubits, the diameter is 30 ÷ 2π = 4.77 meters, and therefore the vessel’s volume was 4/3π*2.3853 = 28,400 liters. A domestic bath tub takes 80 liters to fill. So this is the size of a small swimming pool. This is massive and far more water than necessary. There is also no explanation as to how the water entered the "sea" nor how it drained from it. And how was it changed, if it was defiled and dirty? And open water in such a hot climate would soon evaporate. All this leads me to suspect this was again mere showmanship and without any practical utility. Hence there is no record of it ever being used in practice.</p><p>
All these pagan connections are too many to just insist this was what God had commanded. The record emphasizes that David merely claimed to have received the design of the temple from God. Clearly he was influenced by Gentile temples. And yet despite all this, God did dwell in the temple, the temple He says He hated from the day it was built (Jer. 32:31). So we conclude that God is so eager to dwell with man and somehow make the relationship work. Consider the background:
- David had misrepresented God's word about Solomon and the temple
- Solomon in turn had spun David's misinterpretations of God's word
- The temple was heavily influenced by paganism
- There was more mere religion than spirituality in the temple
- Pride and lack of awareness of sin was everywhere in it
- The temple was more about exalting the greatness of the man Solomon than God.
</p><p>
This all sounds very much like what passes for Christianity today. And yet God is still willing to try to dwell in that system and to fellowship with individuals who are within the system, just as He did with those who used Solomon's temple.
</p>


text:
<p>He made the ten bases of brass; four cubits was the length of one base, and four cubits its breadth, and three cubits its height- </p><p>These bases or pedestals were for the ten smaller lavers which will now be described. The massive laver described above was for show, it was too large to realistically be used for ritual cleansing; in practice, the ten smaller lavers would have to be used.</p>


text:
<p>The work of the bases was like this: they had panels; and there were panels between the ledges- </p><p>These "ledges" appear to refer to poles at the four corners of each base, onto which the panels were fixed.</p>


text:
<p>and on the panels that were between the ledges were lions, oxen, and cherubim; and on the ledges there was a pedestal above; and beneath the lions and oxen were wreaths of hanging work- </p><p>The pedestal carrying the actual laver was fixed upon the four poles or shafts of :28, meaning that the panels didn’t carry any of the weight but were purely decorative.</p>


text:
<p>Every base had four bronze wheels, and axles of brass; and the four feet of it had supports: beneath the basin were the supports molten, with wreaths at the side of each- </p><p>The language of wheels and axles recalls the cherubim visions of Ezekiel. The bases were as it were extensions of the cherubim. We note the lions and oxen of :29 were also associated with the cherubim of Ezekiel's visions. The "supports" seem to refer to "shoulders"’ (R:V. margin), through which the axles passed through.</p>


text:
<p>The mouth of it within the capital and above was a cubit: and its mouth was round after the work of a pedestal, a cubit and a half; and also on its mouth were engravings, and their panels were foursquare, not round- </p><p>The "mouth" appears to refer to a circular opening, into which the laver itself was hooked in.</p>


text:
<p>The four wheels were underneath the panels; and the axles of the wheels were in the base: and the height of a wheel was a cubit and half a cubit- </p><p>The axles "were in the base" in that they were cast as art of the base. If this is correct, then the wheels didn’t actually turn. They had the impression of movement, but didn’t actually move- in contrast to the actual cherubim of Ezekiel's vision, whose wheels moved because of the presence of the Spirit within them. This was lacking from Solomon's creation.</p>


text:
<p>The work of the wheels was like the work of a chariot wheel: their axles, and their rims, and their spokes, and their naves, were all molten- </p><p>Again we see the influence of Egypt. Chariots were forbidden for the king of Israel, but Solomon indulged in them. And this was reflected in how he apparently served God. This was a cherubim which couldn't move anywhere in practice but was totally ornamental and lifeless; see on :32.</p>


text:
<p>There were four supports at the four corners of each base: its supports were of the base itself- </p><p>This follows straight on from the description of the wheels in :33, and I suggest it means that the base and the "shoulders" where the axles were (:32) were all cast as part of the same item, and therefore, as discussed on :32,33, the structure couldn't actually move anywhere.</p>


text:
<p>In the top of the base was there a round compass half a cubit high; and on the top of the base its stays and its panels were of the same- </p><p>"Of the same" seems to mean they were cast as one piece; see on :32.</p>


text:
<p>On the plates of its stays, and on its panels, he engraved cherubim, lions, and palm trees, according to the space of each, with wreaths all around- </p><p>Perhaps the reference was to David’s imagery of the righteous flourishing like the palm tree (<a href='B:230 92:12'>Psa 92:12</a>). But Solomon had likened his Egyptian lover to a palm (<a href='B:260 7:7-8'>Son 7:7-8</a>), and the palm and open flowers feature in Egyptian architecture. See on <a href='B:110 6:18'>1Ki 6:18</a>. Seeing that Solomon had married an Egyptian, and the Song of Solomon reflects Solomon's deep admiration for things Egyptian, it seems likely that even in the temple, Solomon allowed Gentile influence, although mixing it with the imagery of the cherubim of Yahweh's manifestation. And that was to be a sad theme of this temple until its destruction. Cherubim clearly allude to the garden of Eden, and there are many echoes of Eden in the temple. The use of cedar and palm trees would represent the righteous, as is clear from Ps. 92:13-16 ["The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree, he will grow like a cedar in Lebanon. They are planted in Yahweh’s house, they will flourish in our God’s courts"]. The huge water tank / "molten sea" may allude to water coming out of Eden. But in this case we see Solomon assuming that he had as it were restored Eden. But without dealing with sin and without any Messianic sacrifice of the seed of the woman. The cherubim were to keep man out of Eden, but throughout the temple there is the message that man was now mixing freely with the cherubim. </p>


text:
<p>In this way, he made the ten bases: all of them had one casting, one measure, and one form- </p><p>They were all cast from&nbsp; the same one mould. We enquire however why there were ten such smaller lavers and not twelve, for the twelve tribes of Israel. Perhaps Solomon thought that his favoured kingdom, of Judah and Benjamin, didn’t require such cleansing.</p>


text:
<p>He made ten basins of brass: one basin contained forty baths; and every basin was four cubits; and on every one of the ten bases one basin- </p><p>Forty baths was about 340 gallons, 1287 litres. The measurement of "four cubits" could refer to the height, or to the diameter. The presence of so many lavers implied that Solomon expected huge numbers of animals to be sacrificed at one time, as he himself did. He had not at all picked up the spirit of his father David, who perceived that God was looking for broken hearts and not sacrifices (<a href='B:230 51:17'>Psa 51:17</a>). The tabernacle had only one laver for all Israel.</p>


text:
<p>He set the bases, five on the right side of the house, and five on the left side of the house- </p><p>The right side was the south, the left side was the north.</p><p>And he set the sea on the right side of the house eastward, toward the south- </p><p>This confirms that the right side was the south. The description is as of a person standing facing the temple from the west side of it. But this was not where the entrance was. Solomon was describing it from his perspective and not that of a worshipper entering the temple from the east.</p>


text:
<p>Hiram made the basins, and the shovels, and the basins. So Hiram made an end of doing all the work that he worked for king Solomon in the house of Yahweh- </p><p>"Basins" is a very similar Hebrew word for "pots" (as in <a href='B:140 4:11'>2Ch 4:11</a>). "Pots" is likely the best reading. There is much stress upon all the "work" done (:40,51). Solomon had quite missed the lessons learned by his father David [and his mother Bathsheba], that God wants broken, contrite hearts more than works and sacrifices.</p>


text:
<p>the two pillars, and the two bowls of the capitals that were on the top of the pillars; and the two networks to cover the two bowls of the capitals that were on the top of the pillars- </p><p>The bowls on top of the pillars may have been because there were oil lamps burning there, as if pointing the way into the temple by night. The same word is used in Zech. 4:2,3 for a bowl of oil on top of a golden candlestick. We now have a summary of all the work done, as if Solomon itemized it all and boasted in the inventory. This glorification of human works and achievement revealed so much about his lack of true spiritual perception; see on :40.</p>


text:
<p>and the four hundred pomegranates for the two networks; two rows of pomegranates for each network, to cover the two bowls of the capitals that were on the pillars- </p><p>The Hebrew word for "network" is used multiple times in the descriptions of Solomon's work. But it is an unusual word, and is elsewhere translated "snare" (<a href='B:220 18:8'>Job 18:8</a>). There is throughout the record the hint that all is not how it should have been spiritually.</p>


text:
<p>and the ten bases, and the ten basins on the bases-</p><p>There was only one laver in the tabernacle, made of the brass mirrors of the repentant women of <a href='B:20 38:8'>Exo 38:8</a>. There was to be a common experience of washing and cleansing in using the same laver; and this was rather spoilt by having ten lavers and then one huge laver, so huge nobody could effectively use it.</p>


text:
<p>and the one sea, and the twelve oxen under the sea- </p><p>There is no record of this huge laver ever being used in practice. The urgent requirement for true cleansing was turned into mere external ritualism, something which was to be seen and admired rather than personally participated it.</p>


text:
<p>and the pots, and the shovels, and the basins: even all these vessels, which Hiram made for king Solomon, in the house of Yahweh, were of burnished brass- </p><p>The idea is of polished copper.</p>


text:
<p>The king cast them in the plain of the Jordan, in the clay ground between Succoth and Zarethan- </p><p>"The king cast them" suggests Solomon's personal involvement with the work. This reflects how he admits in Ecclesiastes that he followed his obsession with building and architecture to a degree not possible for most men. His zeal was therefore more an expression of his own personality type and personal interests, than true love for God.</p><p>Zarethan where Solomon cast the lavers for the temple with their pagan motifs (<a href='B:110 7:46'>1Ki 7:46</a>) is called Zaredathah in <a href='B:140 4:17'>2Ch 4:17</a>, which is a form of Zeredah (<a href='B:110 11:26'>1Ki 11:26</a>), the birthplace of Jeroboam son of Nebat. It doesn't therefore have good connections. We wonder if the golden calves were cast there too.</p>


text:
<p>Solomon left all the vessels unweighed, because they were exceeding many: the weight of the brass could not be found out-</p><p>As noted on :41, Solomon itemized hos work and boasted in the inventory. But he gave up weighing all the brass vessels. This glorification of human works and achievement revealed so much about his lack of true spiritual perception; see on :40.</p>


text:
<p>Solomon made all the vessels that were in the house of Yahweh: the golden altar, and the table whereupon the show bread was, of gold- </p><p>"The golden altar" is the altar of incense. "That were in the house..." could suggest that this history was written or edited after the exile, when these things were no longer there in the temple.</p>


text:
<p>and the lampstands, five on the right side, and five on the left, before the oracle, of pure gold; and the flowers, and the lamps, and the tongs, of gold- </p><p>"Oracle" is the Hebrew word usually translated "word". It refers to the most holy place, but perhaps the idea is that God’s word is ultimately where we are to find the presence of God represented by the ark.</p>


text:
<p>and the cups, and the snuffers, and the basins, and the spoons, and the fire pans, of pure gold; and the hinges, both for the doors of the inner house, the most holy place, and for the doors of the house, of the temple, of gold- </p><p>The inventory here is similar in style to that of the vessels of the tabernacle on Exodus 25-30. It seems Solomon wished to present what he had done in terms of building a new tabernacle, with himself thereby presented as Moses. And yet we have seen hints throughout the record that he built it with pagan influences throughout it. Hinges of gold are impractical as gold is a soft metal. Again as discussed on 1 Kings 6:30, we perceive that Solomon's interest was not on practical utility / usage, but rather on external appearance and creating a legend that his temple even had gold hinges.
</p><p>
1 Kings 7 gives such a detailed inventory of the temple, but the later record describes how all these items, using the same terms, were stripped away. Shishak robbed the treasury (1 Kings 14:26). Ahaz stripped the stands and removed the bulls under the brazen sea (2 Kings 16:17). Hezekiah removed the gold from the doors (2 Kings 18:16). Nebuchadnezzar cut up the gold vessels that Solomon had made (2 Kings 24:13). The gold and silver were melted down and the  bronze items broken up (2 Kings 25:13-17). 
</p>


text:
<p>Thus all the work that king Solomon worked in the house of Yahweh was finished- </p><p>There is much stress upon all the "work" done (:40,51). Solomon had quite missed the lessons learned by his father David [and his mother Bathsheba], that God wants broken, contrite hearts more than works and sacrifices.</p><p>Solomon brought in the things which David his father had dedicated, the silver, the gold and the vessels, and put them in the treasuries of the house of Yahweh- </p><p>These vessels were those taken in <a href='B:100 8:10'>2Sa 8:10</a>. They were devoted to God’s service by David and then Solomon dedicated them to the temple. The same phrase "of silver, and vessels of gold, and vessels of brass" is used of the vessels taken from Egypt and dedicated to the tabernacle (<a href='B:20 11:2'>Exo 11:2</a>; <a href='B:20 12:35'>Exo 12:35</a>; <a href='B:60 6:19'>Jos 6:19</a>; <a href='B:100 8:10'>2Sa 8:10</a>; <a href='B:110 7:51'>1Ki 7:51</a>). The generosity of others in Biblical history, their right perspective on the wealth taken from this world, was to inspire other believers in later history. And this is how the body of Christ should function today, with members inspiring others to spirituality.</p><p>Solomon's&nbsp; zealous&nbsp; organization&nbsp; of&nbsp; the&nbsp; temple worship was an exact&nbsp; fulfillment&nbsp; of the order laid down by his father David (<a href='B:110 7:51'>1Ki 7:51</a>; <a href='B:140 7:6'>2Ch 7:6</a>; <a href='B:140 8:14'>2Ch 8:14</a>). Solomon wanted God to bless the temple&nbsp;as&nbsp;a sign&nbsp;of His pleasure with David his father (e.g. <a href='B:140 6:42'>2Ch 6:42</a>). Solomon's&nbsp; personal&nbsp; enthusiasm for service to God became subsumed by the huge psychological spiritual dominance of his&nbsp; parents. His zeal for the temple was almost purely a result of living out his father’s expectation; he almost admits as much in&nbsp; <a href='B:110 8:20'>1Ki 8:20</a>: "I&nbsp; am&nbsp;risen&nbsp;up in&nbsp; the room of David my father... and have (therefore, in the context) built an house for the&nbsp; name&nbsp; of&nbsp; the&nbsp; Lord".</p><p>The promises God makes involve a solemn commitment by Him to us- the serious, binding nature of His oath to us is easy to forget. God swore to David “by my holiness” (<a href='B:230 89:35'>Psa 89:35</a>). The Hebrew for “holiness” is the very same word translated “dedication”. David’s response to God’s dedication to him was to dedicate [s:w:] all the silver and gold which he had won from this world, to the service of God’s house (<a href='B:110 7:51'>1Ki 7:51</a>; <a href='B:130 26:26'>1Ch 26:26</a>; <a href='B:140 5:1'>2Ch 5:1</a>). Our response to God’s dedication to us should be a like dedication of what we have to Him. Covenant relationship with God requires much of both Him and us. The case of David is a nice illustration of the meaning of grace. David wanted to do something for God- build Him a house, spending his wealth to do so. God replied that no, He wanted to build David a house. And He started to, in the promises He gave David. And David’s response to that grace is to still do something- to dedicate his wealth to God’s house, as God had dedicated Himself to David’s house. This is just how grace and works should be related in our experience.</p>


text:
<p>Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel, and all the heads of the tribes, the princes of the families of the people of Israel, to king Solomon in Jerusalem, to bring up the ark of the covenant of Yahweh out of the city of David, which is Zion-</p><p>Solomon imitated David’s bringing up of the ark to Zion (<a href='B:100 6:2'>2Sa 6:2</a>) in <a href='B:110 8:1'>1Ki 8:1</a>; <a href='B:110 8:4'>1Ki 8:4</a>. He lived out his father’s faith and devotion, but only on an external level. He in due course was to turn away from Yahweh to idols, and descend into the nihilism of Ecclesiastes:&nbsp; "The city of David which is Zion" refers not to Jerusalem but to David's palace or citadel which was within Jerusalem. The ark had been as it were in David's back yard, and was now brought probably a short distance into the temple. David had earlier claimed that Yahweh had chosen Zion as His dwelling place. But it seems that Solomon now readjusts that, because the ark is now brought from that place into the temple he had built. </p>


text:
<p>All the men of Israel assembled themselves to king Solomon at the feast, in the month Ethanim, which is the seventh month- </p><p>This would have been the feast of tabernacles, which began on the 15th day of the seventh month and lasted seven days (<a href='B:30 23:34'>Lev 23:34</a>). The building finished in the eighth month of Solomon's 11th year of reigning (<a href='B:110 6:37'>1Ki 6:37</a>), so he waited almost a year before this ceremony of dedication. Perhaps for some reason he wanted to combine it specifically with the feast of tabernacles. See on :36. The irony is that the feast of tabernacles alludes to how God dwelt in a tent / tabernacle. David had offered to build God a house, but God's reply had been that He preferred dwelling in a tent to any house built by human hands. Now Solomon has built Him a house- and dedicates it on the feast of tents / tabernacles.</p><p>
It has been observed: "1 Kings 8 is built around the number seven: Solomon summons the people on the seventh month (8:2), feasts last fourteen days (Heb.: seven days and seven days; 8:65), the “fathers” are mentioned seven times, Solomon calls David his “father” seven times, and Solomon enumerates seven prayer occasions".</p><p>
Chronicles is more specific, that the feast of tabernacles coincided with the second week of Solomon's two week dedication feast. But the feast of tabernacles was only five days after the day of atonement. It seems Solomon was so obsessed with dedicating the temple that he omitted to celebrate the day of atonement, and this would reflect his general lack of awareness of grace and the problem of sin. </p><p>
1 Kings 6:37 says that the actual building was finished in the eighth month of the eleventh year. The seventh month must have been in the year following. Indeed the LXX in :1 suggests this dedication took place at the end of the 20 years required to build the entire palace-temple complex. This delay in dedicating the temple again reflects how Solomon was unconcerned with being practically useful to God's people. The hint seems to be in 2 Chron. 7:11 that the dedication of the temple and the completion of Solomon's house was at the same time: "Thus Solomon finished the house of Yahweh, and the king’s house. He successfully completed all that came into Solomon’s heart to make in the house of Yahweh, and in his own house". This was after twenty years. Clearly Solomon saw his temple-palace complex as one building. The fact he waited so long to dedicate the temple shows it was all mere religion from his side, he had no genuine desire for the temple to be used by his people to draw closer to God. 
</p>


text:
<p>All the elders of Israel came, and the priests took up the ark- </p><p><a href='B:140 5:4'>2Ch 5:4</a> says that the Levites took up the ark, whereas <a href='B:110 8:3'>1Ki 8:3</a> says that the priests did. Both were true; for Levites weren't allowed into the most holy place (<a href='B:40 4:20'>Num 4:20</a>). So the Levites did carry it, according to the law; but the priests carried it into the most holy place. Here we see how an apparent discrepancy on a surface level reveals a deep evidence of the way the records do not contradict but dovetail perfectly, as we would expect of a Divinely inspired writing. But this is only apparent to those who respectfully search the entire scriptures, rather than bandying around a surface level contradiction with an eagerness which speaks more of their own fears the Bible is inspired than of deep factual persuasion.</p>


text:
<p>They brought up the ark of Yahweh, and the Tent of Meeting, and all the holy vessels that were in the Tent; all these the priests and the Levites brought up- </p><p>We note the irony- God had clearly stated He preferred to live in a tent and not in a building. And Solomon now arranges for the tent to be taken into the building he had made, contrary to God's wishes. There is no further mention of the tent within the temple, so we assume this was a purely symbolic act and the tent was destroyed. He thereby went directly against God's statements about His preference for a tent over a temple.  The priests took these things on the final part of their journey, into the most holy place; as the Levites were forbidden from doing so (<a href='B:40 4:20'>Num 4:20</a>). But the Levites took them the first part of their journey; see on :3.</p>


text:
<p>King Solomon and all the congregation of Israel who were assembled to him, were with him before the ark, sacrificing sheep and cattle, that could not be counted nor numbered for multitude- </p><p>He offered huge numbers of sacrifices when the ark was brought into the temple (<a href='B:110 8:63'>1Ki 8:63</a>), just as David had sacrificed as the ark was brought to Zion (<a href='B:100 6:13'>2Sa 6:13</a> = <a href='B:110 8:5'>1Ki 8:5</a>). Yet he failed to feel and know the truth of David’s conclusion that God doesn’t essentially want sacrifice (<a href='B:230 40:6'>Psa 40:6</a>). David had been forced to learn that lesson through the shame of his sin with Bathsheba- Solomon was so sure of his own righteousness that he never was driven to see the inadequacy of animal sacrifice in itself, and the need in the end for the direct receipt of God’s grace. 2 Chron. 7:5 gives some figures: "Solomon offered a sacrifice of twenty-two thousand head of cattle, and a hundred and twenty thousand sheep". 22,000 oxen are 16.5 million pounds of steak, worth about 90 million US dollars in 2024. And 12 million pounds of mutton. These figures are roughly the entire UK consumption of meat per year in 2024. Slaying these animals would have created a literal river of blood.</p><p>Solomon offered sacrifices “that could not be told nor numbered for multitude”. This is evidently to be connected with the language of the promises to Abraham about the multiplication of the seed of Israel. It could be that Solomon thought that his generosity in giving of his wealth was what had brought about the fulfilment of these promises- he almost forced God to fulfil them, at least in his own mind, by his generosity.</p>


text:
<p>The priests brought in the ark of the covenant of Yahweh to its place, into the inner sanctuary of the house, the most holy place, even under the wings of the cherubim- </p><p>The priests took these things on the final part of their journey, into the most holy place; as the Levites were forbidden from doing so (<a href='B:40 4:20'>Num 4:20</a>). But the Levites took them the first part of their journey; see on :3.</p>


text:
<p>For the cherubim spread forth their wings over the place of the ark, and the cherubim covered the ark and its poles above- </p><p>In the tabernacle the wings were "spread out on high" (<a href='B:20 25:20'>Exo 25:20</a>; <a href='B:20 27:9'>Exo 27:9</a>), but here their wings touch each other. Although Solomon claims he built everything according to Divine revelation, we wonder whether in fact he felt free to liberally reinterpret the tabernacle features. And he changes wings uplifted to God’s glory to wings which are closed in upon each other; the mercy seat, or cover of the ark, is no longer exposed to Heaven, as it were, but now closed over.</p>


text:
<p>The poles were so long that the ends of the poles were seen from the holy place before the inner sanctuary; but they were not seen outside- </p><p>This may reflect a design fault in the lengths of the staves. Although we are assured that a person looking from the outer sanctuary would not have seen them even when the entrance to the holy place was open. This kind of design fault would not have been present if indeed, as Solomon claimed, the specifications were given by God. I suggest this was just his claim, and he built the temple according to his own desire to have a go at architecture and building- which he admits in Ecclesiastes had been his passion and obsession, for a time. See on :64 for another possible design fault.</p><p>And there they are to this day- </p><p>This indicates that this record was written some time before the exile ["to this day"]. But other parts of the history suggest it was written after the exile. This means that some parts were rewritten or edited, under Divine inspiration, but others weren't.</p>


text:
<p>There was nothing in the ark except the two tables of stone which Moses put there at Horeb, when Yahweh made a covenant with the children of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt- </p><p>Inside the ark was intended to be "the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded" (<a href='B:650 9:4'>Heb 9:4</a>; <a href='B:20 16:34'>Exo 16:34</a>; <a href='B:40 17:10'>Num 17:10</a>). They had apparently been lost; so although they remained with the symbols of the covenant, they were lacking in the things which spoke of new spiritual life and the resurrection.</p>


text:
<p>When the priests had come out of the holy place, the cloud filled the house of Yahweh- </p><p><a href='B:20 40:34-35'>Exo 40:34-35</a> uses the same terms for God’s acceptance of and dwelling in the tabernacle. For all the pagan undertones in the temple, and Solomon's unspirituality, God was eager to still dwell within this structure; even though it was not what He wanted. Just as He had used the human kingship, when it was deeply offensive to Him. Chronicles adds that fire came down from Heaven and consumed the sacrifices- and yet their huge number was of itself a reflection of Solomon's refusal to accept what his parents had once learnt, that God doesn't want huge numbers of sacrifices but just a broken contrite heart. Yet God still accepts this lower level of spirituality, even misunderstanding of His grace. Just as He works with His people today who likewise forget or misunderstand His grace.</p>


text:
<p>so that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud; for the glory of Yahweh filled the house of Yahweh-</p><p>This was as at the erection of the tabernacle. The idea was that Yahweh's glory was far above the mere religion of the temple system. His glory was not just between the cherubim over the ark, but everywhere in His house. This was as if to downplay the importance attached to the ark. The allusion is to Lev. 16:3, where God says that "I will appear in the cloud upon the mercy seat". But the cloud was now filling the entire house. God came to Moses "in a thick cloud" (Ex. 19:9; 20:21) but now all the people were being treated as if they were Moses. The promise of 2 Samuel 7 was that God's Name would be in a new house of people; and his glory and His Name are closely connected. By doing this, God was seeking to nudge the people away from Solomon's religious approach towards a spiritual one. The record in 2 Chron. 5-7 describes praise, the interruption of the glory filling the temple, and then resumed praise. God as it were interrupted their religious ritual with a powerful reminder of His glory. We marvel that God did miraculously respond to such a prayer, full of misplaced ideals, willful misunderstandings of God's word by Solomon and his repetition and further spinning of David's similar willful misunderstandings, pride, political overtones of centralizing all spiritual power beneath Solomon in his palace-temple complex... and so forth. Just as God sees all this in the hearts, lives, thinking, churches... of His people. Yet still His presence is there, however reluctantly, however much His reservations, anger and displeasure with it all... yet still He so thirsts for relationship with man. And He as it were ran a risk by accepting the temple and sending His glory into it- the risk that He would appear to be thereby in agreement with Solomon's various misunderstandings and wrong attitudes. Any Divine acceptance of man has to run that risk. But it is only a risk for the superficial; because the Solomon record is clearly written in such a way as to beg comparison with other scriptures. The comparisons indicate so powerfully how wrong he was.
</p>


text:
<p>Then Solomon said, Yahweh has said that He would dwell in the thick darkness- </p><p>Solomon like David (see on <a href='B:140 3:1'>2Ch 3:1</a>; <a href='B:100 16:10'>2Sa 16:10</a>) came to assume things about God in order to justify his passion for building a temple. He claims that God “said that He would dwell in the thick darkness”, perhaps alluding to the darkness of the most holy place in which there was no natural light; but actually there’s no record God ever said that. What He said was that He would dwell in the hearts of men and not in a house. I noted on 1 Kings 6 and 7 that Solomon's temple had plenty of windows allowing natural light, as if to suggest God had now re-thought this dwelling darkness.</p><p>What we say to the Lord Jesus in His ear in the bedroom in the darkness, will be openly spoken by Christ at the judgment (<a href='B:490 12:2-3'>Luk 12:2-3</a>). God dwells in darkness (<a href='B:20 20:21'>Exo 20:21</a>; <a href='B:110 8:12'>1Ki 8:12</a>). Speaking in the bedroom in secret with the knowledge we will be openly rewarded is the language of prayer (<a href='B:470 6:6'>Mat 6:6</a>). Our private relationship with the Lord now, praying to Him in our bedroom, meditating about Him there, will then be spoken out loud.</p>


text:
<p>I have surely built You a house, a place for You to dwell in forever- </p><p>Solomon totally misses the point of God’s response to David’s desire to build Him a house; God would build David a house, involving Him dwelling in the "place" of the humble human heart. And "forever" was conditional upon the obedience of David’s son / seed. But here Solomon effectively dictates to God that those promises are now fulfilled in him- because he has built a temple for God.</p>


text:
<p>The king turned his face about- </p><p>From God to the people. The rest of this chapter is therefore Solomon praying facing the people rather than God. He was effectively praying to himself, praying to be seen of men. The Lord's criticism of such prayers seems to have in mind Solomon's example here.  I suggest that here we have another example of the record making implicit criticism of Solomon rather than being specific, at least not until 1 Kings 11. Solomon was praying with his back to the sanctuary, and this is exactly what was condemned later in Ez. 8:16. The record there seems to allude to Solomon's position: "At the inner court of Yahweh’s house... there, at the door of Yahweh’s temple, between the porch and the altar, were about twenty-five men, with their backs toward Yahweh’s temple, and their faces toward the east".</p><p>And blessed all the assembly of Israel: and all the assembly of Israel stood- </p><p>This blessing of Israel suggests Solomon was acting as the high priest, although he was not of the tribe of Levi. David had done this kind of thing, but from careful reflection upon the spirit of the law, whose letter he says in Psalms 119 he studied constantly. And David came to this sense through careful reflection upon God’s grace to him, and through the experience of Uzzah's death as a result of taking 'living the spirit of the law' too far. Solomon's blessing of the people seems to be in his subsequent statements that the temple would bring them blessing. He ignored the connections between blessing and forgiveness by grace which his father had been forced to, after his sin with Solomon's mother ["blessed are they whose sins are forgiven... blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute iniquity"]. He sees the 'blessing' of external religion rather than internal peace with God by grace.</p>


text:
<p>He said, Blessed is Yahweh, the God of Israel, who spoke with His mouth to David my father, and has with His hand fulfilled it, saying- </p><p>As discussed on :13, the promises to David were not at all totally fulfilled at that point, just because Solomon had built a temple. They were conditional upon Solomon's obedience to the law, which from a young man he had not shown. We think of his marriage to Rehoboam's Ammonitess mother, and to Pharaoh's daughter. As we will see on :16, what Solomon claims God said was not what He said; Solomon twists God's words. And that highlights the blasphemy of his claim here that God actually spoke the words Solomon claimed "with His mouth". God did not say those words. </p>


text:
<p>‘Since the day that I brought My people Israel out of Egypt, I chose no city out of all the tribes of Israel to build a house that My name might be there; but I chose David to be over My people Israel’- </p><p>This is a typical misrepresentation of God’s word. What God had said through Nathan was that He had not chosen anywhere for a temple to be built, but had lived as it were a mobile life in the tent of the tabernacle. And therefore, God would build David a house in the sense of a family of believers sharing David’s faith. They would manifest Yahweh's Name in the sense of His characteristics, the fruit of the Spirit, as the NT would put it. For God's Name in this sense cannot be in a physical building or city.</p><p>
Solomon frequently references the exodus from Egypt with the implication that the completion of the temple meant that their journeys were over (:16,21,51,53). But there is no Divine word to this effect. When they entered Canaan, there was no special ceremony to celebrate the end of their journeys. There are allusions to the wilderness journeys throughout the Bible, suggesting God sees His people like Abraham, on a journey that will only end in the establishment of His Kingdom on earth at the last day. Solomon claims God spoke of how "I chose no city out of all the tribes of Israel to build a house that My name might be there". But what He said was that He was always a God on the move. That is why Ex. 20:24 speaks as if God would have various places where He put His Name: "In every place where I record My name I will come down to you and I will bless you". </p><p>
The implication is that God "chose no city" for a temple apart from Jerusalem. The LXX and some Hebrew manuscripts make this explicit, as does the parallel in 2 Chron. 6:5,6: "From the day that I brought out my people Israel out of Egypt, I have not chosen a city in any one tribe of Israel to build a house, so that my name should be there: but I chose Jerusalem that my name should be there, and I chose David to be over my people Israel" (LXX). But this is Solomon's twisting of God's words to David. He stated that He would not need a temple because His manner had always been that He "moved around in a tent and in a tabernacle" (2 Sam. 7:6). He would appoint a place not for the ark but for His people- in the future Messianic Kingdom which His begotten Son would establish: "I will appoint a place for My people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in their own place" (2 Sam. 7:10). And the One chosen to be over His 'house' or people would be David's future Messianic son, God's begotten Son, to be born well after David had died.
</p>


text:
<p>Now it was with the heart of David my father to build a house for the name of Yahweh, the God of Israel- </p><p>This much was true, but it is sandwiched between various untruths and misrepresentations in :16 and :18-20.</p>


text:
<p>But Yahweh said to David my father, ‘Whereas it was in your heart to build a house for My name, you did well that it was in your heart- </p><p>This is not recorded in the historical account, and given Solomon's tendency to misrepresent God’s word we wonder whether this was said by God at all. Because God’s response had been that He didn’t want a house. He wanted to build a non physical house for David. Those reasons He gave for declining David’s offer are not at all in the spirit of what God is now reported to have said.</p>


text:
<p>Nevertheless, you shall not build the house; but your son who shall come forth out of your body, he shall build the house for My name’- </p><p>As noted on :18, this would have been contrary to the spirit of the reasons God gave for declining David’s offer. He had explained that He had never asked for any permanent sanctuary to be built for Him, and tent life was His style, as He doesn't live in buildings but in hearts. And instead of building a house for Yahweh, David was instead to focus upon the wonderful grace of Yahweh's plan to turn his Messianic seed and all "in him" into an eternal spiritual house for His abode. Yet Solomon presents God as having been in eager agreement with the idea, but simply had some reservations about David doing it, and instead asked Solomon to build it. That would have been a contradiction of the reasoning God gave for saying He didn’t want a physical house built for Him.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh has established His word that He spoke; for I have risen up in the place of David my father, and I sit on the throne of Israel, as Yahweh promised, and have built the house for the name of Yahweh, the God of Israel- </p><p>The establishment of the promises to David was to be conditional upon David’s son walking in God’s ways. But now Solomon wrongly presents the promises to David as having come to total fulfilment in him, just because he had built a temple for God.</p><p>Solomon speaks about him being King in Jerusalem (<a href='B:250 1:1'>Ecc 1:1</a>; <a href='B:250 1:12'>Ecc 1:12</a>; <a href='B:240 1:1'>Pro 1:1</a>) as if this was the ultimate fulfilment of the Davidic promises. Consider the implications of <a href='B:140 1:9'>2Ch 1:9</a>: "O Lord God, let thy promise unto David my father be established: for thou hast made me king over a people like the dust of the earth... give me now wisdom, that I may go out and come in before (i:e. lead) this people". Solomon was asking for wisdom because he thought that he was the Messiah, and he saw wisdom as a Messianic characteristic. He failed to realize that the promises to Abraham and David were only being primarily fulfilled in him (e.g. <a href='B:110 4:20'>1Ki 4:20</a>); he thought that he was the ultimate fulfilment of them (<a href='B:110 8:20'>1Ki 8:20</a> states this in so many words). His lack of faith and vision of the future Kingdom lead him to this proud and arrogant conclusion (cp. building up our own 'Kingdom' in this life through our lack of vision of the Kingdom of God).</p>


text:
<p>There I have set a place for the ark, in which is the covenant of Yahweh which He made with our fathers when He brought them out of the land of Egypt-</p><p>By saying this, Solomon was careful to omit mentioning that the pit of manna and Aaron's rod were now no longer within the ark. See on :9.</p><p> Solomon's argument about the ark comes to a climax in 2 Chron. 6 where he bids the ark to enter its place of rest. He reasons as if he has built a place for the ark, which was as it were homeless. But the ark was designed to be kept in the tabernacle, a tent. There was no need for a temple for it. And the ark didn't remain permanently in the temple; for many years later Josiah commanded "the Levites... Put the holy ark in the house which Solomon the son of David king of Israel built" (2 Chron. 35:3). And God emphasizes that in the restoration and the true Messianic kingdom, the ark will no longer be important: "People will no longer talk about my ark. They will no longer think about it or remember it; they will not even need it, nor will they make another one. When that time comes, Jerusalem will be called 'The Throne of the LORD,' and all nations will gather there to worship me" (Jer. 3:16,17). God's plans for a rebuilt temple in Ez. 40-48 make no mention of an ark, nor is the ark listed in the inventory of things taken into captivity in Babylon (2 Kings 25:13-17; Ezra 1:7-11).
</p><p>“There was nothing in the ark except the two tablets of stone which Moses put there at Horeb ... the ark, in which is the covenant of the Lord” (<a href='B:110 8:9'>1Ki 8:9</a>; <a href='B:110 8:21'>1Ki 8:21</a>). Those tablets, on which were the ten commandments, were the covenant. The old covenant is therefore the ten commandments, including the Sabbath- and this has been replaced by the new covenant, which does not require Sabbath keeping.</p>


text:
<p>Solomon stood before the altar of Yahweh in the presence of all the assembly of Israel, and spread forth his hands toward heaven- </p><p> This altar appears to be the special bronze scaffold Solomon erected especially for the occasion (2 Chron. 6:13 "for Solomon had made a bronze scaffold, five cubits long, five cubits broad and three cubits high, and had set it in the midst of the court; and on it he stood, and kneeled down on his knees before all the assembly of Israel, and spread forth his hands toward heaven").  Solomon was hardly praying in his closet!&nbsp;It seems the Lord was alluding to Solomon in <a href='B:470 6:6'>Mat 6:6</a>, interpreting what he does here in a very negative light, and a reflection of Solomon's pride rather than his spirituality.</p>


text:
<p>and he said, Yahweh, the God of Israel, there is no God like You in heaven above nor on earth beneath; who keeps covenant and grace with Your servants who walk before You with all their heart- </p><p>David spoke of seeking and praising God’s grace with his "whole heart" (<a href='B:230 9:1'>Psa 9:1</a>; <a href='B:230 119:58'>Psa 119:58</a>; <a href='B:230 138:1'>Psa 138:1</a>). Solomon uses the phrase, but speaks of being obedient with the "whole heart" (<a href='B:110 8:23'>1Ki 8:23</a>; <a href='B:140 6:14'>2Ch 6:14</a>) and applying the "whole heart" to the intellectual search for God (<a href='B:250 1:13'>Ecc 1:13</a>; <a href='B:250 8:9'>Ecc 8:9</a>). There is a difference. The idea of whole hearted devotion to God was picked up by Solomon, but instead of giving the whole heart to the praise of God’s grace, he instead advocated giving the whole heart to ritualistic obedience and intellectual search for God. This has been the trap fallen into by many Protestant groups whose obsession with "truth" has obscured the wonder of God’s grace.</p>


text:
<p>who has kept with Your servant David my father that which You promised him. Yes, You spoke with Your mouth, and have fulfilled it with Your hand, as it is this day- </p><p>Again we note the blasphemy of Solomon claiming God had spoken things with His mouth about Solomon and his temple, which He never said. Solomon misses the conditional nature of God keeping covenant grace with His people; He kept it if they were obedient (Dt. 7:9,12), which David was not. Yet God still kept His word with David. That was by grace, but the grace of it is missed by Solomon. He failed to meditate upon the promises beyond what they seemed to offer him in the here and now; and the result was that he felt they were totally fulfilled in him (<a href='B:110 8:20'>1Ki 8:20</a>; <a href='B:110 8:24'>1Ki 8:24</a>). He dogmatically declared to Shimei: “And King Solomon shall be blessed, and the throne of David shall be established before the Lord for ever” (<a href='B:110 2:45'>1Ki 2:45</a>). And in all this, of course, we see our warning.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore, may Yahweh, the God of Israel, keep with Your servant David my father that which You have promised him saying, ‘There shall not fail you a man in My sight to sit on the throne of Israel, if only your children take heed to their way, to walk before Me as you have walked before Me’- </p><p>The promises to David originally focused upon one individual, whom the New Testament interprets as the Lord Jesus. But David here in <a href='B:230 89:30'>Psa 89:30</a>; <a href='B:230 132:12'>Psa 132:12</a> and Solomon in <a href='B:110 8:25'>1Ki 8:25</a> chose to understand the "seed" as the Davidic dynasty down the generations. This loss of focus upon the future Lord Jesus was what led David and Solomon to focus instead upon their own dynasty, rather than upon the future individual son of David who would reign eternally upon David’s throne. His personal&nbsp; immortality came to be interpreted as the eternal continuance of the Davidic dynasty as kings of Israel throughout future generations.</p><p>Another example of Solomon misquoting God is in <a href='B:140 6:6'>2Ch 6:6</a>. Solomon claims that God said: “I have chosen Jerusalem, that my name might be there”. God had chosen no resting place, although it would have been politically convenient for Solomon if the city of Jerusalem as a city was where God had chosen to dwell. 2 Chron. 6:41 portrays the temple as God's resting place: "Now therefore arise, Yahweh God, into Your resting place, You and the ark of Your strength". And the whole point of God's response to David about the temple was that He is not a God at rest and neither are His people. The people suffered under Solomon's taskmasters building his treasure cities just as they did under Pharaoh; they hardly found rest under his reign let alone through the building of a temple on the backs of their labour and taxation sacrifices. The people were drafted into labour gangs, whereas the building of the tabernacle and resourcing of it was purely voluntary (Ex. 25). And God's Name was to be in a house of people, for a Name / personality / characteristics cannot dwell in a house of stone and cedar and gold. It was this misunderstanding that led the Jews to lament how the destruction of the temple had actually destroyed the dwelling place of God's Name: "They have burned Your sanctuary to the ground, they have profaned the dwelling place of Your Name" (Ps. 74:7). The truth was that God's Name dwelt in the hearts and personalities of His true people. And it was God who destroyed the physical temple to try to get them to realize this (Lam. 2:6,7).  But Solomon  kept thinking his own way until he persuaded himself that in fact this was what God had said. David had charged Solomon with the words which God had spoken to him about Solomon: “If thy children take heed to their way, to walk before me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul” (<a href='B:110 2:4'>1Ki 2:4</a>). But Solomon subtly changes this when he reminds God of how He had supposedly told David: “There shall not fail thee a man to sit on the throne of Israel; so that they children take heed to their way, that they walk before me as thou hast walked before me” (<a href='B:110 8:25'>1Ki 8:25</a>). Two things become apparent here:</p><p>-&nbsp;The conditionality of the promise to David about Solomon is totally overlooked:&nbsp; “If thy children…” becomes “so that…”, with the implication that David would always have descendants on the throne who would walk obediently before God. The possibility of personal failure had been removed by Solomon from his own perception of God.</p><p>-&nbsp;God’s desire that Solomon should “walk before me in truth” was changed to “walk before me as thou [David] hast walked before me”. This defined walking before God personally as having the relationship with God which your father had. And so often we have made the same mistake. The call to personally follow the Lord has become displaced by a following Him through others.</p><p>Notice how Solomon says these words to God Himself. Solomon had persuaded himself that this truly was what God had asked of David and himself, and so he comes out with these words to God.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore, God of Israel, please let Your word be verified, which You spoke to Your servant David my father- </p><p>Solomon keeps saying that his zealous&nbsp; work&nbsp; for the temple was the result of God’s promise to David&nbsp; having&nbsp; fulfillment&nbsp; in him (<a href='B:110 8:24-26'>1Ki 8:24-26</a>), and to some extent&nbsp; this&nbsp; was true. David earnestly prayed for Solomon to be the Messianic King (e.g. Psalms 72), and therefore David asked for Solomon to be given a truly wise heart (<a href='B:130 29:19'>1Ch 29:19</a>). These prayers were answered in a very&nbsp; limited&nbsp; sense-&nbsp; in&nbsp; that Solomon was given great wisdom, and his Kingdom was one of the greatest&nbsp; types&nbsp; of&nbsp; Christ's&nbsp; future&nbsp; Kingdom:&nbsp; Our prayers for others really can have&nbsp; an&nbsp; effect upon them, otherwise there would be no point in the&nbsp;&nbsp; concept&nbsp;&nbsp; of&nbsp; praying&nbsp; for&nbsp; others:&nbsp; But&nbsp; of&nbsp; course&nbsp; each individual&nbsp; has&nbsp; an&nbsp; element&nbsp; of&nbsp; spiritual&nbsp; freewill;&nbsp; we can't force&nbsp; others&nbsp; to&nbsp; be&nbsp; spiritual&nbsp; by&nbsp; our&nbsp; prayers;&nbsp; yet&nbsp; on the other&nbsp; hand,&nbsp; our&nbsp; prayers&nbsp; can&nbsp; influence&nbsp; their&nbsp; spirituality. David’s&nbsp; prayers&nbsp; for&nbsp; Solomon&nbsp; is&nbsp; the classic example of this. Those&nbsp; prayers&nbsp; were&nbsp; heard&nbsp; most definitely, in that God helped Solomon&nbsp; marvellously, giving him every opportunity to develop a superb&nbsp; spirituality; but he failed to have the genuine personal desire to be like this in his heart, in his heart he was back in Egypt, and therefore ultimately David’s desire for Solomon to be the wondrous Messianic King of his dreams had to go unfulfilled.</p>


text:
<p>But will God in very deed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens can’t contain You; how much less this house that I have built!- </p><p>It was exactly because of this that God didn’t want a physical house built for Him. Yet Solomon has misrepresented God as saying He did want such a house. So these words are fake humility from Solomon, seeking to cover his proud obsession with building projects beneath an appearance of humility. This statement of Solomon's is not in fact quite as humble as it may seem- for his argument is that God lives in Heaven, but Heaven cannot contain Him. And so he has built a house for God, but even that cannot contain Him. He totally misses God's redefinition of a "house" as a family of people manifesting His Name, made possible through the work of His future begotten Son.</p>


text:
<p>Yet have respect for the prayer of Your servant, and for his supplication, Yahweh my God, to listen to the cry and to the prayer which Your servant prays before You this day- </p><p>I noted on :14 that Solomon is praying all this facing the people, to be seen of men. This prayer would have been better said facing toward God. His showmanship is apparent.</p>


text:
<p>that Your eyes may be open toward this house night and day toward the place of which You have said, ‘My name shall be there;’ to listen to the prayer which Your servant shall pray toward this place- </p><p>God never said that. It is Solomon's twist of the word of promise to David, that if his son / seed were obedient, then "He shall build an house for My Name". But that house was to be built up from persons, and had no reference to any physical building; indeed, the very opposite. God’s eyes are open upon His children wherever they are, as David had learned whilst far from the sanctuary and on the run from Saul. Nehemiah felt God’s eyes were open upon him even when the temple was in ruins (<a href='B:160 1:6'>Neh 1:6</a>).</p><p>Literally, "pray with the face toward... the house"; Solomon later in the prayer will urge Israel to do this.  The hypocrisy was that Solomon was praying facing Israel and with his face away from the temple. But he reasons that prayer must be made facing towards the temple. </p><p>
God had stated many times in Deuteronomy that in the place wherever He placed His Name, His presence, His special ownership, there His people were to come and worship. But as He explained to David when rejecting the idea of a temple, that place had always changed from time to time, because Yahweh is a God on the move. Solomon twists Yahweh's statements to mean that He was going to name a place where His Name would eternally be, and that place had now been chosen- in Jerusalem at the temple of Solomon. But God had in fact said that wherever, in whatever place He placed His Name, there the people should offer sacrifice. He agreed to place His Name in Jerusalem at the temple, but within the context of His being a God always on the move, a tent dwelling God. He had earlier placed His Name at Shiloh, "My place which was at Shiloh, where I set My name at the first" (Jer. 7:12). The place where He places His Name was variable and it was not a case of Him choosing such a place for His Name and it therefore eternally being there. </p><p> 
God did choose Zion in a sense when He went along with the plan to build the temple there. But this doesn't mean He chose it for all time from then on. Zech. 1:17 says He will again choose Zion, implying that for now He has not chosen it, and as it were unchosen it. Solomon and David liked to assume that God had looked all over the earth and chosen the hill of Zion for an eternal dwelling from their time onwards. But He was to tear down their temple in fury, He was angry with it from the day it was built till the day He tore it down. </p>


text:
<p>Listen to the supplication of Your servant, and of Your people Israel, when they shall pray toward this place. Yes, hear in heaven, Your dwelling place; and when You hear, forgive- </p><p>The temple and ark are sometimes referred to as the heavens (<a href='B:100 15:25'>2Sa 15:25</a> cp. <a href='B:110 8:30'>1Ki 8:30</a>; <a href='B:140 30:27'>2Ch 30:27</a>; <a href='B:230 20:2'>Psa 20:2</a>; <a href='B:230 20:6'>Psa 20:6</a>; <a href='B:230 11:4'>Psa 11:4</a>; <a href='B:650 7:26'>Heb 7:26</a>). The church is the new temple, and is therefore at times referred to as the heavenlies in the New Testament. But Solomon was not reasoning on this level at this point. Rather was he claiming that the temple building would somehow make prayer more powerful before God. But that is simply untrue; no physical building can act as some kind of mediator between God and man. This is not to say that the faithful did not later pray toward the temple; for both Daniel and Jonah did. But it was not because they thought the temple somehow gave their prayers more power and standing before God because of its existence. For in Daniel's time, and perhaps Jonah's, the temple was in ruins. Or we can simply see this as Divine accommodation to man. There was no need to pray towards the temple neither did it add anything to the efficacy of prayer. But those men did it and God accepted that. Just as He may accept some who reverence a cross and place it above their bed, even though that may not be God's ideal intention.</p>


text:
<p>If a man sins against his neighbour, and an oath is laid on him to cause him to swear, and he comes and swears before Your altar in this house- </p><p> Verses 31-51 contain seven possible cases of sin for which the temple could bring forgiveness; and seven cases of possible Divine judgment. The number seven suggests Solomon saw all sin and all possible judgment as being dealt with through the temple. Whereas his parents ought to have learnt for all time that forgiveness doesn't depend upon ritual but God's grace alone and the contrite hearts of sinners. God’s awareness of who was telling the truth was not, however, predicated upon the altar being situated within a physical building. God’s presence and omniscience is not somehow from then on conditional upon the temple.</p><p>The rabbis interpret this verse as specifically concerning a man who is suspected of sinning against his neighbour through adultery with the man's wife. The male equivalent for the trial of jealousy for a woman suspected of adultery (Num. 5). Solomon is asking God to judge the man if guilty and swearing by the temple was to be some kind of way of forcing truth to come out. Given the background of Solomon's parents, we marvel at how Solomon just didn't "get" the huge grace shown to his father. Who had not been judged according to his just deserts in this matter.</p>


text:
<p>then hear in heaven, and do, and judge Your servants, condemning the wicked, to bring his way upon his own head, and justifying the righteous, to give him according to his righteousness- </p><p>"Hear in heaven" is repeated throughout these seven possible cases of sin and judgment. Solomon seemed to think that Yahweh would hear in Heaven because of the temple. He thereby introduces a level between God and man- the temple. This is a classic case of religion rather than personal spirituality. In <a href='B:240 24:24'>Pro 24:24</a> and other Proverbs, Solomon teaches that this is how men should judge, lest they be cursed. He says that God condemns the wicked but justifies the righteous, and so should we. But by having this position, he shows his total lack of appreciation of God’s grace to his father David. For David was worthy of condemnation, but by grace, he the wicked was justified, counted righteous, when he was not (<a href='B:230 32:2'>Psa 32:2</a> cp. <a href='B:520 4:4-6'>Rom 4:4-6</a>). This lack of appreciation of grace arose from how it seems Solomon totally whitewashed the sin of his father David with his mother Bathsheba. And it resulted in his lack of grace, and failure throughout Proverbs to appreciate that human behaviour is nuanced, and is not simply divided between spotlessly righteous behaviour and terrible sinfulness.</p>


text:
<p>When Your people Israel are struck down before the enemy, because they have sinned against You; if they turn again to You, and confess Your name, and pray and make supplication to You in this house- </p><p>Again, Solomon devalues the power of prayerful repentance and confession of God’s Name; for he implies that this is made somehow more powerful through praying to the God "in this house". But Solomon is as it were bringing God down from heaven to earth by suggesting He is somehow located "in this house". Whereas He is in heaven, as he contradictorily admits in :34. It was because of this mindset that there was such a collapse of faith in Judah when they saw the temple in ruins. It meant, according to Solomon's logic, the death of God.</p>


text:
<p>then hear in heaven, and forgive the sin of Your people Israel, and bring them again to the land which You gave to their fathers- </p><p>See on :33. The restoration to their land was to be because they, or those who remained in the land, would pray to God in the temple (:33). Solomon is hereby assuming that even if Israel sin and go into captivity, the temple will be an eternal house for God which will always be there. He is so very wrong. The temple was not eternal and was destroyed; but the exiles could still pray to God, quite independently of the existence of the temple. The destruction of the temple was for multiple reasons, but perhaps one of them was to rid God’s people of these wrong ideas about God’s presence in the temple building. And God answers this idea that the temple was to be eternal in <a href='B:110 9:7-8'>1Ki 9:7-8</a>.</p>


text:
<p>When the sky is shut up, and there is no rain, because they have sinned against You; if they pray toward this place, and confess Your name, and turn from their sin, when You afflict them- </p><p>Solomon inserts parts of his father’s Bathsheba psalms in his prayers for how all Israel could be forgiven if they “confess thy name... when thou afflictest them... saying, We have sinned... forgive thy people... and all their transgressions wherein they have transgressed” (<a href='B:110 8:35'>1Ki 8:35</a>; <a href='B:110 8:47'>1Ki 8:47</a>; <a href='B:110 8:50'>1Ki 8:50</a> = <a href='B:230 32:5'>Psa 32:5</a> etc:). On the basis of David’s pattern, all God’s people can find forgiveness, if they make a like confession. Indeed, this has long been recognized by Jewish commentators; and many of the Psalms understood by them as relevant to the Nazi holocaust are Bathsheba Psalms. “Out of the depths” they cried like David; and at the entrance to Bergen-Belsen it stands written: “My sorrow is continually before me” (<a href='B:230 38:17'>Psa 38:17</a>), in recognition of having received punishment for sin [note how these kind of plaques contain no trace of hatred or calling for Divine retribution upon the persecutors].</p><p>But Solomon, as ever, is mixing truth with error. Because the turning again to God was not dependent upon praying towards the temple building. It was to be destroyed, and the direction of their prayers was to be towards "the God of heaven" and not some ghost in a ruined temple. This phrase "the God of heaven" or similar is often found in the restoration histories, indicating that God’s people had been forced to learn this lesson.</p>


text:
<p>then hear in heaven, and forgive the sin of Your servants, and of Your people Israel, when You teach them the good way in which they should walk; and send rain on Your land, which You have given to Your people for an inheritance- </p><p>The reference to rain was appropriate in the immediate context because as explained on :2, Solomon was speaking in the month of Ethanim, literally, the rain month, and likely the latter rains were pouring down at this time as he was speaking. His implication would be that this rain was part of the promised blessing for obedience because of the temple. Perhaps this was why, as noted on :2, Solomon had purposefully arranged the dedication festival at this time.</p>


text:
<p>If there is famine in the land, if there is pestilence, if there is blight, mildew, locust or caterpillar; if their enemy besieges them in their cities; whatever plague, whatever sickness there is- </p><p>These things clearly allude to the curses for breaking the covenant in Deuteronomy 28. But those curses were to be lifted by repentance and renewed faithfulness to the covenant, and their lifting was not predicated upon the existence of the physical temple and praying in it or towards it.</p>


text:
<p>whatever prayer and supplication is made by any man, or by all Your people Israel, who shall each know the plague of his own heart, and spread forth his hands toward this house- </p><p>As Pharaoh’s heart was plagued (<a href='B:20 9:14'>Exo 9:14</a>), so was Israel’s (<a href='B:110 8:38'>1Ki 8:38</a>); as Egypt was a reed, so were Israel (<a href='B:110 14:15'>1Ki 14:15</a>). As Pharaoh-hophra was given into the hand of his enemies, so would Israel be (<a href='B:300 44:30'>Jer 44:30</a>). She would be&nbsp; “Condemned with the world...". But the phrase 'spread forth hands' is used often in the Bible, but followed by 'to the Lord'. Solomon is praying with hands spread forth towards heaven (:22); but he is confusing prayer towards God with prayer towards the temple. He is drawing an inappropriate parallel between God and the temple.</p>


text:
<p>then hear in heaven, Your dwelling place, and forgive, and do, and render to every man according to all his ways, whose heart You know; (for You, even You only, know the hearts of all the children of men;)- </p><p>This reference to God dwelling in heaven makes a nonsense of the idea of building a house for God to inhabit on earth. And this was exactly why God had not wanted David to build the temple. So Solomon is here merely giving lip service to these ideas.</p><p>Descriptions of God’s dwelling place clearly indicate that He has a personal location: “God is in heaven” (<a href='B:250 5:2'>Ecc 5:2</a>); “He has looked down from the height of His sanctuary; from heaven did the Lord behold the earth” (<a href='B:230 102:19-20'>Psa 102:19-20</a>); “Hear in heaven your dwelling place”. Yet more specifically than this, we read that God has a “throne” (<a href='B:140 9:8'>2Ch 9:8</a>; <a href='B:230 11:4'>Psa 11:4</a>; <a href='B:290 6:1'>Isa 6:1</a>; <a href='B:290 66:1'>Isa 66:1</a>). Such language is hard to apply to an undefined essence which exists somewhere in heavenly realms. </p><p></p>


text:
<p>that they may fear You all the days that they live in the land which You gave to our fathers-</p><p>This is repeating the idea of <a href='B:230 130:4'>Psa 130:4</a>: "There is forgiveness with You, that You may be feared". Solomon reasons that the experience of forgiveness [on behalf of his temple] will make the people fear Yahweh. And that is so; if we realize the awesome nature of forgiveness, we will fear / respect the God who grants it on a scale and of a nature so beyond our forgiveness of others. "All the days that they live in the land" could hint that Solomon wrongly thought that the people would live eternally in the land, because he was the Messianic king and the temple had now been built.</p>


text:
<p>Moreover concerning the foreigner, who is not of Your people Israel, when he shall come out of a far country for Your name’s sake- </p><p>The acceptance of the Gentile within the community of Israel was not simply predicated upon the existence of the temple. Ruth was the classic case of coming out of a Gentile country for the sake of Yahweh's Name. And her acceptance was not at all predicated upon any temple building, because there was none in existence at her time.</p>


text:
<p>(for they shall hear of Your great name, and of Your mighty hand, and of Your outstretched arm); when he shall come and pray toward this house- </p><p>There seems implicit in the reasoning here that the fame of Yahweh's temple would spread to the surrounding nations, and some would wish to come and worship in it. But proselytes were not to be attracted to Yahweh because of any physical temple, but because of who He is- the things implicit in His Name. No matter how cool and slick the external presentation, this is not what legitimately converts people to the true God.</p>


text:
<p>hear in heaven, Your dwelling place, and do according to all that the foreigner calls to You for; that all the peoples of the earth may know Your name, to fear You, as do Your people Israel, and that they may know that this house which I have built is called by Your name- </p><p>As discussed on :42, God’s response to Gentile proselytes, and their turning to Him, is not predicated upon the existence of a physical building. Solomon asks God to answer prayers of Gentiles made toward the temple so that the Gentiles would know that Yahweh's Name was really there- in "this house which I have built". The agenda of Solomon's pride is evident. God had told David that He didn't need a temple for His Name because His intention was that David's descendant, Messiah, would create a house of people who would bear God's Name, His characteristics, the fruits of His Spirit.  </p>


text:
<p>If Your people go out to battle against their enemy, by whatever way You shall send them, and they pray to Yahweh toward the city which You have chosen, and toward the house which I have built for Your name- </p><p>Solomon is alluding to <a href='B:50 20:1'>Deu 20:1</a>, but Israel were told that when they went out to battle (s:w:), they were to remember that Yahweh was present with them. Solomon has distorted this idea, by suggesting that Yahweh's presence was specifically in the temple, and the people were to pray towards it there. When in reality, His presence was with His people on the battle front and in their hearts.</p>


text:
<p>then hear in heaven their prayer and their supplication, and maintain their cause- </p><p>"Maintain their cause" is the same phrase translated "do judgment / justice". But Israel were to do justice (<a href='B:30 18:4'>Lev 18:4</a> and often, as David did, <a href='B:100 8:15'>2Sa 8:15</a>), and in response, Yahweh would do justice for them (<a href='B:50 10:18'>Deu 10:18</a>). But Solomon overlooks this conditional aspect in Israel's relationship with God, as he did in his own life. He thought that merely praying to a temple would somehow obligate God to 'do judgment' for His people. This is the mentality of mere religion, and not of relationship with God. Under the old covenant, victory against enemies was predicated upon obedience to and faith in the covenant; whereas here Solomon suggests that mere prayer to the temple will as it were do the trick. Again and again, we see form eclipsing content, the religious displacing the spiritual.</p>


text:
<p>If they sin against You (for there is no man who doesn’t sin), and You are angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captive to the land of the enemy, far off or near- </p><p>Solomon often emphasized the importance of keeping ones’ heart (<a href='B:240 2:10-16'>Pro 2:10-16</a>; <a href='B:240 3:5-6'>Pro 3:5-6</a>; <a href='B:240 4:23'>Pro 4:23</a> to <a href='B:240 5:5'>Pro 5:5</a>; <a href='B:240 6:23-26'>Pro 6:23-26</a>); he had foreseen that the essential sin of God’s people was “the plague of his own heart” (<a href='B:110 8:46'>1Ki 8:46</a>), and he imagined how for this sin God’s people would later pray towards the temple. And yet his wives turned away his heart, for all this awareness that the heart must be kept. It was as if the more he knew the truth of something, the more he wanted to do the very opposite. And this is exactly true of our natures. Perhaps with Solomon he reasoned that in his case, foreign wives wouldn’t turn away his heart. Just as our flesh thinks ‘Yes, but it can’t happen to me’. Perhaps too he reasoned that if the temple somehow could bring forgiveness for the plague of the heart, his heart was incorruptible because of the temple.</p>


text:
<p>yet if they shall repent in the land where they are carried captive, and turn again, and make supplication to You in the land of those who carried them captive, saying, ‘We have sinned, and have done perversely; we have dealt wickedly'- </p><p>Again, Solomon assumes that even if Israel were to go into captivity, the temple would still stand, and prayer toward it would bring the restoration. But the temple was destroyed, so that they would be forced to quit this kind of religious tokenism and turn to God in Heaven with their hearts and souls. Daniel prayed these words (<a href='B:340 9:5'>Dan 9:5</a>), but there was no temple then standing to add efficacy to them. And they were prayed in <a href='B:230 106:6'>Psa 106:6</a> before any temple stood.</p>


text:
<p>if they return to You with all their heart and with all their soul in the land of their enemies, who carried them captive, and pray to You towards their land, which You gave to their fathers, the city which You have chosen, and the house which I have built for Your name- </p><p>The old covenant clearly taught that all Israel would be exiled from their land if they broke the covenant. Solomon's dedication of the temple seemed to assume that only the wicked would be exiled from the land, and the temple would stand eternally; to express repentance in exile, they just needed to pray towards it. But all Israel were sent into exile, and his temple was razed to the ground. But Solomon's belief that "The upright will dwell in the land; the perfect will eternally remain in it" (<a href='B:240 2:21'>Pro 2:21</a>) meant that he totally refused to accept the extent of judgment predicted in the curses of Deuteronomy 28. All Israel would be exiled from their land. He liked to assume that his Kingdom would eternally endure; because of his lack of faith in the nature of the future Kingdom, and his mistaken imagination that he was the eternal Messianic king. He refused to recognize that his father David in Psalms 72 had wrongly imagined that he would be that eternal king, and disregarded the conditionality of the promises made to him:&nbsp;And God answers this idea that the temple was to be eternal in <a href='B:110 9:7-8'>1Ki 9:7-8</a>.</p>


text:
<p>then hear their prayer and their supplication in heaven, your dwelling place, and maintain their cause- </p><p>When exiled from Absalom, David had prayed toward God’s "holy hill" of Zion, and had been regathered there (<a href='B:230 3:4'>Psa 3:4</a>). David had fled Jerusalem and the "holy hill" of the temple mount, which was now under Absalom's control. But he believes Yahweh is still there, present as it were in the temple, and answering his prayer. He perhaps alludes to the promises that if Israel sinned and were exiled, they could always pray to God and hope for regathering to His holy hill (<a href='B:50 30:1-4'>Deu 30:1-4</a>; <a href='B:160 1:9'>Neh 1:9</a>). Solomon now develops these thoughts further, in teaching that Israel in their dispersion were to pray to God toward Jerusalem, His "holy hill" of Zion (<a href='B:110 8:48-49'>1Ki 8:48-49</a>). We see therefore how Solomon would have reflected upon his father David’s experience; David had prayed towards God’s "holy hill" when in exile from it, and had been heard. Solomon may well have been in David’s retinue at the time, and would have experienced the wonder of return to Zion because of his father’s prayer towards God in Zion.</p>


text:
<p>and forgive Your people who have sinned against You, and all their transgressions in which they have transgressed against You; and give them compassion before those who carried them captive, that they may have compassion on them- </p><p>God’s giving of compassion to His people depended upon their holiness before Him (s:w. <a href='B:50 13:17'>Deu 13:17</a>). But Solomon implies that it will be predicated upon the temple he had built. Form was replacing content, external religion was trumping true spirituality, physical symbolism was obscuring true repentance. The irony is that when Judah were in exile God gave them this compassion in the eyes of their captors. But they were not very penitent, nor was there any temple standing for them to pray towards. This fairly obvious observation is surely to highlight the bankruptcy of Solomon's thoughts here. He has no understanding of grace.</p>


text:
<p>(for they are Your people, and Your inheritance, which You brought out of Egypt, from the midst of the furnace of iron)- </p><p>This is the language of <a href='B:50 4:20'>Deu 4:20</a>, which taught that because God had brought Israel out of the "iron furnace" of Egypt, therefore they should thereby be motivated to quit all idolatry. But here Solomon uses this great deliverance as a way of almost manipulating God to save His sinful people- if they prayed toward or in the temple he had built. He alludes to scripture throughout this prayer, but nearly always out of context and to justify his own narrative- that Israel's forgiveness, blessing and salvation was predicated upon the temple Solomon had built.</p>


text:
<p>that Your eyes may be open to the supplication of Your servant- </p><p>God’s eyes are open upon His children wherever they are, as David had learned whilst far from the sanctuary and on the run from Saul. Nehemiah felt God’s eyes were open upon him even when the temple was in ruins (<a href='B:160 1:6'>Neh 1:6</a>).</p><p>And to the supplication of Your people Israel, to listen to them whenever they cry to You- </p><p>Solomon saw himself as Moses, fully representative of Israel, and thereby their saviour (<a href='B:110 11:1'>1Ki 11:1</a>; <a href='B:110 11:5-7'>1Ki 11:5-7</a> cp. 33; 8:52; and note the ye... thee confusion of <a href='B:110 9:4-7'>1Ki 9:4-7</a>); his prayer was their prayer (<a href='B:140 6:21'>2Ch 6:21</a>); his worship was theirs (<a href='B:140 1:3'>2Ch 1:3</a>; <a href='B:140 1:5'>2Ch 1:5</a>).</p><p>His prayer of <a href='B:140 6:33'>2Ch 6:33</a> speaks as if the heavens where God lived were actually the temple; he bid men pray towards the temple where God lived, rather than to God in Heaven. Yet theoretically he recognized the magnitude of God (<a href='B:140 6:18'>2Ch 6:18</a>); yet the vastness of God, both in power and Spirituality, meant little to him; it failed to humble him as it should have done:&nbsp; It is a feature of human nature to be able to perceive truth and yet act the very opposite. His enthusiasm for his own works lead him to lose a true relationship with God. The idea of salvation by grace became lost on him, loving response to God’s forgiveness was not on his agenda, true humility was unnecessary for him, given his certainty that he was King as God intended. He reasoned that God would hear his prayers because they were uttered in the temple of his own hands, rather than because of any personal faith (<a href='B:110 8:52'>1Ki 8:52</a>). Indeed, Solomon legalistically demands that God maintain [as in a court of law] the legal cause or "right" of His people if they pray towards the temple (<a href='B:110 8:45'>1Ki 8:45</a>; <a href='B:110 8:49'>1Ki 8:49</a>). Legalism and faith are opposed to each other, and Solomon's usage and conception of the temple was legalistic rather than faith based. When dedicating the temple, Solomon asks God to incline the hearts of Israel to be obedient to His commandments (<a href='B:110 8:57'>1Ki 8:57</a>); and whilst God can and does do this, Solomon's implication seems to be that any disobedience would therefore effectively be God’s fault for not making His people obedient. He failed to see the need for personal election to obey God’s ways.</p>


text:
<p>For You separated them from among all the peoples of the earth to be Your inheritance, as You spoke by Moses Your servant, when You brought our fathers out of Egypt, Lord Yahweh-</p><p>Solomon's argument is that since God had made Israel His people, then they would always be His people and inheritance. All they needed to do if they broke their relationship with God was to pray before the temple. Solomon saw the temple as the failsafe method of keeping Israel always as God’s inheritance and special people, regardless of their sins. But the truth was that God was to disinherit His people, and return them to the nations whose gods they worshipped. And no temple was going to stop that happening. Solomon likewise assumed that he was the chosen seed of David, and his having built the temple meant that sin was no ultimate problem between Yahweh and himself. He thereby overlooked the conditional nature of God’s promised relationship with him. And so many have used religious symbolism likewise, to release them from any sense of personal responsibility towards God.</p>


text:
<p>It was so, that when Solomon had made an end of praying all this prayer and supplication to Yahweh, he arose from before the altar of Yahweh, from kneeling on his knees with his hands spread forth toward heaven- </p><p>We get the impression that his prayer was but showmanship, and a parade of a fake humility. See on :14.</p>


text:
<p>He stood, and blessed all the assembly of Israel with a loud voice saying- </p><p>This public prayer for the sake of appearance, facing men rather than God (see on :14), makes us think that the "loud voice" of prayer and blessing was hypocritical. Solomon uses the very phrase in <a href='B:240 27:14'>Pro 27:14</a>: "He that blesses his friend with a loud voice... it shall be counted a curse to him". But he refused to perceive the personal truth of the Proverbs he spoke. A loud voice (s:w:) doesn't mean God has heard the speaker (<a href='B:330 8:18'>Eze 8:18</a>); the phrase is used of the priests of Baal he mistakenly believed this.</p>


text:
<p>Blessed be Yahweh, who has given rest to His people Israel, according to all that He promised. There has not failed one word of all His good promise, which He promised by Moses His servant- </p><p>God’s words not falling / failing means that they were fulfilled (<a href='B:90 3:19'>1Sa 3:19</a>). Solomon is making the same mistake as preterism, claiming that all the prophetic word had been fulfilled. He decided this on the mere basis that he had built a temple, which he wished to see as the fulfilment of the promises to David, which he now wished to understand as meaning the promises to Moses had been totally fulfilled as well. It was this lack of any perspective of future fulfilment, of the Messianic Kingdom to come and the resurrection of the dead, which led Solomon to fail to appreciate God’s grace. He also therefore had no sense of personal failure and the wonder of acceptance by grace, because he thought he had been given full acceptance right now.</p><p>The record is clear that Solomon did not have total "rest". Damascus was taken from him and he never regained it; he was surrounded by 'adversaries', his people were restless and groaning under his abusive taxing of them for labour and harvests... And he is forcing his own interpretation of Dt. 12:10,11 as referring to the temple he had built: "When you go over the Jordan, and dwell in the land which Yahweh your God causes you to inherit, and He gives you rest from all your enemies around you, so that you dwell in safety, then to the place which Yahweh your God shall choose, to cause His name to dwell there, you must bring all that I command you". The Hebrew maqom translated 'place' can mean simply a locality, yet Solomon likes to insist that it means a 'place' as in a building. Yet maqom in its 400 occurrences in the Hebrew Bible usually refers simply to a locality and not some 'holy place'. And God has used the term in describing the situation which would come about through David's future son who would be God's begotten son: "I will appoint a place for My people Israel and will plant them, that they may dwell in their own place, and be moved no more. Neither shall the children of wickedness waste them any more, as at the first" (1 Chron. 17:9). That future appointed "place" was not the temple; for God in this context says He doesn't want a temple, but will instead give His future people a "place" in eternity through the great Son. It is this "place" which the Lord has in view when He says that His death on the cross is "to prepare a place for you" (Jn. 14:2,3). "I will appoint a place" is the same Hebrew as in God's 'appointing a place' for the innocent murderer to flee to for refuge (Ex. 21:13), and that "place" was a city of refuge not a temple. And again, that "place" is understood in the New Testament as the Lord Jesus. The place appointed was one where Yahweh's Name would be placed (Dt. 12:21; 14:24 etc.). It is far too literalistic to assume that the letters YHWH would be placed in a physical place. Surely we are to understand the Name as His characteristics, to be placed supremely in the "place" of His Son, through whom a family / house of people would arise bearing that Name. God's response to David's plan to build a temple had been to state that through His Son, He would "plant" Israel never to be moved again, and this language is repeated about the Lord in Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Is. 66:1,2 is crystal clear that God's Name can never "rest" in a physical place, but in humbled hearts after the pattern of David after his sin with Bathsheba: "And what place shall be My rest? For all these things has My hand made, and so all these things came to be, says Yahweh: but to this man will I look, even to him who is poor and of a broken spirit, and who trembles at My word". However, there are references to God's Name dwelling in Zion in the Kingdom age. It will be then "the place of the name of Yahweh of Armies, Mount Zion" (Is. 18:7), "for Yahweh dwells in Zion" (Joel 3:21), in that His Name is supremely in the Lord Jesus who will rule from Zion. Isaiah uses the term in his personal speech, perhaps reflecting his own misadjusted perspective that somehow Yahweh was physically dwelling in Zion: "I and the children whom Yahweh has given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from Yahweh of Armies, who dwells in Mount Zion" (Is. 8:18).  </p>


text:
<p>May Yahweh our God be with us, as He was with our fathers. Let Him not leave us, nor forsake us- </p><p>This can be translated not so much as a request but as a joyful statement of present reality. He felt that his prayer and his temple would somehow guarantee the permanent presence of God. God would not leave or forsake Israel because Solomon assumed that the temple had God’s presence, and it would be eternal; for he had interpreted God’s promise to build an eternal house as fulfilled in his building of the temple.</p>


text:
<p>that He may incline our hearts to Him, to walk in all His ways, and to keep His commandments, His statutes and his ordinances which He commanded our fathers- </p><p>We're wrong to think that God passionlessly waits for us to repent or pray to Him, and then He will forgive or act for us. He loves us, simply so; and with all love's manipulation of circumstances, seeks to pour out His love upon us. Thus repentance itself is a gift which God gives and is not totally upon human initiative (<a href='B:50 4:29-31'>Deu 4:29-31</a>; <a href='B:50 30:1-10'>Deu 30:1-10</a>; <a href='B:110 8:58'>1Ki 8:58</a>).</p><p>As noted on <a href='B:230 119:36'>Psa 119:36</a>; <a href='B:230 141:4'>Psa 141:4</a>, David believed that God could act deep within the psychology or heart of man, to incline us toward righteousness and away from evil. This is how the Holy Spirit works today. Solomon believed the same (s:w. <a href='B:110 8:58'>1Ki 8:58</a>), but only in theory; for his Gentile wives inclined or turned away his heart from God (s:w. <a href='B:110 11:3'>1Ki 11:3</a>; <a href='B:110 11:9'>1Ki 11:9</a>). God will not turn our hearts anywhere we ourselves don't want to go. Solomon often appeals for us to incline our hearts to wisdom (s:w. <a href='B:240 2:2'>Pro 2:2</a>; <a href='B:240 4:20'>Pro 4:20</a>; <a href='B:240 5:1'>Pro 5:1</a>; <a href='B:240 22:17'>Pro 22:17</a>), but he himself was inclined to apostasy (s:w. <a href='B:110 11:3'>1Ki 11:3</a>; <a href='B:110 11:9'>1Ki 11:9</a>). All his emphasis is upon the need to incline ourselves, whereas his father David trusted in the work of the Spirit to incline his heart to good and away from evil (<a href='B:230 141:4'>Psa 141:4</a>; <a href='B:230 119:36'>Psa 119:36</a> etc:).</p>


text:
<p>Let these my words, with which I have made supplication before Yahweh, be near to Yahweh our God day and night, that He may maintain the cause of His servant, and the cause of His people Israel, as each day shall require- </p><p>Just as Solomon considered the existence of the temple as the guarantee that God would ultimately be with His people, so he similarly argues that his prayer was some kind of magic incantation which would mean that God would day by day for ever and eternally maintain the cause of His people. But his whole logic is 'religious' rather than spiritual:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>that all the peoples of the earth may know that Yahweh, He is God. There is none else- </p><p>Solomon had a genuine desire for the surrounding nations to accept Yahweh, just as his father David did. But it was all tied up with his own pride; people coming to admire Solomon's temple and thereby himself. For as mentioned above, he thought that the physical temple would be the basis of their attraction and loyalty to Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>Let your heart therefore be perfect with Yahweh our God, to walk in His statutes and to keep His commandments, as you do at this day-</p><p>Solomon considered that the fulfilment of the promises to Moses and David (which he was mistaken in thinking had fully happened just because he had built a temple) was because Israel "at this day" had a perfect heart with Yahweh. They didn’t, but just as he assume his own perfect obedience, so he assumed theirs. Unlike David, he had not been forced by God to engage with the issues of his own sinfulness. And I discussed on 1 Kings 7:1 how even at this point, Solomon himself was far from wholehearted in his devotion to God; 1 Kings 11:4 specifically says he wasn't.</p>


text:
<p>The king, and all Israel with him, offered sacrifice before Yahweh- </p><p>We again see the connection between Solomon and "all Israel", whom he considered to be as perfect as he was; see on :61.</p>


text:
<p>Solomon offered for the sacrifice of peace offerings, which he offered to Yahweh, twenty two thousand head of cattle, and one hundred and twenty thousand sheep. So the king and all the children of Israel dedicated the house of Yahweh- </p><p>The peace offering was to be eaten the same day it was killed, and nothing of it was to left until the morning (Lev. 7:15). There is no way Solomon could have personally eaten this massive amount of meat, and so again we see his interest being merely in external religion rather than personal spirituality. And a peace offering was a personal statement between the offerer and God, celebrating their peace with God. There is no way Solomon could legitimately do this for the people. The usual pattern of sacrifice was sin offering (obtaining forgiveness), burnt offering (promising complete dedication to God) and then peace offering, celebrating the resultant peace with God then experienced. But Solomon has no sense of personal sin (see on :61), and considered himself dedicated to Yahweh by reason of being David’s son. And so he only offers the peace offerings. The huge numbers of sacrifices were not at all what God wanted. But unlike David, he had not been brought to realize that God wants broken, repentant hearts and not offerings (<a href='B:230 51:16'>Psa 51:16</a>). <a href='B:400 6:7'>Mic 6:7</a> perhaps references Solomon's huge numbers of offerings, again commenting that God doesn't want them; just as He didn’t want a physical temple. And yet God went along with Solomon, as He does with us so often, even on the basis of our misplaced idealism. For His glory appeared within the temple and He in that sense agreed to dwell there, just as He agreed to work through a human kingship, even though it meant a degree of rejection of Him as Israel's king.</p>


text:
<p>The same day the king made the middle of the court holy that was before the house of Yahweh; for there he offered the burnt offering, and the meal offering, and the fat of the peace offerings, because the bronze altar that was before Yahweh was too little to receive the burnt offering, the meal offering, and the fat of the peace offerings- </p><p>The huge numbers of animals required more altars, which were presumably placed in the middle court. Although we wonder on what basis Solomon as a non-Levite had the right to declare the court holy. We also wonder as to whether the huge laver, and the ten smaller lavers, were only built with a view to this opening dedication. For the huge laver was too large for normal usage, and there was surely no need for 10 lavers when the tabernacle had only had one. We wonder whether this sudden erection of more altars was also as it were a design fault, and indicates that what he was doing was not according to God’s command, but rather his flawed human initiative. See on :8 for another possible design fault.</p>


text:
<p>So Solomon held the feast at that time, and all Israel with him, a great assembly, from the entrance of Hamath to the brook of Egypt, before Yahweh our God, seven days and seven days, even fourteen days- </p><p>The dedication coincided with the seven day feast of tabernacles (see on :1), and to that was added this seven day feast of dedication. There were representatives from the very borders of the land promised to Abraham, implying these areas had been settled by Israelites; or perhaps those who attended from those places were Gentile proselytes. However if "the feast" was the latter seven days, then we observe that the day of Atonement wasn't kept, as this was only a few days before the feast of tabernacles. Indeed they ate and drank joyfully on Yom Kippur when they should have been afflicting their souls for their sins. Again we see Solomon assuming that personal confession of sin could be eclipsed by focus upon merely external religion.</p>


text:
<p>On the eighth day he sent the people away; and they blessed the king, and went to their tents joyful and glad of heart for all the goodness that Yahweh had shown to David His servant, and to Israel His people- </p><p>The people rejoiced that the promises to David had been fulfilled in the temple and in the prosperity of the nation. But they had only uncritically accepted Solomon's narrative. For this was not at all the fulfilment of the promises to David. They "blessed the king" because they assumed it was Solomon who had brought about this fulfilment; and that was exactly what he thought. And they had bought into that false narrative.</p>


text:
<p>It happened, when Solomon had finished the building of the house of Yahweh, and the king’s house, and all Solomon’s desire which he was pleased to do- </p><p>His building of the temple was "all Solomon's desire which he was pleased to do" (<a href='B:110 9:1'>1Ki 9:1</a>). There is a semantic connection between the Hebrew words for "desire" and "pleased" - the point of which is to emphasize that Solomon's work for God was only an expression of his own zest for self-fulfilment; he served God in ways which only confirmed his own natural inclinations. Appreciating the spirit and blood of Christ, his own weakness, the grace of God, and the subsequent desire to live a life of self sacrifice, of carrying a cross in ways we wouldn't naturally chose- this was all foreign to Solomon. And is it so foreign to us? Solomon's materialism and self-fulfilment are sure warnings to our age.</p>


text:
<p>that Yahweh appeared to Solomon the second time, as He had appeared to him at Gibeon- </p><p>Clearly God was aware that Solomon was going wrong, refusing to realize the conditional nature of the promises made to David about his son, and not personally applying the wisdom given to him in the first vision. So God’s response to Solomon's arrogant, mistaken prayer of 1 Kings 8 was in fact to appear to him and warn him that he needed to be obedient, or else the promises would not in fact apply to him. The clear implication was that Solomon's statements in his prayer that the promises were fulfilled in him... were wrong.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh said to him, I have heard your prayer and your supplication, that you have made before Me. I have made this house holy, which you have built, to put My name there forever; and My eyes and My heart shall be there constantly- </p><p> “I have heard your prayer" means this vision was an answer to the dedication prayer. So if God answered the dedication prayer after 20 years (:1), we can conclude that the dedication occurred at the end of the 20 years building the palace / temple complex. As discussed regarding the features and lack of utility in the temple design, we conclude the temple was showmanship and not motivated by a desire to help people worship God. Otherwise Solomon would have dedicated it much earlier. <p><p>
"I have heard your prayer and your supplication" responds to Solomon's request that God would hear his personal "prayer and supplication" (1 Kings 8:28). But he several times asks in that prayer for God to hear the "prayer and supplication" of the people who prayed towards or in the temple (1 Kings 8:29,38,45,49,54. But God carefully doesn't respond to this. The parallel record in 2 Chron. 7:14 says that "If My people who are called by My name shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin". Solomon had reasoned that because God's Name was on the temple, therefore the people should pray towards it and be heard. God's response is that His Name is upon His people, because His Name / characteristics dwell in persons not in bricks. And the promised seed was to be build a house of such people. We could argue that the people called by God's Name were not all the people of Israel, but only those who had His Name on their hearts, the faithful minority. And indeed at the exile, it was the prayers of this group [Daniel etc.] that led to God's restoration of the people. God says that the people were to "seek / search for My face"- not pray towards Jerusalem or a temple, but go through the struggle of searching for God after sin. They were to seek personal encounter and relationship with God- His face. They were to "humble themselves", literally 'bow the knee' before Him- not turn their bodies in the direction of Jerusalem. They should "turn from their wicked ways" and not turn their bodies towards the temple. <p><p>
God is careful to respond that He will forgive them if they pray- and carefully omits reference to the temple, "in this house". Solomon says 'If they do [ABC] and then [DEF] happens and they pray in / towards this place, then please do [GHI]'. God responds according to the same rubric, repeating what Solomon says, but carefully omitting the central point- if they pray in / towards the temple. The omission is glaring. And it is tantamount to ignoring what was for Solomon the central object of his prayer- to legitimize the temple as the source of efficacy for prayer. His 'religion' was replaced by God's focus on personal spirituality and His response to that. <p><p>
Jonah learnt this- in the belly of a great fish, he needed forgiveness. He had no access to the temple and didn't know which direction to pray towards. Rather like a navigation system telling you at night to "head north" when you have no idea of where north is. He says that he prayed towards the temple, following Solomon's words rather than God's correction of them. But the grace of it all is that God heard him anyway.  
There soon follows a worked example of this. 2 Chron. 12:6,7 records that Rehoboam, Solomon's son, was attacked by Shishak of Egypt: "Then the princes of Israel and the king humbled themselves; and they said, Yahweh is righteous. When Yahweh saw that they humbled themselves, the word of Yahweh came to Shemaiah, saying, They have humbled themselves. I will not destroy them; but I will grant them some deliverance. My wrath shall not be poured out on Jerusalem by the hand of Shishak". The allusion is to God's words in 2 Chron. 7:14, which is His reply to Solomon's claim that if Israel prayed to the temple, then God would save them in battle. He says simply that if Israel humble themselves in battle [He makes no mention of the temple], then He will save them. And the situation with Shishak was an example of that. We note that even at that stage, God had in mind to destroy the temple and Zion / Jerusalem. Solomon and David's dogmatism that it would last eternally are thus shown to be misplaced right from the start of the temple's 430 year history [the same period of time as Israel were in Egypt, Ex. 12:40,41; Gal. 3:17]. Ezekiel foretold 430 years of judgment upon Israel and Judah (Ez. 4:1-6). <p><p>
I would translate and paraphrase :3-6 as follows: "I have hallowed this house, which you have built in order that I would put My Name there for ever. My eyes and heart will be there all the days that you walk before Me as David your father walked... [If you serve Me with totally perfect obedience to Me] then I will establish you [as the Messianic son I promised to David]... but if you turn from following Me [which God foreknew Solomon would] then... [I will destroy this place and My Name and presence won't be there any more]". Remember that God said these words furiously angry that Solomon had built the temple; Jeremiah records that God was furiously angry with it from the day it was built until the day He tore it down. <p><p>
God's Name was there for ever in the sense that naming something with your name means ownership. God agreed to accept Jerusalem as His special place, despite His position that He is a God on the move. 2 Chron. 7 could imply that God was willing to go along with it as part of His plan to lead the people towards His Kingdom in the future, when He would eternally dwell there: "I have chosen and sanctified this house that my name may be there for ever". "That" doesn't mean His Name was there for ever from that point. Because He destroyed the dwelling place of His Name, as later lamented. Or we can allow :7 to explain this. If Solomon turned away from God, then the Name would not dwell there for ever. If he was perfectly obedient, as God's envisaged future Son would be, then it would. Solomon's response should have been that he could not be perfectly obedient, and his focus should have been on the promised future seed who would have an eternal Kingdom. <p><p>
Solomon prayed that God’s eyes [in Heaven] might be open toward the house; God responds that His eyes and heart are there in the house. The distance Solomon presupposes between earth and heaven is hereby deconstructed by God's reply.
The 2 Chron. 7 record records God saying that He accepted the temple not so much as a place to dwell in (as Solomon assumed it was) but as a place facilitating sacrifice for the glorification of His Name through these things; He emphasized that He dwelt amongst His people (1 Kings 6:13; 2 Chron. 7:12-16). <p><p>
It has been argued that the Hebrew olahm, "forever", really means 'a period'. But I am unpersuaded of that argument in every case. Rather I would think that the context in this case requires that we understand God to be saying that He would indeed dwell in the temple "forever", and His particular sensitivity would be found in that place, His eyes and heart. But as He makes clear in :4-7, that was all conditional upon obedience. This highlights the tragedy- that eternity was at stake. So much depends upon human freewill decisions; for that is how much He respects us and our freedom of choice.</p><p>Despite the wilful misinterpretations of God's word to David about not wanting a temple, God reluctantly [I would say] goes along with the thinking. But He emphasises that the house is that "which you have built". His focus was on building a house of people through His future begotten Son.  2 Chron. 7:12 goes further: "I have heard your prayer, and have chosen this place to Myself for a house of sacrifice". The thousands of sacrifices were not what God wanted, and yet He accepted them. He wanted an altar made of earth kicked together or of unhewn stones. Solomon's temple and altars were totally the opposite of this ideal, yet still God accepted it all as a "house of sacrifice", with 2 Chron. 7:9 describing the dedication as in fact "the dedication of the altar" (see notes there). He condescends and goes along with man to a huge extent.</p>


text:
<p>As for you, if you will walk before Me, as David your father walked, in integrity of heart, and in uprightness, to do according to all that I have commanded you, and will keep My statutes and My ordinances- </p><p>This was a hard act to follow, for David was chosen as being a man after God’s own heart. Solomon considered that he was acceptable with God just because of his father, whereas Go wanted him to personally attain his father’s spirituality. We note in passing God’s high estimation of David, despite David’s serious but out of character failings.</p><p>God constantly warned Solomon about the conditionality of the promises, before the building started (<a href='B:100 7:14'>2Sa 7:14</a>), during it (<a href='B:110 6:11-13'>1Ki 6:11-13</a>) and immediately after completing it (<a href='B:110 9:2-9'>1Ki 9:2-9</a>). Solomon reinterprets this conditional promise in <a href='B:240 20:7'>Pro 20:7</a>: "A righteous man walks in integrity; blessed are his children after him". Solomon has here his own agenda of self justification in view. The man who 'walked in integrity' is without doubt David (s:w. <a href='B:110 9:4'>1Ki 9:4</a>; <a href='B:230 26:1'>Psa 26:1</a>; <a href='B:230 26:11'>Psa 26:11</a>; <a href='B:230 101:2'>Psa 101:2</a>). Solomon assumed that because his father had walked in integrity, then he as his child would automatically be blessed. But he was choosing to misunderstand the conditional nature of the promises to him in <a href='B:110 9:4'>1Ki 9:4</a>; if he walked himself in integrity "as David your father walked", then he would be the prophetically blessed son of David.</p>


text:
<p>then I will establish the throne of your kingdom over Israel forever, according as I promised to David your father saying, ‘There shall not fail you a man on the throne of Israel’- </p><p>This is the same quotation made in <a href='B:230 132:12'>Psa 132:12</a>. But God is picking up on Solomon's claim in <a href='B:110 8:24'>1Ki 8:24</a> that God had already fulfilled this. He is pointing out that this promise was conditional, and Solomon had overlooked that. The promise of "a man" suggests one individual; but Solomon was wrong in assuming this referred to himself. God is saying: 'You want to have an eternal line of kings reigning in your temple-palace complex? If you personally are perfect from now on, OK, the promised seed can be you'. Solomon should have reviewed the commands for total obedience in :4 and fallen to the earth in penitence, saying something like 'No, I'm a sinner, and likely to fail in future as well. How foolish I have been. I will now refocus upon the promised future seed You promised David and His Kingdom, not mine'. </p>


text:
<p>But if you turn away from following Me, you or your children, and don’t keep My commandments and My statutes which I have set before you, but shall go and serve other gods, and worship them- </p><p>This is what Solomon did finally do, and already at this stage he had married Gentile women, whom the law of Moses had warned would lead his heart away from Yahweh to "other gods". But that apparently inevitable process could still be arrested- if Solomon responded in humility to this appeal. We wait with eager ears to hear Solomon's response when the appeal ends in :9. But there is silence; see on :9.</p><p>Solomon was fully representative of Israel (<a href='B:110 11:1'>1Ki 11:1</a>; <a href='B:110 11:5-7'>1Ki 11:5-7</a> cp. 33; 8:52; and note the ye... thee confusion of <a href='B:110 9:4-7'>1Ki 9:4-7</a> AV); his prayer was their prayer (<a href='B:140 6:21'>2Ch 6:21</a>); his worship was theirs (<a href='B:140 1:3'>2Ch 1:3</a>; <a href='B:140 1:5'>2Ch 1:5</a>). And his apostacy was also theirs.</p>


text:
<p>then will I cut off Israel out of the land which I have given them; and this house, which I have made holy for my name, will I cast out of my sight; and Israel shall be a proverb and a byword among all peoples- </p><p>Solomon had wrongly reasoned in 1 Kings 8 that the grandeur of the temple would attract Gentiles to become proselytes to Yahweh. But God warns him that the very opposite could happen, and the ruined temple would become the biggest possible disadvertisment for Yahweh and His people. Solomon had prayed, and in that prayer taught Israel, that if they sinned even in captivity, then all they had to do was pray towards the temple and they would be forgiven. He saw in that building some kind of atonement for sins. He lost sight of the importance of the blood that made atonement; he replaced the blood of Christ with a work of his own hands:&nbsp; God’s response to the dedication of the temple here corrects what Solomon has just said. He says that if Israel sin then He will cast the temple too out of His sight; which is rather different to how Solomon instructed the people to gain forgiveness for the sake of the temple if they were in dispersion. He saw the temple as a talisman- the need for real, meaningful change and repentance and spiritual mindedness to enable the dwelling of God went unperceived. He failed to perceive the real possibility of the eternal potential he and Israel could miss. They really could be cast out of God’s sight in condemnation. Jonah recognized “I am cast out of Your sight” (<a href='B:390 2:4'>Jon 2:4</a>), the very language of condemnation used at his time (<a href='B:120 17:20'>2Ki 17:20</a>; <a href='B:120 21:2'>2Ki 21:2</a>; <a href='B:120 23:27'>2Ki 23:27</a>; <a href='B:300 7:15'>Jer 7:15</a>). Being cast out of God's sight, away from His eyes, is just the opposite of what Solomon had prayed for, that God’s eyes should be eternally open towards the Temple.  </p>


text:
<p>Though this house is so high, yet shall everyone who passes by it be astonished, and shall hiss; and they shall say, ‘Why has Yahweh done thus to this land, and to this house?’- </p><p>This is God’s commentary upon the implications in Solomon's prayer that the temple and God’s presence within it was to be eternal (see on <a href='B:110 8:34'>1Ki 8:34</a>; <a href='B:110 8:48'>1Ki 8:48</a>). Solomon had willfully misinterpreted the promises to David to mean that the temple was the fulfilment of the promise that the seed would build an eternal house. That house David had built was not the house in view, and could easily be destroyed and even become a curse rather than a blessing- if Solomon were disobedient. Clearly Solomon was disobedient, and so the promise that people would "hiss" at the temple would obviously be fulfilled (1 Kings 9:8). Yet Jeremiah laments bitterly that men were 'hissing' at the ruined temple (Lam. 2:15,16) and complains God has been unreasonable. Jeremiah had clearly failed to accept the real extent of Judah's sin, and had shared in David and Solomon's willful misunderstanding that the temple would be eternal. He failed to accept that Divine judgment is just, because he devalued human sin. And that is the root cause for all human complaint about suffering in this world. </p>


text:
<p>and they shall answer, ‘Because they forsook Yahweh their God, who brought their fathers out of the land of Egypt, and laid hold of other gods, and worshiped them, and served them. Therefore Yahweh has brought all this evil on them’-</p><p>We wait with eager ears to hear Solomon's response when the appeal ends; but there is silence. Solomon had blanked out from his perception any idea that he might fail or was less than perfect. His narrative was that he was the son of David, and the promises about David’s son were now fulfilled in him. And he refused to allow anything, not even an appeal from God, disturb that internal narrative.</p>


text:
<p>It happened at the end of twenty years, in which Solomon had built the two houses, the house of Yahweh and the king’s house-</p><p>Psalms 127 is prefaced with the information that it is a Psalm for Solomon- perhaps given by some nameless prophet (Gad? Nathan?) to warn him of where he was going. Verse 1 reminds him that God must be the builder of any house, or else the builders labour in vain. There is good reason to think that Solomon utterly failed to appreciate this. The records stress time and again that Solomon&nbsp; built the temple (<a href='B:110 6:2'>1Ki 6:2</a>; <a href='B:110 6:14'>1Ki 6:14</a>; <a href='B:110 9:10'>1Ki 9:10</a>; <a href='B:110 9:25'>1Ki 9:25</a>; <a href='B:110 10:4'>1Ki 10:4</a>; <a href='B:130 6:10'>1Ch 6:10</a>; <a href='B:130 6:32'>1Ch 6:32</a>; <a href='B:140 8:1'>2Ch 8:1</a>; <a href='B:140 8:12'>2Ch 8:12</a>; <a href='B:140 9:3'>2Ch 9:3</a>; <a href='B:510 7:47'>Act 7:47</a>); yet the house referred to in the Davidic promises was to be built by God, through David’s Messianic Son, the Lord Jesus. Zechariah prophesied at the time of the rebuilding of the physical temple. It is significant, in this context, that <a href='B:450 6:12'>Zec 6:12</a> reminds Israel that the true temple of God will be built by the Branch, the Lord Jesus.</p><p>The question is whether all these building projects happened chronologically, one after another, or whether they in fact were all going on at the same time. If chronologically, we would expect a note to that effect at this point. Instead we are left to conclude that the building of the temple, of his own house, of "the house of the forest of Lebanon" and the "house for Pharaoh’s daughter (whom Solomon had taken as wife)" (:8) all happened at the same time. We could conclude that he was distracted from building God's house by his other building projects, and that's why the building of the temple took seven years. This may appear to be contradicted by the statements in 1 Kings 9:10 and 2 Chron. 8:1: "It happened at the end of twenty years, in which Solomon had built the two houses, the house of Yahweh and the king’s house...". However the context of those verses goes on to state that Solomon had given twenty cities to Hiram in return for his labour and materials for the building of the houses. So we could legitimately read those passages as meaning that at the end of the twenty year period over which the two houses had been built and twenty cities given to Hiram... that Hiram became dissatisfied.  The recurrence of the number twenty could hint that he was paid one city a year for twenty years. </p>


text:
<p>(now Hiram the king of Tyre had supplied Solomon with cedar trees and fir trees, and with gold, according to all his desire), that then king Solomon gave Hiram twenty cities in the land of Galilee- </p><p>As noted on :1, all this building work was Solomon's "desire" or will, not necessarily God’s; and he was really doing what he wanted in his fulfilment of his architectural fantasies, as he admits in Ecclesiastes, rather than serving God’s will. For God had made it clear to David that a fancy temple with gold and cedar was not at all His will or desire. The gift of Israelite cities to a Gentile was not what a true king of Israel should have done, who valued the promises of Israel's eternal inheritance of the promised land. Solomon had come to see all God’s promises as fulfilled in him and his amazing city and temple in Jerusalem. And so he devalued the rest of the promises, especially their future, eternal dimension. And Solomon clearly ignored the principle that the land was Yahweh's; it was not for him to sell it for gold and timber. It would seem that now after twenty years (:10) of extensive building projects, Solomon was broke. And his obsession with building led him to sell parts of Yahweh's land. Again we note that it was the wealth of the north which was extracted and used to build Jerusalem, just as the labour force of the north was used for Solomon's work in Judah. For it was possibly around this time that Jeroboam was put in charge of the forced labour brigades from Ephraim and Manasseh in order to fortify Jerusalem (1 Kings 11:28). And it was around this time, 950 BC, that Shishak came to power in Egypt, quite possibly posing a threat to Solomon to the extent he fortified Jerusalem against it. So much for Solomon's marriage to Pharaoh's daughter for political ends [if indeed that was ever a major factor in the marriage]. About five years after his death, Egypt invaded Judah in the reign of his son Rehoboam. Likewise his love affairs with women from Moab and Ammon (1 Kings 11:1,7) and worshipping their gods didn't mean Moab and Ammon would not later attack Israel.</p>


text:
<p>Hiram came out from Tyre to see the cities which Solomon had given him; and they didn’t please him- </p><p>Solomon's sacrifice of principle, as explained on :11, didn’t achieve his intended aim of getting Hiram even more onside with him. Sacrifice of principle and the true hope of Israel never works out. These cities were inhabited by Canaanites whom Israel hadn't subdued at the time of this 'gift' (<a href='B:100 24:7'>2Sa 24:7</a>; <a href='B:140 8:2'>2Ch 8:2</a>), and so Solomon was giving to Hiram a bunch of problems. These cities were not really under Solomon's authority anyway, he had not subdued the Canaanites there, so passing them to Hiram was giving him a noose around his neck rather than a true present. As an island state, Tyre needed land to produce food- and this land wasn't fertile, it seems. </p>


text:
<p>He said, What cities are these which you have given me, my brother? He called them the land of Cabul to this day- </p><p>"Cabul" can mean 'pawned', and the idea may be that although in some sense they did belong to Solomon, effectively they didn’t because they were inhabited by Canaanites. Hence Hiram returned them to Solomon (<a href='B:140 8:2'>2Ch 8:2</a>), with all the damage in relationship that goes with returning a rejected gift. <a href='B:140 8:2'>2Ch 8:2</a> says that after this Solomon colonized the cities and sent Israelites to live there. But as will be noted on <a href='B:110 9:21'>1Ki 9:21</a>, this was not particularly in obedience to the Divine commands to subjugate the Canaanites, but rather than Solomon was desperate for huge amounts of slave labour with which to fulfil his building projects.</p>


text:
<p>Hiram sent to the king one hundred and twenty talents of gold-</p><p>The sense is that he "had sent" this money to Solomon. It seems Solomon became so obsessed with his building projects that he borrowed this money to finance them, and then tried to pay off the debt by giving Hiram the worthless cities of Cabul which were not at all any recompense. We see therefore that all was not quite as opulent and prosperous in Solomon's kingdom as may appear. See on :21.</p>


text:
<p>This is the reason of the levy which king Solomon raised, to build the house of Yahweh, and his own house, and Millo, and the wall of Jerusalem, and Hazor, and Megiddo, and Gezer- </p><p>Solomon figuratively chastised the people with whips in the form of the excessive tax he raised in order to build store cities (<a href='B:110 9:15'>1Ki 9:15</a>; <a href='B:110 9:19'>1Ki 9:19</a>), in which to store all his accumulation. Surely this is behind the Lord's parable of the rich fool, devoid of wisdom in practice, who built ever bigger barns because of his lack of understanding about the future Kingdom. The Hebrew for "store cities" (<a href='B:140 8:6'>2Ch 8:6</a>) is also translated "to heap up", strengthening the connection with the rich fool (<a href='B:490 12:15-28'>Luk 12:15-28</a>). That parable stresses the self-centeredness of the fool- just circle all the occurrences of the word "I". A similar over-use of personal pronouns in <a href='B:250 2:4-8'>Ecc 2:4-8</a> makes the same point. <a href='B:250 2:26'>Ecc 2:26</a> records how Solomon reflected that the sinner "heaped up" treasures- using the same word as for his "store cities". He saw his error, but wasn't bothered to do anything about it.</p>


text:
<p>Pharaoh king of Egypt had gone up, and taken Gezer, and burnt it with fire, and slain the Canaanites who lived in the city, and given it for a present to his daughter, Solomon’s wife- </p><p>The LXX interprets this as a marriage gift, and the Hebrew for "present" implies this. We know from <a href='B:70 1:15'>Jdg 1:15</a> that it was not unknown for the father of the bride to give a dowry payment to the groom. Gezer was a Philistine city, and it has been suggested that they had sailed to the coast of Egypt and were acting as pirates, also pillaging the Egyptian coastline. Hence Pharaoh's attack upon them.</p>


text:
<p>Solomon built Gezer, and Beth Horon the lower- </p><p>Gezer had been a Philistine or Canaanite city (:16), and as with the colonization of the wilderness outpost of Tamar (:18)and the Canaanite held cities in Galilee (<a href='B:140 8:2'>2Ch 8:2</a>; <a href='B:110 9:13'>1Ki 9:13</a>), this building of cities in these areas would only have made sense if Israelites were then sent to live there. This would therefore have resulted in a huge forced deportation of Israelites away from their homes and tribal areas to populate remote areas surrounded by recently vanquished Canaanites. This would not have been popular.</p>


text:
<p>and Baalath, and Tamar in the wilderness, in the land- </p><p>See on :17. Baalath was in Dan near Gezer (<a href='B:60 19:44'>Jos 19:44</a>), and was built and then populated by Israelites for defensive reasons. Tadmor (AV) is now an oasis in the Syrian desert, on the caravan route from Damascus to the Euphrates. There was no point in building it as a city unless it was to be inhabited by Israelites. But this would have been unpopular, as it meant uprooting Israelites out of their homes and tribal areas and sending them to live in remote outpost. This would have meant Solomon again despised the tribal allotments, which to God were significant. He did the same in his arrangement of the tax administration of the nation, as explained on 1 Kings 4.</p>


text:
<p>and all the storage cities that Solomon had, and the cities for his chariots, and the cities for his horsemen- </p><p>The building of store cities by slave labour is exactly what Pharaoh did to the Israelites (<a href='B:20 1:11'>Exo 1:11</a>). The impression is given that he followed Egypt in this way, as well as marrying Pharaoh's daughter and incorporating Egyptian stylism into the temple building, as noted on 1 Kings 8. His love of horses and chariots likewise reflects his love of Egypt, despite it being forbidden for Israel's king in Deuteronomy.</p><p>Solomon's lack of sensitivity to God’s word led him to be tragically insensitive to people; in short, he showed no love. The way Solomon raised a "levy" or tribute from Israel, whereby the men of Israel had to serve him one month out of three and 'bear burdens', with 3,300 taskmasters over them (<a href='B:110 5:13-15'>1Ki 5:13-15</a>), who 'bore rule' over (Heb. 'trampled down') the people (<a href='B:110 5:16'>1Ki 5:16</a>)... is all reminiscent of Samuel's warning about the kind of King which Israel would have. And the language also recalls their bondage in Egypt; note that the levy was also in order to build treasure cities for Solomon, just as Pharaoh did. The Hebrew word for "levy" in <a href='B:110 5:13'>1Ki 5:13</a> strictly means 'a burden causing to faint', and is rendered "taskmaster" in the record of Israel's suffering in Egypt (<a href='B:20 1:11'>Exo 1:11</a>). One even wonders if Solomon's father-in-law- who also happened to be a Pharaoh of Egypt- influenced him (consciously or unconsciously) to act like the Exodus Pharaoh.</p><p>And that which Solomon desired to build for his pleasure in Jerusalem, and in Lebanon, and in all the land of his dominion-</p><p>Solomon loved building (<a href='B:250 2:4-6'>Ecc 2:4-6</a>)- he built cities and buildings because it was “the desire of Solomon which he desired” (<a href='B:110 9:19'>1Ki 9:19</a> AVmg:), i:e. one of his dominant desires. So when we read that it was the desire of Solomon to build the temple (<a href='B:110 9:1'>1Ki 9:1</a>; <a href='B:110 9:11'>1Ki 9:11</a>), he was merely serving God in a way that naturally appealed to him anyway. And when he had finished that desire when the temple was completed (9:1), he was in the same position as when in Ecclesiastes he describes how he indulged every desire up to the very end, and then was left with the emptiness of vanity.</p><p>The fortification of Lebanon was because of the threat from Rezin in Damascus (<a href='B:110 11:24'>1Ki 11:24</a>).</p>


text:
<p>As for all the people who were left of the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, who were not of the children of Israel- </p><p>Of the seven nations earlier listed as inhabiting Canaan, only these five had apparently survived. Two had been absorbed into the Israelite population or destroyed. They were clearly distinct from the "children of Israel". Instead of trying to absorb them into Israel or destroy them, Solomon was so desperate for workers that he capitalized on that situation and demanded they provide him with slaves for his building works, as opposed to the Israelite labour which was classified as 'servants' (:22).</p>


text:
<p>their children who were left after them in the land, whom the children of Israel were not able utterly to destroy, of them Solomon raised a levy of bondservants to this day- </p><p>This suggests that Solomon made the same mistake as Israel in earlier days- he was a satisficer, he himself married into those tribes, and he wasn’t obedient to the clear covenant of the land which was binding upon him. Solomon's motivation for now bringing the Canaanites into servitude was not spiritual. Rather, as with his borrowing of money from Hiram (see on :14), his obsession with his building plans was such that he needed huge amounts of money and resources to carry them through. And so he colonized the Canaanite areas and made them send him slaves to work on his quarrying and building projects; and this was why, as noted on :13 and <a href='B:140 8:2'>2Ch 8:2</a>, he was keen to colonize the area of 'Cabul', in order to also provide more dogs body workers for his architectural obsessions.</p>


text:
<p>But of the children of Israel Solomon made no bondservants; but they were the men of war, and his servants, and his princes, and his captains, and rulers of his chariots and of his horsemen- </p><p>This sounds very much like the fulfilment of Samuel's warning as to how a human king would abuse the Israelites. He made the Canaanites slaves (:21), but he made the Israelites his servants, to the point of whipping them with whips, as they later complained after his death. The difference between being his slaves and his servants was therefore not that significant.</p><p>Solomon&nbsp;had obsessive tendencies. We know that he became addicted to finding pleasure in women, and Ecclesiastes 2 shows him racing down the road of obsession with architecture, alcohol, food, gold etc. The historical narratives so often mention his gold and silver (e.g. <a href='B:140 9:13-21'>2Ch 9:13-21</a>; <a href='B:140 9:24'>2Ch 9:24</a>; <a href='B:140 9:27'>2Ch 9:27</a>). This repetition reflects Solomon's obsession. The same fact explains the record's repetition of Solomon's enthusiasm for horses (<a href='B:110 10:25-29'>1Ki 10:25-29</a>; <a href='B:110 4:26'>1Ki 4:26</a>; <a href='B:110 4:28'>1Ki 4:28</a>; <a href='B:110 9:19'>1Ki 9:19</a>; <a href='B:110 9:22'>1Ki 9:22</a>; <a href='B:140 1:14'>2Ch 1:14</a>; <a href='B:140 1:16-17'>2Ch 1:16-17</a>; <a href='B:140 8:6'>2Ch 8:6</a>; <a href='B:140 8:9'>2Ch 8:9</a>; <a href='B:140 9:24-25'>2Ch 9:24-25</a>; <a href='B:140 9:28'>2Ch 9:28</a>). Yet amassing of gold, silver and horses was explicitly forbidden for the King of Israel (<a href='B:50 17:17'>Deu 17:17</a>). There is a powerful point to be made here: we can deceive ourselves that God is blessing us, when actually we are breaching explicit commands. Would Solomon had understood the concept of self-examination.</p>


text:
<p>These were the chief officers who were over Solomon’s work, five hundred and fifty, who bore rule over the people who laboured in the work- </p><p>The number of these overseers varies from 3,300 when the temple was being built (<a href='B:110 5:16'>1Ki 5:16</a>) to 550 in <a href='B:110 9:23'>1Ki 9:23</a> and then 250 in the Chronicles record. I suggested on <a href='B:110 9:14'>1Ki 9:14</a>; <a href='B:110 9:21'>1Ki 9:21</a> that all was not well in Solomon's apparently opulent kingdom. His building obsessions had led him to borrow money from Hiram to find it, and to excessively tax both Israel and the Canaanites amongst them to provide workers. And so the decreasing numbers of overseers may reflect his declining human resources, despite making every effort to try to pressgang more labourers he got fewer and fewer on the jobs in practice.</p>


text:
<p>But Pharaoh’s daughter came up out of the city of David to her house which Solomon had built for her: then he built Millo- </p><p>If this is the woman of the Song of Solomon, then we can deduce they had a stormy relationship. It apparently ends at the end of Song of Solomon 8 (see notes there), and yet with the hints of resumption. So perhaps it was not a blessed marriage, and Solomon ended up building her a separate house to live in outside his immediate citadel.</p>


text:
<p>Solomon offered burnt offerings and peace offerings on the altar which he built to Yahweh three times a year, burning incense with them, on the altar that was before Yahweh. So he finished the house- </p><p>"Three times a year" surely refers to the three main feasts, Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles. No longer were the "high places" like Gibeon used, but worship was centralized in Jerusalem. This was indeed as the law of Moses intended, but Solomon appears to have used this as part of his policy of centralization of power in Jerusalem which we discussed on 1 Kings 4. We note that Solomon seems to have officiated as a priest as David did. David had done this kind of thing, but from careful reflection upon the spirit of the law, whose letter he says in Psalms 119 he studied constantly. And David came to this sense through careful reflection upon God’s grace to him, and through the experience of Uzzah's death as a result of taking 'living the spirit of the law' too far. But Solomon does it from a wrong assumption that he is the Messianic king-priest.</p>


text:
<p>King Solomon made a navy of ships in Ezion Geber, which is beside Eloth, on the shore of the Red Sea, in the land of Edom- </p><p>The navy appears to have either been owned by Hiram or at least included his ships (<a href='B:140 8:18'>2Ch 8:18</a>). It is spoken of as Solomon's in the same way as he is spoken of as being the personal builder of the temple, when clearly his subordinates did the actual work. See on :27.</p>


text:
<p>Hiram sent in the navy his servants, sailors who had knowledge of the sea, with the servants of Solomon- </p><p>Transporting ships overland was relatively common; there are several accounts of Alexander the Great doing so. Perhaps Hiram had transported his ships there overland through Israel, and Solomon decided to have them build ships for him at their port of departure, so that his traders could accompany the men of Tyre. The ships were perhaps "sent" in the form of wooden structures which were then assembled at the port.</p>


text:
<p>They came to Ophir, and fetched from there gold, four hundred and twenty talents, and brought it to king Solomon- </p><p>Chronicles says 450, but perhaps the 30 talents difference were paid to Hiram for his transport services, as the navy of :27 appears to have either been owned by Hiram or at least included his ships (<a href='B:140 8:18'>2Ch 8:18</a>). "Ophir" may have been a generic name for areas to the east, including southern Arabia (famed for gold in <a href='B:230 72:15'>Psa 72:15</a>; <a href='B:330 27:22'>Eze 27:22</a>) and India; Ophir was in Arabia according to <a href='B:10 10:29'>Gen 10:29</a>. Sheba was nearby and was famed for gold, so it was through this trading that the Queen of Sheba heard of the wisdom of Solomon. The next verse (<a href='B:110 10:1'>1Ki 10:1</a>) goes on to speak of her, connecting her with this gold trade with Ophir.</p>


text:
<p>When the queen of Sheba heard of the fame of Solomon concerning the name of Yahweh, she came to test him with hard questions- </p><p> The record so far in 1 Kings has presented Solomon and his kingdom as deeply and increasingly hypocritical and covered with a mere veneer of spirituality. He was increasingly in debt as a result of his extravagance, to the point of having paid Hiram with 20 Israelite cities. The visit of the Queen of Sheba is likewise recorded in the same vein. A special display of opulence and wisdom is put on for her, and she falls for it. Yet as a result, she comes to believe in the one true God and the Lord taught that she will finally be in God's Kingdom. One function of the story is to tell us the readers how Solomon appeared, we see him through her eyes- although the previous chapters have shown the thoughtful reader that in fact what she saw was fake. </p><p> She came to Solomon not because of the magnificence of the temple, but because she had heard of the Name of Yahweh and wanted to know more. This again undercuts Solomon's prayer in 1 Kings 8. His idea was that the magnificence of the temple would attract Gentiles, and that Yahweh's Name was somehow in the temple. But God had told David that He didn't want a physical house, but rather a house of people who manifested His Name in the sense of His characteristics. The Queen of Sheba is attracted by the Name of Yahweh in this sense. Just as it is the things of Yahweh's Name and not any physical religious structure that will attract the spiritually minded enquirers of any age.
 </p><p>As explained on <a href='B:110 9:28'>1Ki 9:28</a>, she would have first encountered Solomon's servants when they came to Sheba in search of gold, for which Sheba was famous. "Hard questions" is the word for "riddle". And it seems Solomon answered her riddles using his book of Proverbs. For he uses the word in <a href='B:240 1:5-6'>Pro 1:5-6</a> about how his Divinely inspired Proverbs were the answers to such "riddles" of the wise: "These proverbs can even add to the knowledge of the wise and give guidance to the educated,&nbsp;so that they can understand the hidden meanings of proverbs and the problems [s:w. "riddles", "hard questions"] that the wise raise" (GNB). He may have this wise queen of Sheba in mind, as it was her who raised these "riddles" / "problems" with him.</p><p>The record so far in 1 Kings has presented Solomon and his kingdom as deeply and increasingly hypocritical and covered with a mere veneer of spirituality. He was increasingly in debt as a result of his extravagance, to the point of having paid Hiram with 20 Israelite cities. The visit of the Queen of Sheba is likewise recorded in the same vein. A special display of opulence and wisdom is put on for her, and she falls for it. Yet as a result, she comes to believe in the one true God and the Lord taught that she will finally be in God's Kingdom. One function of the story is to tell us the readers how Solomon appeared, we see him through her eyes- although the previous chapters have shown the thoughtful reader that in fact what she saw was fake.</p><p> She came to Solomon not because of the magnificence of the temple, but because she had heard of the Name of Yahweh and wanted to know more. This again undercuts Solomon's prayer in 1 Kings 8. His idea was that the magnificence of the temple would attract Gentiles, and that Yahweh's Name was somehow in the temple. But God had told David that He didn't want a physical house, but rather a house of people who manifested His Name in the sense of His characteristics. The Queen of Sheba is attracted by the Name of Yahweh in this sense. Just as it is the things of Yahweh's Name and not any physical religious structure that will attract the spiritually minded enquirers of any age.</p>


text:
<p>She came to Jerusalem with a very great train, with camels that carried spices, and very much gold and precious stones; and when she had come to Solomon, she talked with him of all that was in her heart- </p><p>This woman obviously had genuine questions which were more than mere intellectual tests of Solomon (:1). She presumably accompanied the latest shipment to Solomon of the things Israel traded with Sheba for, although we note she came by land with camels rather than by sea. It seems from the closing verses of 1 Kings 9 that the Israelites usually traded with Sheba by sea. "Great train" is elsewhere translated "great army", as if the wealth of what was being brought was so great that it needed major military escort. The same terms "spices... gold... precious stones" is used of what the queen of Sheba brought to Solomon, and what was brought to Hezekiah after his healing (<a href='B:140 32:27'>2Ch 32:27</a>). Perhaps the conversion of the queen of Sheba to Israel's God meant that her people continued to be sympathetic to Judah even in Hezekiah's time, and they were the source of these things in his time.</p><p>David had prayed that Solomon would be the Messianic king who would receive gold and gifts from the ruler of Sheba (<a href='B:230 72:10'>Psa 72:10</a>; <a href='B:230 72:15'>Psa 72:15</a>), and this appeared an exact fulfilment of that. But although :1 implies the visit was of her initiative, we wonder whether Solomon's obsession with living out his father’s expectations led him to actually invite her, in order to fulfil the words of Psalms 72 and as it were force a fulfilment in him. For they had been trading partners before this, as 1 Kings 9 makes clear. And yet the majority of Psalms 72 was not fulfilled by Solomon, and will only come true in the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>Solomon told her all her questions: there was not anything hidden from the king which he didn’t tell her- </p><p>The idea is as in GNB "there was nothing too difficult for him to explain". "Told her" translates the word used for solving riddles (<a href='B:70 14:13'>Jdg 14:13</a>) and interpreting dreams (<a href='B:10 41:24'>Gen 41:24</a>; <a href='B:340 5:12'>Dan 5:12</a>). See on :1.</p>


text:
<p>When the queen of Sheba had seen all the wisdom of Solomon, and the house that he had built- </p><p>The next verse suggests the "house" she was amazed at was not so much the temple, as his own house which had taken nearly twice as long to build and was of a grander nature than the temple. Yet he had prayed in 1 Kings 8 that the temple would be the source of wonder for the Gentile world, and would of itself bring about the creation of proselytes for Yahweh. But in reality it was replaced by his own house. We note how she was impressed by 'seeing' his wisdom; she had heard it in theory (:1), but it is the word made flesh which has the power of personal conversion in practice.</p>


text:
<p>and the food of his table, and the sitting of his servants, and the attendance of his ministers, and their clothing, and his cup bearers, and his ascent by which he went up to the house of Yahweh; there was no more spirit in her- <a href='B:60 2:11'>Jos 2:11</a>; <a href='B:60 5:1'>Jos 5:1</a></p><p> "The sitting of his servants" refers only to those  privileged to sit at the king’s table. The people generally were enslaved to Solomon and complained of his abuse. This was all a specially arranged demonstration that 'took in' the Queen. "There was no more spirit in her" is the phrase is used in Josh. 5:1 to mean resignation in defeat. Perhaps she imagined herself to be the greatest monarch in the region, but now accepts that Solomon is far greater than her. And thus she becomes representative of all Christian believers as they behind the Lord Jesus, according to how He speaks of her and her final acceptance at the day of judgment. </p><p> The way the Queen of Sheba was given a guided tour of Solomon's wealth makes ominous connection with Hezekiah's proud parading of his blessings to the Babylonian ambassadors. I noted another connection with Hezekiah on :2. The "ascent" was the king's personal entry into the temple (<a href='B:120 16:18'>2Ki 16:18</a>) and Hezekiah is also associated with this in that he wrote the songs of degrees after his healing. They allude to how the sun went back on the sundial of Ahaz, which appears to have been a development of these grandiose steps of the king's entrance to the temple into a sundial. It is this very striking "ascent" which is described in :12. These connections with Hezekiah suggest why the book of Ecclesiastes was written by Solomon but apparently rewritten by Hezekiah, as frequently discussed in my commentary on Ecclesiastes. </p>


text:
<p>She said to the king, It was a true report that I heard in my own land of your acts, and of your wisdom- </p><p>The actual content of Solomon's wisdom, perhaps in the form of the writings we now have as the book of Proverbs, had already been taken to her. She had heard the words by "report", but "didn’t believe the words" (:7) until she actually saw the word made flesh. And this is typical of so many people. It is why God speaks His word to us now "in His Son", and why our witness will be the more effective if we make the word flesh in our lives.</p>


text:
<p>However I didn’t believe the words, until I came, and my eyes had seen it. Behold, the half was not told me! Your wisdom and prosperity exceed the fame which I heard- </p><p>As explained on :6, it is hard for people to believe mere words. They have to see the word made flesh. This is why simply distributing propositional truths on various media will not of itself convert many people. The word must be made flesh, and then it is believed. This is why the person of the Lord Jesus, the word made flesh, must be absolutely and utterly paramount in our teaching of the Gospel. And it is why public lecturing about various Gospel truths will never convert as many people as witnessing that word in the flesh. It is encounter with real persons which converts real persons, rather than encounter with words and ideas. That is not to say God’s word is not alive and powerful of itself. But people are people, they are weak, and often they have lacked access to God’s word in its written form. It is the word made flesh in believers of that word which will be the most powerful witness in practice:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Happy are your men- </p><p>It is as if she wishes to see David’s words about the blessedness or happiness of the righteous nation and people being fulfilled, or perhaps it was Solomon trying to fulfil those words (<a href='B:230 1:1'>Psa 1:1</a>; <a href='B:230 33:12'>Psa 33:12</a> etc:). But it seems this was all an impression Solomon was giving her, for many things were "rotten in the state of Denmark" as noted throughout 1 Kings 8, 9. LXX gives "wives" for "men", as if she was struck by the happiness of the wives in his harem, which was unusual. But surely this too was only an appearance, because Ecclesiastes betrays an unhappy family life in Solomon's experience. Were the 1000 women in his harem happy? Surely this was a staged impression, which the queen fell for.  </p><p>Happy are these your servants, who stand continually before you, who hear your wisdom- </p><p>The next generation were to complain that Solomon had chastised the people with whips (<a href='B:110 12:11'>1Ki 12:11</a>). The happiness of the people which the Queen of Sheba observed was therefore just an impression Solomon arranged for her to receive.</p>


text:
<p>Blessed is Yahweh your God, who delighted in you, to set you on the throne of Israel. Because Yahweh loved Israel forever, therefore He made you king, to do justice and righteousness- </p><p> The Lord taught that this woman would appear at the day of judgment and be justified. She came to Solomon because of what she had heard about the name of Yahweh (:1). So she was attracted already to Yahweh. We see how God works through insincere people, hypocritical approaches to religion etc. in order to bring people to Himself. And we enquire how much true doctrine she knew and which of her native false doctrines she retained... Those who think that detailed purity of doctrine is required for covenant relationship with God would need to be reading here that she jettisoned her previous beliefs and accepted a course of instruction in Yahweh. But there is a deafening silence regarding that.</p><p> These are identical words as in <a href='B:110 5:7'>1Ki 5:7</a>, of Hiram's response. We are given the impression that they became proselytes because they used the Yahweh Name; although polytheists could take the name of other gods, such as Yahweh, without it meaning they had accepted them as their own gods.</p><p>Because of God’s enthusiasm for human response to His ways, the exalted language in which He describes believers, even in their weakness, is a further essay in His humility. The way the Father runs to the prodigal and falls on his neck in tears is a superb essay in this (<a href='B:490 15:20'>Luk 15:20</a>). Thus God "delighted" in Solomon (<a href='B:110 10:9'>1Ki 10:9</a>)- translating a Hebrew word meaning literally 'to bend down to'. It's used about men in love (<a href='B:10 34:19'>Gen 34:19</a>; <a href='B:50 21:14'>Deu 21:14</a>; <a href='B:50 25:7'>Deu 25:7</a>), and about Jonathan's deferential attitude to David (<a href='B:90 19:2'>1Sa 19:2</a>).</p>


text:
<p>She gave the king one hundred and twenty talents of gold- </p><p>This was about one third of his annual income (:14), which could imply she was more wealthy than he was.</p><p>And of spices very great store, and precious stones. There came no more such abundance of spices as these which the queen of Sheba gave to king Solomon- </p><p>This note seems to imply that spices were never again imported into Israel, the implication being as Josephus states (Antiquities, 8:6:6), "that the cultivation of the balsam in Palestine dates from this visit; the plant having been one of the queen’s gifts".</p>


text:
<p>The navy also of Hiram- </p><p>Built and operated by him on Solomon's behalf (<a href='B:110 9:26-28'>1Ki 9:26-28</a>). The ships are called Hiram’s because he supplied the wood for building it, and the sailors. </p><p>That brought gold from Ophir, brought in from Ophir a great quantity of almug trees and precious stones- </p><p>"Almug" appears to refer to sandalwood, "the Hebraized form of the Deccan word for sandal". This points to "Ophir" as being in the east, possibly as far as the Indian coast where these trees grow.</p>


text:
<p>The king made of the almug trees pillars for the house of Yahweh, and for the king’s house, harps also and stringed instruments for the singers: there came no such almug trees, nor were seen, to this day- </p><p>"Pillars" is "steps" in <a href='B:140 9:11'>2Ch 9:11</a>, so the idea is of a magnificent staircase with elaborate banisters. This appears to be the king's "ascent" into the temple which so amazed the queen of Sheba (:5). This verse is referring back before her visit, because the almug trees were brought for the temple and for the king's house, which were already built by the time she visited.</p>


text:
<p>King Solomon gave to the queen of Sheba all her desire, whatever she asked, besides that which Solomon gave her of his royal bounty. So she turned, and went to her own land, she and her servants-</p><p>It is unclear whether this was a genuine gift, or whether it was part of a trade deal. For she had brought a huge caravan of gifts, and in return Solomon gave her what she asked for, as well as his own presents ("his royal bounty").</p><p>According to Ethiopian tradition, Solomon slept with the queen of Sheba and she bore Solomon a son called Melimelek. It is possible to interpret Psalms 45 as a reference to Solomon's relationship with the Queen of Sheba.</p>


text:
<p>Now the weight of gold that came to Solomon in one year was six hundred and sixty-six talents of gold- </p><p>This number occurs in the description of the mark of the beast in <a href='B:730 13:18'>Rev 13:18</a>. It is one of the biggest hints that in fact Solomon's kingdom was the kingdom of the flesh, and not at all God’s Kingdom as had been promised to David. The apostate religious system called "Babylon" in Revelation is evidently presented in the language of Solomon - at the time his kingdom was apparently flourishing, due to his righteousness. <a href='B:110 10:14'>1Ki 10:14</a> = <a href='B:730 13:17-18'>Rev 13:17-18</a>; <a href='B:110 10:23'>1Ki 10:23</a> = <a href='B:730 18:11-12'>Rev 18:11-12</a>; <a href='B:730 18:15'>Rev 18:15</a>; <a href='B:110 11:1-2'>1Ki 11:1-2</a> = <a href='B:730 17:1-2'>Rev 17:1-2</a>; <a href='B:110 10:22'>1Ki 10:22</a> = <a href='B:730 18:17'>Rev 18:17</a>; <a href='B:730 18:19'>Rev 18:19</a>; <a href='B:110 10:23'>1Ki 10:23</a> = <a href='B:730 18:3'>Rev 18:3</a>; <a href='B:730 18:17'>Rev 18:17</a>; <a href='B:110 10:21-22'>1Ki 10:21-22</a> = <a href='B:730 18:12'>Rev 18:12</a>; <a href='B:110 10:11'>1Ki 10:11</a> = <a href='B:730 18:12'>Rev 18:12</a>; <a href='B:110 10:22'>1Ki 10:22</a> = <a href='B:730 18:12'>Rev 18:12</a>; <a href='B:110 10:10'>1Ki 10:10</a>; <a href='B:110 10:25'>1Ki 10:25</a> = <a href='B:730 18:13'>Rev 18:13</a>; <a href='B:110 10:23'>1Ki 10:23</a> = <a href='B:730 18:3'>Rev 18:3</a>; <a href='B:730 18:9'>Rev 18:9</a>; <a href='B:110 10:28'>1Ki 10:28</a> = <a href='B:730 18:12'>Rev 18:12</a>; <a href='B:110 9:22'>1Ki 9:22</a> = <a href='B:730 18:13'>Rev 18:13</a>. These allusions of themselves suggest Solomon's spirituality was a mere appearance. The latter day system which his kingdom looked ahead to may therefore be Jewish or Jerusalem based, with elements of apparent obedience to God.</p><p><a href='B:140 3:8'>2Ch 3:8</a> says that Solomon used 600 talents of gold on the temple. Seeing he received 666 talents / year, plus the large income from :16, this means that it was not particularly generous. One talent is 26 kilograms (57 pounds). 1 kilogram of gold is currently worth about 80,000 US$ [2024]. Despite Solomon's highly successful trading income, he still brutally taxed his people. He became obsessed with wealth and funding his massive building projects. ].</p> <p> Or we could conclude that the figure of 666 talents of gold came to Solomon just in one year. He had 120
talents from Hiram (1 Kings 9:14), 420 talents from Ophir (1 Kings 9:28) and 120 talents from the Queen of Sheba (1 Kings 10: 10). This makes 660 talents, leaving six talents added by the record. If we enquire why the record states 666, it could be because God wanted to associate this number with Solomon. The number 6 is less than 7, the number of perfection. It is the number of the man who fell short.</p>


text:
<p>besides that which the traders brought, and the traffic of the merchants, and of all the kings of the mixed people, and of the governors of the country- </p><p>LXX understand this as tribute, the taxes he charged on trading with his ships or through his territory; and in addition there was the income from the taxation system described in 1 Kings 4.</p>


text:
<p>King Solomon made two hundred bucklers of beaten gold; six hundred shekels of gold went to one buckler-</p><p>LXX "spears"; the Hebrew idea is of a large shield. David had taken shields of gold in <a href='B:100 8:7'>2Sa 8:7</a>, and it seems Solomon was as ever seeking to imitate his father, at least externally, by making shields of gold. It was this almost pitiable imitation of his father which led to his undoing; for he was never his own man, never personally engaging with God. And when he finally matured in much later life, he had no faith in God at all, and turned to idols.</p>


text:
<p>he made three hundred shields of beaten gold; three minas of gold went to one shield: and the king put them in the house of the forest of Lebanon- </p><p><a href='B:140 9:16'>2Ch 9:16</a> says they weighed 300 shekels each, meaning that one mina was 100 shekels; although the definitions seemed to vary over time (<a href='B:330 45:12'>Eze 45:12</a>). There were 60 shekels to one talent. But this hanging of shields on the walls was exactly what was done in Tyre (<a href='B:330 27:11-12'>Eze 27:11-12</a>), so as noted earlier, it seems Solomon was copying Tyre as well as other Gentiles. <a href='B:260 4:4'>Son 4:4</a> speaks of 1000 shields hanging "on the tower of David". This may be an exaggerated number, or it could be that these shields combined with those David had taken (see on :16) were 1000 in number.</p><p><a href='B:290 2:6-13'>Isa 2:6-13</a> condemns Israel for their pride whilst making many allusions to Solomon: "Full of silver and gold, neither is there any end of their treasures... full of horses... chariots... idols... the work of their own hands... the cedars of Lebanon" (i:e. Solomon's armoury of <a href='B:110 7:2-3'>1Ki 7:2-3</a>; <a href='B:110 10:17'>1Ki 10:17</a>). The amount of cedar used for Solomon's house as well as the temple would have probably resulted in the deforestation of parts of Lebanon in order to provide this number of mature cedar trees. To cover an area of 100 x 50 cubits (<a href='B:110 7:2'>1Ki 7:2</a>) with a roof of cedar (<a href='B:110 7:3'>1Ki 7:3</a>) would have required 5000 square cubits of cedar wood if it were a flat roof, and more if the roof was angled; although it could be that not all the area was covered, i:e. there may have been a courtyard:&nbsp;But if it was, then we can better understand why it was called "the house of the forest of Lebanon" (<a href='B:110 10:17'>1Ki 10:17</a>; <a href='B:290 22:8'>Isa 22:8</a>). About a whole forest of Lebanon would have been felled and transported to Jerusalem for all this building work.</p>


text:
<p>Moreover the king made a great throne of ivory, and overlaid it with the finest gold-</p><p>"Ivory" is literally "tooth" as in :22. It was likely made of wood overlaid with ivory and then gold, just as the 'house of ivory' (<a href='B:110 22:39'>1Ki 22:39</a>) and 'bed of ivory' (<a href='B:370 6:4'>Amo 6:4</a>) were likewise not made of solid ivory. Ivory thrones were typical of the kings of Assyria, and we wonder if again this is evidence of pagan influence upon Solomon. God had promised to establish David’s throne for ever, and Solomon wrongly assumed this was fulfilled in him and therefore he glorified his literal throne. This is typical of his total lack of spiritual perspective.</p>


text:
<p>There were six steps to the throne, and the top of the throne was round behind; and there were stays on either side by the place of the seat, and two lions standing beside the stays-</p><p>The six steps stressed the elevation of the throne. It is God’s throne which alone is exalted (<a href='B:290 6:1'>Isa 6:1</a>). But Solomon justified his self exaltation on the basis that he had been exalted by God, and his throne was God’s throne. He repeatedly refused to accept the conditionality of what had been promised to him. The two lions were surely part of the 12 lions of :20. Clearly two of the 12 lions [tribes of Israel] were seen as more exalted. This implies the supremacy of Judah over the ten tribes- and yet this kind of human point scoring was built in to what was supposed to be a replica of God’s throne. Solomon was quite unawed by God’s glory. For if he had been, he would have realized that before Him, all the tribes were equal.</p>


text:
<p>Twelve lions stood there on the one side and on the other on the six steps: there was nothing like it made in any kingdom- </p><p>This extraordinary throne received so much attention from Solomon because he was convinced that the promises about David’s throne being eternal were fulfilled in him. And so he effectively portrayed it as God’s throne, with the 12 lions representing the tribes of Israel ruled over by him. After the division of the kingdom, the throne would have been a sad piece of furniture. But the 12 lions were found on each side of the steps, making 24. This is a number associated with the throne room of God, with 24 elders or division of Angels before it (<a href='B:730 4:4'>Rev 4:4</a>; <a href='B:730 5:8'>Rev 5:8</a>; <a href='B:730 11:16'>Rev 11:16</a>; <a href='B:730 19:4'>Rev 19:4</a>). Perhaps Solomon was aware of this, and so he was making his throne an imitation of God’s. The lion was specifically the symbol of Judah (<a href='B:10 49:9'>Gen 49:9</a>); again, Solomon was inserting a subtext of Judah's domination of the rest of Israel. All Israel were to fall under the overall characterization of Judah.</p><p>The way Solomon built a huge physical throne, defended by impressive lions of his own creation (<a href='B:110 10:19-20'>1Ki 10:19-20</a>), rather indicates how he missed the entire point- of ruling on God’s throne, over a dynasty or 'throne' which God would perpetuate by grace; rather than establishing or creating the throne himself.</p>


text:
<p>All king Solomon’s drinking vessels were of gold, and all the vessels of the house of the forest of Lebanon were of pure gold: none were of silver; it was nothing accounted of in the days of Solomon- </p><p>However, Solomon only received 666 talents of gold / year (:13); and Alexander’s pillage of Ectabana was estimated at 120,000 talents of gold. So Solomon's wealth was not so great, relatively speaking. But it appeared like that, relative to the earlier poverty of a subsistence farming economy like Israel had been before Solomon.</p><p>“He that loves silver (as Solomon did, <a href='B:250 2:8'>Ecc 2:8</a>; <a href='B:110 10:21-29'>1Ki 10:21-29</a>) shall not be satisfied with silver (as he wasn’t- see Ecclesiastes 2); nor he that loves abundance (s:w. used about the abundance of Solomon’s wives, <a href='B:140 11:23'>2Ch 11:23</a>) with increase. When goods increase, they are increased that eat them (cp. the large numbers at his table, <a href='B:110 4:27'>1Ki 4:27</a>)” (<a href='B:250 5:10-11'>Ecc 5:10-11</a>). The Hebrew word translated “not be satisfied” occurs around 25 times in the Proverbs, with Solomon warning of how the way of the flesh couldn’t satisfy. Solomon said all this with an eye on himself. He preached it to others, he felt deeply the truth of it, but he saw no personal way out of it. All he had was the accurate knowledge of his situation, but no real motivation to change- like the alcoholic or drug abuser who knows every aspect of the harm of his habit.</p>


text:
<p>For the king had at sea a navy of Tarshish with the navy of Hiram: once every three years came the navy of Tarshish, bringing gold, and silver, ivory, and apes, and peacocks- </p><p>The abundance of gold and silver is explained on the basis of the fact that Solomon had a "navy of Tarshish" along with that of Hiram. And along with the gold and silver therefore came ivory, apes and peacocks. The association of these five items together points to trading with areas to the south and east of Israel. There is no way that "Tarshish" can refer to Britain because these items are simply not found there in abundance, and apes and elephants [for the ivory] are hardly natives of Britain. The word for "peacocks" appears to be a Hebraized form of an Indian word. The location of the trading partners is consistently areas to the south and east of Israel, not to the west. "Tarshish" may not in this context refer to a particular location. Rather is it a play on the meaning of the word, 'endurance / long distance', and refers to long distance trading vessels; just as in the 19th century, such vessels were known as "Indiamen", even if they were not bound for India. Likewise minibuses in the USSR were known as "Latvias" but that didn’t mean they were located in Latvia nor were going there. Comparing <a href='B:140 8:18'>2Ch 8:18</a> and <a href='B:110 9:26'>1Ki 9:26</a>, it seems that the navy of Solomon was initially based around the navy of Hiram. Hiram had transported his ships to the sea overland through Israel, and Solomon decided to have them build ships for him at their port of departure, so that his traders could accompany the men of Tyre. The ships were perhaps "sent" in the form of wooden structures which were then assembled at the port. But then Solomon began to have the men of Tyre build him his own ships, so that his navy was separate to that of Hiram. But they journeyed together, trading up and down the gulf and as far as India; returning every three years to port and transporting their valuable profits overland back to Israel and thence to Tyre. Each visit to a port would have taken some time, and they would have gained the gold, silver etc. through trading rather than thieving. So they would have bought good from one place and sold them at another, and after three years they had accumulated boats full of gold and silver which amounted to their profits.</p>


text:
<p>So king Solomon exceeded all the kings of the earth in riches and in wisdom- </p><p>These are the kings of the earth / land promised to Abraham, which is the same reference of :24. These are the kings of :26 LXX "and he ruled over all the kings from the river to the land of the Philistines, and to the borders of Egypt". The river Euphrates and the borders of Egypt were the eretz promised to Abraham.</p>


text:
<p>All the earth sought the presence of Solomon, to hear his wisdom, which God had put in his heart- </p><p>This refers to the earth / land promised to Abraham, the eretz of :23. As with the queen of Sheba, we note that they wanted to hear his wisdom from his actual mouth, in his presence; rather than just hear the ideas, which could easily enough have been relayed by word of mouth or even in writing. But for most people, the word has to become flesh to be persuasive. And so it is that God speaks to us in His Son, having earlier spoken solely through His written word. And our preaching of the word is likewise so far more effective through it being made flesh in us, as it was in the Lord, rather than being solely communicated through the written medium.</p>


text:
<p>They brought every man his tribute, vessels of silver, and vessels of gold, and clothing, and armour, and spices, horses, and mules, a rate year by year- </p><p>The first mention of mules in the Bible is associated with Absalom's murder of Amnon his brother (<a href='B:100 13:29'>2Sa 13:29</a>). They were cross bred in disobedience to <a href='B:30 19:19'>Lev 19:19</a>. We get the impression that a generally slack attitude to what might have been considered minor matters of the law was associated with the major sin of murder. This is the problem when we start to think that some parts of God’s laws can just be ignored. David was fond of them, having his own mule (<a href='B:110 1:33'>1Ki 1:33</a>), and Solomon was willing to receive them as tribute (<a href='B:110 10:25'>1Ki 10:25</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Solomon gathered together chariots and horsemen: and he had a thousand and four hundred chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen, that he placed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem- </p><p>Solomon&nbsp;had obsessive tendencies. We know that he became addicted to finding pleasure in women, and Ecclesiastes 2 shows him racing down the road of obsession with architecture, alcohol, food, gold etc. The historical narratives so often mention his gold and silver (e.g. <a href='B:140 9:13-21'>2Ch 9:13-21</a>; <a href='B:140 9:24'>2Ch 9:24</a>; <a href='B:140 9:27'>2Ch 9:27</a>). This repetition reflects Solomon's obsession. The same fact explains the record's repetition of Solomon's enthusiasm for horses (<a href='B:110 10:25-29'>1Ki 10:25-29</a>; <a href='B:110 4:26'>1Ki 4:26</a>; <a href='B:110 4:28'>1Ki 4:28</a>; <a href='B:110 9:19'>1Ki 9:19</a>; <a href='B:110 9:22'>1Ki 9:22</a>; <a href='B:140 1:14'>2Ch 1:14</a>; <a href='B:140 1:16-17'>2Ch 1:16-17</a>; <a href='B:140 8:6'>2Ch 8:6</a>; <a href='B:140 8:9'>2Ch 8:9</a>; <a href='B:140 9:24-25'>2Ch 9:24-25</a>; <a href='B:140 9:28'>2Ch 9:28</a>). Yet amassing of gold, silver and horses was explicitly forbidden for the King of Israel (<a href='B:50 17:17'>Deu 17:17</a>). There is a powerful point to be made here: we can deceive ourselves that God is blessing us, when actually we are breaching explicit commands. Would Solomon had understood the concept of self-examination.</p><p>LXX adds: "and he ruled over all the kings from the river to the land of the Philistines, and to the borders of Egypt".</p>


text:
<p>The king made silver to be in Jerusalem as stones, and cedars made he to be as the sycamore trees that are in the lowland, for abundance- </p><p>This could mean that he planted cedars in Israel, perhaps transplanting them from Lebanon; for his wisdom included being given wisdom about plants. And that wisdom was for the sake of the blessing and wise leadership of God’s people Israel.</p>


text:
<p>The horses which Solomon had were brought out of Egypt; and the king’s merchants received them in droves, each drove at a price- </p><p>Solomon&nbsp;started off as a middleman in the horse trade, buying&nbsp;horses&nbsp;from Egypt&nbsp;and selling them to the Hittite and Syrian&nbsp;kings (2&nbsp; Chron. 1:16,17; <a href='B:110 10:25'>1Ki 10:25</a>; <a href='B:110 10:29'>1Ki 10:29</a>); but he was playing with fire, and&nbsp; he&nbsp;soon came to flout the spirit of the command not to buy horses from&nbsp; Egypt. It’s rather like the brother who works in a video store starting to watch the blue movies which he handles daily. Solomon would&nbsp;have&nbsp; justified it initially by saying&nbsp; that&nbsp; the horses were not for himself; just as we saw he justified&nbsp; his&nbsp; Egyptian&nbsp; wife&nbsp; by&nbsp; the thought that Joseph also married&nbsp; an Egyptian girl. It is twice stressed (:28,29) that Solomon had the horses "brought out of Egypt". His men went there to get them. That is the force of "brought out" rather than the horses being 'sent' to him. This is in specific disobedience to the law of the king in Dt. 17:16: "He must not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, so that he may multiply horses, because Yahweh has said to you, You shall not go back that way again". As often noted, this connection is implicit rather than explicitly highlighted. We are to draw the dots and see in Solomon a man who had no personal sense of responsibility to God nor personal obedience. He thought he was above all law. Because of his father and heritage. Just as many small time Christians consider themselves to be. </p>


text:
<p>A chariot came up and went out of Egypt for six hundred shekels of silver, and a horse for one hundred and fifty; and so for all the kings of the Hittites, and for the kings of Syria, they brought them out by their traders- </p><p>The description of Solomon's trading with Egypt is described with an unusual phrase- he brought forth chariots and horses out of Egypt by his hand. But the Hebrew phrase 'to bring forth by the hand' is used so very often to described how God’s might hand brought forth His people from Egypt- destroying the horses and chariots of Egypt in the process (<a href='B:20 7:4-5'>Exo 7:4-5</a>; <a href='B:20 13:3'>Exo 13:3</a>; <a href='B:20 13:14'>Exo 13:14</a>; <a href='B:20 13:16'>Exo 13:16</a>; <a href='B:20 14:8'>Exo 14:8</a>; <a href='B:20 32:11'>Exo 32:11</a> and so often). This is such a major theme in Biblical history that the inspired choice of words is surely intentional and allusive in <a href='B:110 10:29'>1Ki 10:29</a> - for Solomon did the very opposite to what God did for His people. Solomon's hand brought forth and glorified the chariots and horses of Egypt, bringing them all the way from Egypt to Canaan. Solomon is thus being subtly set up as an anti-God figure- although apparently, all was well, the promises of blessing were being fulfilled etc.</p>


text:
<p>Now king Solomon loved many foreign women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians, and Hittites- </p><p> Solomon's desire for such a huge number of women, especially foreign women, must be understood in the context of why kings or great men married many wives. They did so in order to build up their own "house", and in Solomon's case he clearly desired to have a huge multi-national house / family to continue his name. He totally and willfully misunderstood the promises to David, and wished to establish himself as the Messianic seed who would build a huge and eternal "house" of people. But that seed was to be God's begotten Son, born after David "slept with his fathers". Solomon's plan failed. We read of only one son of his, Rehoboam. No other sons are mentioned. We read of two sons-in-law. And that's it. That's all we hear of his [possibly] 2000 kids. Each of the 1000 women must have produced at least one child. We note that Rehobam his son had  eighteen wives and sixty concubines and fathered twenty-eight sons and sixty daughters; an average of over one child / wife (2 Chron. 11:21). The amount of food required for the palace per day, listed earlier in the account, is appropriate for a king with 1000 wives and say 2000 children. But this "house" he was building came to nothing. The countries of origin of his wives, especially Egypt, turned against Israel. And his wives turned him away from Yahweh. </p><p>  We read of how he married women from Egypt and the other surrounding nations; LXX adds Syrian and Amorite wives. But we will go on to read how it was exactly all those nations that supported his adversaries and were a thorn in his side throughout his reign. His marriages didn't succeed politically, and certainly they didn't enable him to establish a multi-ethnic eternal kingdom of God with him as the ruler. His entire attempt to establish such a kingdom is portrayed here as a miserable failure- just as all attempts to get the kingdom now will fail. We are living now for the future Kingdom, not trying to create it through our own houses or achievements. 1 Kings 11:24,25 shows that Solomon was surrounded by enemies, he lost Damascus and Hadad an anti-Solomon king reigned there; "and he was an adversary to Israel all the days of Solomon", which means right from the start of Solomon's reign. So what then are we to make of the descriptions of Solomon as reigning peacefully over the land promised to Abraham? I suggest this is a case of focalization and perspective. We are being told that this was how Solomon made it appear. Just as the function of the Queen of Sheba's visit is to show us how Solomon made things appear. This was all how he wanted to perceive it; but the record leaves us to join the dots and see a quite different picture in reality. And so with all those for whom it seems it all worked out to have a fantastic 'kingdom of God' style life now- they present it as if it did, it might appear to have worked out for them, whilst most admit they wasted their lives trying to attain it. But even for those for whom it appeared to work out- it didn't. Just as it didn't for Solomon. It never does and never can do. </p><p> We ponder how it can be stressed that Solomon "loved" his 1000 wives. This is just psychologically impossible. I suggest again this is a case of perspective and focalisation. This is what Solomon liked to think and the appearance he gave.</p><p> Yet at the very time he was marrying them, he wrote in his wisdom that the words of wisdom would preserve / keep / defend a Jewish man from being damaged by them (<a href='B:240 2:16'>Pro 2:16</a>; <a href='B:240 6:24'>Pro 6:24</a>; <a href='B:240 7:5'>Pro 7:5</a>). The connection would seem to suggest that Solomon reasoned that because he had wisdom, because he had 'the truth', he could therefore enjoy these "strange women" without them corrupting his heart; because he had wisdom. Thus he thought that mere possession of Divine truth was some kind of insurance policy against moral sin being counted to him. And so many have gone down this road; so many who knew more true theology than many have at the same time made an awful mess of their personal lives, just as Solomon did. This is why the higher one goes in the echelons of Christian organizations, the greater the learning and knowledge a person has, the more powerful is the tendency towards gross hypocrisy in moral terms. The point is, of course, that all the knowledge of God which we quite rightly seek after must be personally applied. The very possession of it and teaching of it to others can of itself make a man or woman demotivated to personally apply it.</p>


text:
<p>of the nations concerning which Yahweh said to the children of Israel, You shall not go among them, neither shall they come among you; for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods. Solomon joined to these in love- </p><p>The implication is that Solomon took those wives thinking 'Well, I know the law says they will surely turn away my heart, but actually they won't, I can handle it'; and he didn’t handle it. Solomon seems to have realized, in the bitterness of Ecclesiastes, that he had made the same mistake as Samson: "I find more bitter than death [i:e. it would be better to be dead than be in this position] the woman, whose heart is snares and nets, and her hands as bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her" (<a href='B:250 7:26'>Ecc 7:26</a>). The Song of Solomon has Solomon admitting that he has been "taken" by the beauty of that Gentile girl. He utterly refuses to personalize God's truth. These were surely Samson's thoughts in those eyeless weeks in Gaza: better to have died than to have been snared by Gentile women.</p><p>Solomon "clave unto&nbsp; these in&nbsp; love", surely&nbsp;alluding to God’s definition of marriage&nbsp; as a leaving father and mother and cleaving to a wife. Solomon really&nbsp;loved those women; they weren't just political strings to his bow. They would not have turned away his heart if they&nbsp; were&nbsp; only&nbsp; political&nbsp; relationships:&nbsp; 1000 seems a rather exorbitant&nbsp; number&nbsp; of&nbsp; political alliances to have in any case. And <a href='B:250 2:8'>Ecc 2:8</a> RV says that Solomon sought “the delights of the sons of men, concubines of all sorts”. He took sex to its maximum extent- he had every possible type of woman in his harem. Every hair colour, size, type. “Whatsoever mine eyes desired [this is language elsewhere used about sexual desire] I kept not from them” (<a href='B:250 2:10'>Ecc 2:10</a>). And yet still, he never found one… counting one by one, as he put it ": "Behold, this have I found, saith the preacher, counting one by one, to find out the account: Which yet my soul seeketh, but I find not: one man among a thousand have I found; but a woman among all those have I not found" (Ecc. 7:27,28). If ever there is a warning against immorality, it is here. The more relationships one has- and our world glorifies this- the less ultimate satisfaction there can be. God’s way has to be best.</p>


text:
<p>He had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines; and his wives turned away his heart- </p><p>"Princesses" means they were all of noble birth. International marriages were nearly always limited to royal families. Solomon married into the nobility of the surrounding nations, and yet he actually "loved" them in that he was also emotionally involved with them. Yet this didn't work out politically, because those nations all attacked Israel soon afterwards. This lack of self examination and confidence that he could not spiritually fail is reflected in <a href='B:110 11:2-3'>1Ki 11:2-3</a>, where we are reminded that God had said that foreign wives would "surely... turn away your heart after their gods". How "surely" this would happen was not believed by Solomon. "He had seven hundred wives... and his wives turned away his heart". He started marrying these foreign wives when he was young; presumably he reasoned that they could never turn away his&nbsp;heart because he was the Son of David, the Messianic King. In <a href='B:240 6:27'>Pro 6:27</a> he soberly warns against the strange (i:e. Gentile) woman, observing that a man cannot take this kind of fire into his bosom and not be burned by it. Yet this is exactly what he was doing at the time he wrote that. His public removal of his Egyptian wife from the house of David " because the places are holy" (<a href='B:140 8:11'>2Ch 8:11</a>) is therefore to be seen as spiritual pride, appearing to do the right thing, when his heart was far from it.</p><p>Solomon's heart was "turned away", or 'influenced' by his wives towards idols (<a href='B:110 11:3'>1Ki 11:3</a>). Yet Solomon uses this very idea of the heart being turned or influenced in <a href='B:240 2:2'>Pro 2:2</a>; <a href='B:240 22:17'>Pro 22:17</a> about the need to turn our hearts towards God’s word. He taught, but did the very opposite. And perhaps <a href='B:240 21:1'>Pro 21:1</a> explains why he did this- he says there that Yahweh turns the heart of the King wherever He wishes- and so perhaps he thought that control of our thinking and inclinations is unnecessary, because somehow God will do it for us. And there's a lesson there for us, who may assume at times that God will somehow control our hearts for us, rather than our making a conscious effort towards mind control.</p><p>Many passages make the connection between marriage out of the covenant, and adopting idolatry: <a href='B:20 34:12-16'>Exo 34:12-16</a>; <a href='B:50 7:2-9'>Deu 7:2-9</a>; <a href='B:70 3:6-7'>Jdg 3:6-7</a>; <a href='B:110 11:2-3'>1Ki 11:2-3</a>; <a href='B:460 2:11'>Mal 2:11</a>; <a href='B:540 6:14'>2Co 6:14</a>. <a href='B:50 7:4'>Deu 7:4</a> RV dogmatically predicts that a Gentile man will definitely turn away the heart of his Hebrew son-in-law… So certain is it that marriage to Gentiles leads to accepting their idols that <a href='B:150 9:1-2'>Ezr 9:1-2</a> reasons that Israel hadn't separated from idols because they had married Gentiles. Time and again, those who marry out of the covenant claim that they feel strong enough to cope with it, that marriage is only a human thing, and that their spiritual relationship with God is between them and God, and unaffected by their worldly partner. Yet this is exactly the opposite of what God’s word says. It's not true that you can marry into the world and be unaffected in your own spirituality.</p>


text:
<p>For it happened, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods; and his heart was not perfect with Yahweh his God, as was the heart of David his father- </p><p>"Turned away" is the word used by Solomon in warning his son about the dangers of bad women: "With persuasive words she led him astray" (<a href='B:240 7:21'>Pro 7:21</a>). "Led him astray" is the very term used of how Solomon's wives turned his heart astray from God (<a href='B:110 11:4'>1Ki 11:4</a>; <a href='B:110 11:9'>1Ki 11:9</a>). The more Solomon knew Divine truth, the more he seems to have considered himself free to ignore it and in fact do the very opposite. He clearly thought that mere possession of that truth was the basis for his justification, and dismissed any idea of self examination or awareness that he might in fact personally fail in obedience.</p><p>God said that He accepted the temple not so much as a place to dwell in (as Solomon assumed it was) but as a place facilitating sacrifice, prayer etc:, for the glorification of His Name through these things; He emphasized that He dwelt amongst His people (<a href='B:110 6:13'>1Ki 6:13</a>; <a href='B:140 7:12-16'>2Ch 7:12-16</a>). There are several other places where God’s response to Solomon’s words seems to be corrective rather than affirmatory. Thus Solomon says that God will hear the prayers of His people because the temple is called by God’s Name; but God’s response is that “my people, which are called by my name” would pray to Him themselves and be heard, quite apart from the temple (<a href='B:140 6:33'>2Ch 6:33</a> cp. 7:14). He sees them as bearing His Name rather than the temple building, as Solomon perceived it. God goes on to parallel the temple and His people in <a href='B:140 7:21-22'>2Ch 7:21-22</a>, saying that if He punishes the temple He will punish the people. Solomon seems to have thought that the temple would still stand favourably in God’s eyes even if the people were punished. The record records that the temple was “perfected” whereas Solomon’s heart wasn’t perfect [s:w:] (<a href='B:110 11:4'>1Ki 11:4</a> cp. <a href='B:140 8:16'>2Ch 8:16</a>).</p><p>There are copious connections between Solomon's&nbsp; writings:&nbsp; Proverbs,&nbsp; Ecclesiastes&nbsp; and the Song; and also&nbsp; between&nbsp; then and the historical record of his life. These serve&nbsp; to demonstrate how he clearly contradicted the principles of&nbsp; the Gospel which he taught both to Israel and the world. One of&nbsp; the&nbsp; clearest&nbsp; examples&nbsp; of&nbsp; this&nbsp; is in <a href='B:240 7:16-17'>Pro 7:16-17</a>, which describes the bed of the strange (i:e. Gentile) woman with which she&nbsp; allures&nbsp; the simple young Israelite: "I have decked my bed with&nbsp; coverings&nbsp; of tapestry, with carved works, with fine linen of&nbsp; Egypt:&nbsp; I&nbsp; have&nbsp; perfumed&nbsp; my&nbsp; bed&nbsp; with&nbsp; myrrh,&nbsp; aloes, and cinnamon":&nbsp; Yet&nbsp; these&nbsp; are&nbsp; the&nbsp; very&nbsp; descriptions&nbsp; of the bed Solomon&nbsp; shared&nbsp; with&nbsp; Miss Egypt (<a href='B:260 3:6-10'>Son 3:6-10</a>). The young man's heart&nbsp; was made to go astray because of her (<a href='B:240 7:25'>Pro 7:25</a>), and her house&nbsp; led him to death (<a href='B:240 7:27'>Pro 7:27</a>). Miss Egypt caused Solomon's heart&nbsp; to&nbsp; go astray (<a href='B:110 11:1-4'>1Ki 11:1-4</a>), he built her a house, and her house became an idol temple which destroyed Solomon's faith. Yet&nbsp; Solomon&nbsp; warned&nbsp; the&nbsp; young men of Israel all about this in Proverbs 7; and he even pointed out that such a woman would have all the&nbsp; outward&nbsp; trappings&nbsp; of&nbsp; Yahweh&nbsp; worship; she would claim an enthusiasm&nbsp; for&nbsp; keeping&nbsp; peace&nbsp; offerings and vows (<a href='B:240 7:14'>Pro 7:14</a>). Solomon was&nbsp; the young&nbsp; man&nbsp; whose picture he was painting. In <a href='B:250 9:12'>Ecc 9:12</a>&nbsp; he&nbsp; says&nbsp; that he suffered the fate of all men in that soon&nbsp; he would die, he would suddenly be caught like a bird in a snare,&nbsp; although&nbsp; he knew not his time. These are the very ideas of&nbsp; <a href='B:240 7:23'>Pro 7:23</a>&nbsp; concerning the snaring of the simple young man by the&nbsp; Gentile woman: "As a bird hasteth to the snare, and knoweth not that it is for his life".</p>


text:
<p>For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites- </p><p>Solomon went off to other gods because his heart was not "perfect", not at peace [Heb:- not at shalom] with the one true God- so says <a href='B:110 11:4-5'>1Ki 11:4-5</a>. We see here the upward spiral of spirituality- knowing we are forgiven, being comfortable and at peace with God, means we will not go after the idols of this world. For there is an endless searching for peace in the human heart. If we don't accept the forgiveness and peace that can from God alone, we will seek peace in false ways. And that's just what Solomon did- for all his wisdom, he didn’t personally know peace with God. Head knowledge doesn't give peace- for that is experiential.</p><p> "Milcom" is a form of Moloch. Solomon had married all those women in order to build up a huge "house" of children. But now he would have sacrificed some of them as required by Moloch worship. The root of the word Molech is the same as that of the Hebrew word for ‘king'. Solomon's wives chose their god as king instead or Solomon or Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>Solomon did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh, and didn’t go fully after Yahweh, as did David his father- </p><p>Solomon didn’t go "fully" after Yahweh (<a href='B:110 11:6'>1Ki 11:6</a>)- and yet this same Hebrew word is often on his lips in describing how God has "fulfilled" His promises to David through Solomon. Thus he saw the promises of God as some kind of unconditional offer of blessing- rather than grasping that their fulfillments to us actually demand a 'fulfillment' from us. So for all Solomon's references to the promises to David, he didn’t see that they required something from him. And we can be so very similar, knowing God’s promises and rejoicing in their fulfillment, without perceiving that this of itself requires response from us.</p><p>Having spoken of the need to tolerate our brother, the Lord Jesus repeated His common theme: that there is no third road: "For a good tree brings not forth corrupt fruit; neither does a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit" (<a href='B:490 6:41-43'>Luk 6:41-43</a>). There's no third position. Either we love our brother, and bring forth good fruit; or we don't get down to it, and bring forth bad fruit. We can't sometimes bring forth good, sometimes bad. At heart, we are either loving or selfishly hateful. Anything less than following Yahweh with all our heart is seen as doing evil in His eyes (<a href='B:110 11:6'>1Ki 11:6</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Then Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the abomination of Moab, on the mountain that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech the abomination of the children of Ammon- </p><p>Solomon could calmly warn others in <a href='B:240 5:8'>Pro 5:8</a> "don't go near the house of the Gentile woman". But he built his Gentile woman a house and then a house for her gods.  The mount "before Jerusalem" is how the mount of Olives is elsewhere described. Hence it is called "the Mount of Corruption" (2 Kings 23:13). The mount of Olives faces the temple mount, so Solomon was as it were provoking Yahweh by this. </p><p>What a contrast with <a href='B:230 125:2'>Psa 125:2</a> "As the mountains surround Jerusalem, so Yahweh surrounds His people from this time forth and forever". The hills around Jerusalem are not huge mountains. They are small hills, and this is the picture of God’s protection; not hugely visible, but there. But the mountains around Jerusalem became the "high places" of idolatry (<a href='B:110 11:7'>1Ki 11:7</a>; <a href='B:120 23:13'>2Ki 23:13</a>; <a href='B:140 21:11'>2Ch 21:11</a>); what should have been the symbols of Yahweh's protection became perverted.</p>


text:
<p>So he did for all his foreign wives, who burnt incense and sacrificed to their gods-</p><p>I suggest on <a href='B:250 5:1-2'>Ecc 5:1-2</a> that we are reading there Solomon's regret that David had taken the oath about building the temple, because he is now rejecting the temple cult. He built "houses" of worship for the gods of his wives, and worshipped them instead of Yahweh (<a href='B:110 11:4-8'>1Ki 11:4-8</a>), worshipping in those temples rather than in Yahweh's temple. So we can understand his reflections in Ecclesiastes 5 as meaning that he was regretting David had vowed to build the temple, leaving him to fulfil it; and his references there to Yahweh dwelling in the temple are therefore to be read as sarcastic.  The Song of Solomon emphasizes how the Egyptian girl smells of incense, incense made moreover from spices not native to Israel- and Solomon loved her smell. </p>


text:
<p>Yahweh was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned away from Yahweh, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice- </p><p>As noted on <a href='B:230 119:36'>Psa 119:36</a>; <a href='B:230 141:4'>Psa 141:4</a>, David believed that God could act deep within the psychology or heart of man, to incline us toward righteousness and away from evil. This is how the Holy Spirit works today. Solomon believed the same (s:w. <a href='B:110 8:58'>1Ki 8:58</a>), but only in theory; for his Gentile wives inclined or turned away his heart from God (s:w. <a href='B:110 11:3'>1Ki 11:3</a>; <a href='B:110 11:9'>1Ki 11:9</a>). God will not turn our hearts anywhere we ourselves don't want to go. Solomon often appeals for us to incline our hearts to wisdom (s:w. <a href='B:240 2:2'>Pro 2:2</a>; <a href='B:240 4:20'>Pro 4:20</a>; <a href='B:240 5:1'>Pro 5:1</a>; <a href='B:240 22:17'>Pro 22:17</a>), but he himself was inclined to apostasy (s:w. <a href='B:110 11:3'>1Ki 11:3</a>; <a href='B:110 11:9'>1Ki 11:9</a>). All his emphasis is upon the need to incline ourselves, whereas his father David trusted in the work of the Spirit to incline his heart to good and away from evil (<a href='B:230 141:4'>Psa 141:4</a>; <a href='B:230 119:36'>Psa 119:36</a> etc:).</p>


text:
<p>and had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods: but he didn’t keep that which Yahweh commanded- </p><p>God is clearly stating that Solomon had failed to meet the conditions required for him to be the Messianic son of David according to the promises of 2 Samuel 7. This made all Solomon's reasoning about the nature of the temple null and void. Not keeping that which was commanded by Yahweh is the language of the breaking of the covenant in <a href='B:50 28:45'>Deu 28:45</a>, and therefore "all these curses shall come upon you". But by grace they didn’t come upon Solomon, because of God’s great respect for his father David. Considering the extent of God’s wrath with Solomon (:9), this of itself reflects the high opinion God had of David. His various out of character failures did not ultimately change God’s very high and fond opinion of a man who gave his heart to Him.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore Yahweh said to Solomon, Because this is done by you, and you have not kept my covenant and my statutes, which I have commanded you, I will surely tear the kingdom from you, and will give it to your servant- </p><p>The same punishment which came upon Saul was to come upon Solomon (s:w. <a href='B:90 15:28'>1Sa 15:28</a>). And yet Solomon's Proverbs are full of indirect allusions to Saul, presenting him as the archetypical fool. Now, Solomon is told that he will suffer the same fate as Saul.</p><p>Solomon's prophetic sonship of David was conditional upon him preserving or observing Yahweh's ways (<a href='B:110 2:4'>1Ki 2:4</a>; <a href='B:130 22:13'>1Ch 22:13</a>; <a href='B:140 7:17'>2Ch 7:17</a>); but he didn’t preserve of observe them (<a href='B:110 11:10-11'>1Ki 11:10-11</a>); despite David praying that Solomon would be given a heart to observe them (<a href='B:130 29:19'>1Ch 29:19</a>). We can pray for God to work upon the hearts of others, but He will not force people against their own deepest will and heart position. Solomon stresses overmuch how God would keep or preserve the righteous (<a href='B:240 2:8'>Pro 2:8</a>; <a href='B:240 3:26'>Pro 3:26</a>), without recognizing the conditional aspect of this. Why did Solomon go wrong? His Proverbs are true enough, but he stresses that obedience to his wisdom and teaching would preserve his hearers (<a href='B:240 4:4'>Pro 4:4</a>; <a href='B:240 6:22'>Pro 6:22</a>; <a href='B:240 7:1'>Pro 7:1</a>; <a href='B:240 8:32'>Pro 8:32</a>; <a href='B:240 15:5'>Pro 15:5</a>), preservation was through following the example of the wise (<a href='B:240 2:20'>Pro 2:20</a>); rather than stressing obedience to God’s ways, and replacing David his father’s simple love of God with a love of academic wisdom: "Yahweh preserves all those who love Him" (<a href='B:230 145:20'>Psa 145:20</a>).</p><p></p><p>Solomon muses in Ecclesiastes as to how he has seen servants as kings, as an example of how futile life is. He surely alludes to this threatened judgment upon him- that much of his own kingdom will be given to his servant. But he shrugs it off, just like people shrug off judgment to come and hide behind 'life is pointless, nothing really matters' in their weak moments, and as is glorified in popular art.</p><p> There is a Hebraism whereby something being 'with' someone means they have an intention to do something. Thus "This is done by you" (1 Kings 11:11) is literally "Forasmuch as this is with you". Job 10:13 likewise: "And these things hast thou hid in thine heart, I know that this is with thee" (see too Job 9:35). Likewise in Jn. 1:2, the word was "with" God not literally but in the sense of a plan and intention being "with" a person. 


text:
<p>Notwithstanding I will not do it in your days, for David your father’s sake; but I will tear it out of the hand of your son- </p><p>As observed on :10, this reflects God’s abiding high opinion of David. As we try to attach meaning to event in life, we soon perceive that everything is so multi factorial. There are so many factors involved. Solomon's reaping the results of his sins was ameliorated for him in this life, because of his father. Rehoboam his son suffered the effects of his father’s sins, whereas Solomon suffered the effects of his father’s righteousness. The ultimate equilibrium in each human life is not ultimately discernible; and things are this way in order to humble us and exercise our faith in the simple fact that God is the judge, and He is ultimately just. Even if that justice is not immediately discernible in life. There was a similar postponement of judgment for Ahab (1 Kings 21:29).
The delay was surely because God desperately hoped Solomon would repent, and gave him his whole life to do so. </p>


text:
<p>However I will not tear away all the kingdom; but I will give one tribe to your son, for David My servant’s sake, and for Jerusalem’s sake which I have chosen-</p><p>The extent of grace explains countless apparent contradictions and paradoxes throughout God’s relationships with men- e.g. God repeatedly said that He would leave David with “one tribe” (<a href='B:110 11:13'>1Ki 11:13</a>). But actually by grace He gave David and Judah two and a half tribes. As discussed on :12,&nbsp; Solomon's reaping the results of his sins was ameliorated for him in this life, because of his father. The 'choosing' of Jerusalem doesn't simply mean God chose it in the sense of selecting it from all the other cities of the earth. For <a href='B:450 1:17'>Zec 1:17</a>; <a href='B:450 2:12'>Zec 2:12</a> speak of God choosing Jerusalem again at the restoration, implying His choice of it had somehow been annulled. So we need to understand 'choosing' as meaning 'choosing to manifest His presence there' at some future point eternally. And because of that, God had some fondness for Jerusalem even now. </p><p> 
It's as if Solomon's judgment has two mitigating elements: the postponement of the execution of the sentence until the reign of his son (:12), and a limitation of the territory to be lost (:13). We enquire why this was. There is no indication that there was anything in Solomon's behaviour that called for this. The answer seems to be that the mitigation was because of God's fond memories of David. Yet David himself was very weak spiritually in the later part of his life. We see here God's kindness and the way true love is after the death of the beloved. God doesn't forget His beloved in the way we tend to after their death.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh raised up an adversary to Solomon, Hadad the Edomite: he was of the king’s seed in Edom- </p><p> Hadad’s and Rezon’s opposition belong to the early years of Solomon’s reign but we only now read of them. The lack of chronological order is because the record gives us the picture of how glorious Solomon thought his kingdom to be, reigning in peace without opposition over the land promised to Abraham. We see it through his eyes. But now the record shows us how things really were. </p><p>The Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament uses the Greek word diabolos to translate the Hebrew 'Satan'. Hence Devil and Satan are effectively parallel in meaning. Thus we read in the Septuagint of David being an adversary [Heb. Satan, Gk. diabolos] in <a href='B:90 29:4'>1Sa 29:4</a> ["turns against us"]; the sons of Zeruiah (<a href='B:100 19:22'>2Sa 19:22</a>), Hadad, Rezon and other opponents to Solomon (<a href='B:110 5:4'>1Ki 5:4</a>; <a href='B:110 11:14'>1Ki 11:14</a>; <a href='B:110 11:23'>1Ki 11:23</a>; <a href='B:110 11:25'>1Ki 11:25</a>). We face a simple choice- if we believe that every reference to 'Satan' or 'Devil' refers to an evil cosmic being, then we have to assume that these people weren't people at all, and that even good men like David were evil. The far more natural reading of these passages is surely that 'Satan' is simply a word meaning 'adversary', and can be applied to people [good and bad], and even God Himself- it carries no pejorative, sinister meaning as a word. We note too that Yahweh raised up this 'satan'. The 'satan' was not outside God’s control; there is no radical evil in the cosmos. For God is almighty.</p>


text:
<p>For it happened, when David was in Edom, and Joab the captain of the army was gone up to bury the slain, and had struck every male in Edom-</p><p>Psalm 60 speaks of this campaign- there was a great defeat of Israel and then a victory once they turned to God. The extent of the initial defeat may be hinted at in 1 Kings 11:15,16: "When David was in Edom, and Joab the captain of the army was gone up to bury the slain, and had struck every male in Edom (for Joab and all Israel remained there six months, until he had cut off every male in Edom)". This seems to say that Joab went to bury the slain of Israel, and at that slain in a great defeat, and at that time he remained six months subduing the Edomites with the victory which Psalm 60 later celebrates.  </p>


text:
<p>(for Joab and all Israel remained there six months, until he had cut off every male in Edom)- </p><p>The cutting off of every male must be understood in the context of :14, which says that Hadad was of the king's seed in Edom. I suggest it means that all the royal family of Edom were cut off, but Hadad was the only one who managed to escape. So "every male", rather like "all Israel", is not to be read as globally "every" and "all".</p>


text:
<p>that Hadad fled, he and certain Edomites of his father’s servants with him, to go into Egypt, Hadad being yet a little child- </p><p>"His father’s servants" suggests Hadad was the son of the king of Edo m who had been killed by David’s men. The flight to Egypt could be seen as looking ahead to the experience of the Lord Jesus, because as explained on :28, Jeroboam was set up as a potential Messianic figure. Had he succeeded as intended, then the flight to Egypt would have become clear in its typical significance. We marvel at the detailed effort God puts in to setting up so much potential which so often comes to nothing.</p>


text:
<p>They arose out of Midian- </p><p>This would be better read as "Maon", the area where Nabal was from (<a href='B:90 25:2'>1Sa 25:2</a>), and is near Paran. Nabal's people were perhaps like him, against David.</p><p>And came to Paran; and they took men with them out of Paran, and they came to Egypt, to Pharaoh king of Egypt, who gave him a house, and appointed him food, and gave him land- </p><p>Even in the time of David, when the Edomites were subdued, Pharaoh was very open to supporting the enemies of Israel. This is why Solomon's marriage to his daughter at the start of his reign, not so long after Hadad's establishment in Egypt, was foolhardy. At best it put his wife in an impossibly compromised position of conflicting loyalties, which we sense beginning even during their romance as recorded in the Song of Solomon. For there she so wishes that she and Solomon could live together in Egypt, and decide wholeheartedly for the sake of their romance to be Egyptians and live there in her homeland.</p>


text:
<p>Hadad found great favour in the sight of Pharaoh, so that he gave him as wife the sister of his own wife, the sister of Tahpenes the queen- </p><p>Solomon had married Pharaoh's daughter, and so Hadad may have ended up related to Solomon by marriage. This would have put Solomon's wife in an impossible position of conflicted loyalties. That may be one reason Solomon moved her out of the palace area and built her a separate house. See on :18.</p>


text:
<p>The sister of Tahpenes bore him Genubath his son, whom Tahpenes weaned in Pharaoh’s house; and Genubath was in Pharaoh’s house among the sons of Pharaoh- </p><p>This was very high honour, meaning that Hadad's son was effectively amongst the contenders for the Egyptian throne as one of the "sons of Pharaoh". None less than the queen Tahpenes had performed the weaning ceremony which was seen as so significant (<a href='B:10 21:8'>Gen 21:8</a>).Solomon was crazy to fall in love with the daughter of Pharaoh, and to hope that this would be a powerful political alliance.</p>


text:
<p>When Hadad heard in Egypt that David slept with his fathers, and that Joab the captain of the army was dead, Hadad said to Pharaoh, Let me depart, that I may go to my own country- </p><p>Hadad wanted to return to Edom and revive Edomite nationalism, so as to become king again once he had thrown off the yoke of Israel in that area. He did much "mischief" to Israel and Solomon (:25). And yet it was at this very time around the death of David and Joab that Solomon was marrying Pharaoh's daughter. This was clearly Pharaoh using marriage for political means. And on Solomon's side, it was following his passions for the Egyptian woman, when both spiritually and politically this was not going to be a good move. Hence Pharaoh was supporting the Edomite insurrection against Solomon, because his son was leading it, at the same time as entering relationship with Solomon. And Solomon's unwisdom therefore resulted in the Hadad issue being a problem for him throughout his life.</p>


text:
<p>Then Pharaoh said to him, But what have you lacked with me, that behold, you seek to go to your own country? He answered, Nothing, however please only let me depart- </p><p>Pharaoh had just married off his daughter to Solomon and so he was not initially enthusiastic for his adopted son's desire to lead an insurrection against Solomon in Edom. All this complex web is the stuff of human politics and not love marriage.</p>


text:
<p>God raised up an adversary to him, Rezon the son of Eliada, who had fled from his lord Hadadezer king of Zobah- </p><p>The later king of Syria Benhadad was the grandson of Hezion (<a href='B:110 15:18'>1Ki 15:18</a>), a name which uses similar characters to Rezon who led the first attempted revival of Zobah and Damascus (<a href='B:110 11:23'>1Ki 11:23</a>) after David’s victories against them in <a href='B:100 8:3-8'>2Sa 8:3-8</a>. Rezon perhaps didn’t so much as flee from Hadadezer, but rather fled from the area at the time when David had conquered Hadadezer.</p>


text:
<p>He gathered men to him, and became captain over a troop, when David killed them of Zobah: and they went to Damascus, and lived therein, and reigned in Damascus- </p><p><a href='B:100 8:3-8'>2Sa 8:3-8</a> says that David had subdued both Zobah and Damascus, to the point of placing a garrison in Damascus (<a href='B:100 8:6'>2Sa 8:6</a>). But for all his worship of his father and attempt to give the impression of a territory totally under his control, Solomon failed to maintain what David had done. For he had clearly lost control of Damascus and the Israelite garrison had had to retreat. The loss of Damascus meant that northern Israel was under threat from the Syrians. But we never read of Solomon fortifying the area much. Instead, all the massive program of fortification and security was done around Jerusalem and Judah. Solomon is never recorded as even trying to recover Damascus. He was solely focused upon himself in Jerusalem; and thus set up the desire of the northern tribes to secede from his rulership.</p>


text:
<p>He was an adversary to Israel all the days of Solomon, besides the mischief of Hadad: and he abhorred Israel, and reigned over Syria-</p><p>When reviewing the references to ha-Satan ("the adversary") in the Old Testament, it's significant that a number of them occur in the context of the life of David. There was an incident where David behaved deceitfully with the Philistines with whom he once lived, and he is described as being "a Satan" to them (<a href='B:90 29:4'>1Sa 29:4</a>). That's another example of where the word 'Satan' doesn't necessarily have an evil connotation- a good man can be an adversary, just as Peter was (<a href='B:470 16:21-23'>Mat 16:21-23</a>) and God Himself can be (<a href='B:100 22:4'>2Sa 22:4</a>). But we find that David and his dynasty were afflicted with Satans, adversaries, from then on. The word is used about human beings who were adversarial to them in <a href='B:100 19:22'>2Sa 19:22</a>; <a href='B:110 5:4'>1Ki 5:4</a>; <a href='B:110 5:18'>1Ki 5:18</a>; <a href='B:110 11:14-22'>1Ki 11:14-22</a>; <a href='B:110 11:25'>1Ki 11:25</a>; <a href='B:230 109:6'>Psa 109:6</a>; <a href='B:230 109:20'>Psa 109:20</a> (Heb. "They say, "Appoint a wicked man against him, let an accuser [Satan] stand on his right hand"". David’s enemies are described by a word related to ‘satan’ in <a href='B:230 38:20'>Psa 38:20</a>; <a href='B:230 71:13'>Psa 71:13</a>; <a href='B:230 109:4'>Psa 109:4</a>. Note that it is stated that God stirred up men to be 'Satans' to David and Solomon- whatever view we take of 'Satan', clearly it or he is under the direct control of God and not in free opposition to Him.</p>


text:
<p>Jeroboam the son of Nebat, an Ephraimite of Zeredah- </p><p>Zarethan where Solomon cast the lavers for the temple with their pagan motifs (<a href='B:110 7:46'>1Ki 7:46</a>) is called Zaredathah in <a href='B:140 4:17'>2Ch 4:17</a>, which is a form of Zeredah (<a href='B:110 11:26'>1Ki 11:26</a>), the birthplace of Jeroboam son of Nebat. It doesn't therefore have good connections. We wonder if the golden calves were cast there too.</p><p>A servant of Solomon, whose mother’s name was Zeruah, a widow, he also opposed the king- </p><p>Solomon alludes to Jeroboam in <a href='B:240 14:35'>Pro 14:35</a>: "The king’s favour is toward a servant who deals wisely, but his wrath is toward one who causes shame". Although what Solomon writes is true and inspired, he clearly has in view his favour and then wrath against his servant Jeroboam (<a href='B:110 11:26'>1Ki 11:26</a>). Solomon uses his own feelings against Jeroboam as a basis for a global truth about kings and their servants. His Proverbs were indeed inspired, but there was a human element behind his words, ever seeking to use God’s truths in order to justify himself.</p><p>Solomon was so confident that he was or would be the Messiah that he seems to have felt that he was beyond the possibility of sinning; real self-examination and the sense of the possibility of failure just didn’t exist for him. He says that the land of Israel is “blessed” because her king is the son of a noble, and she will be cursed if her ruler is a servant (<a href='B:250 10:16-17'>Ecc 10:16-17</a> RVmg:). Solomon proudly presented himself as the son of King David- and he makes a clear swipe at Jeroboam, the pretender to the throne who was a servant (<a href='B:110 11:26'>1Ki 11:26</a>). By reasoning like this, Solomon sets himself in direct opposition to the spirit of Jesus, who declared that the servant is to be the King of all.</p>


text:
<p>This was the reason why he opposed the king: Solomon built Millo, and repaired the breach of the city of David his father- </p><p>Jeroboam may have fallen out with Solomon over these building projects because he saw that the northern tribes were being forced to provide tax and labour which they couldn't afford. He therefore garnered the support of the northern tribes for his position. Yet Rehoboam sent the hated Adoniram, the chief gatherer of these taxes, to try to bring the northern tribes again under him. The whole situation was set up for division. And Solomon was the prime cause of it. </p><p>Solomon began repairing the breaches (cp. <a href='B:70 21:15'>Jdg 21:15</a>), but this contrasts with how Solomon's later behaviour led to the rending apart of David’s kingdom. Perhaps the breaches in the wall David had built had happened during some unrecorded invasion or attack upon Jerusalem. "Millo" means 'rampart' and refers to the fortifications built around the citadel where David’s palace was. But "the breach" is singular, and "repair" can be 'to close up'. The reference may be to Solomon building a wall between the mounts of Zion and Moriah, i:e. across the Tyropean valley, extending David’s city walls in order to include the temple within them.</p><p>"Opposed" is Heb. 'lifted up his hand against'. It is the same word translated "exalted" when we read that God exalted / lifted up Jeroboam (<a href='B:110 14:7'>1Ki 14:7</a>), so that ultimately he became king of the ten tribes. His opposition or lifting up his hand against Solomon was therefore of God and confirmed by God.</p>


text:
<p>The man Jeroboam was a brave man; and Solomon saw the young man that he was industrious, and he put him in charge of all the labour of the house of Joseph- </p><p>That is, the tribe of Ephraim, the largest tribe, who would have been the most resentful and resistant to sending their men to work on the new capital of Judah. And so this largest and most difficult group of workers were put under Jeroboam's control, indicating the senior nature of his role.</p><p>The final comment upon Jeroboam is that he was not as God’s servant David (<a href='B:110 14:7-9'>1Ki 14:7-9</a>). And yet he was set up with that potential possibility. Consider:</p><p>Jeroboam (1 Kings 11) - David</p><p>Man of valour v. 28- As David <a href='B:90 16:18'>1Sa 16:18</a> RV;</p><p>Young man v. 28 - <a href='B:90 17:58'>1Sa 17:58</a></p><p>Ruler over all v. 28 - <a href='B:90 18:5'>1Sa 18:5</a></p><p>I will take you and you shall reign over Israel v. 37 - <a href='B:100 7:8'>2Sa 7:8</a></p><p>Build a house v. 38 - <a href='B:100 7:11'>2Sa 7:11</a></p><p>v. 40 - <a href='B:90 19:2'>1Sa 19:2</a>; <a href='B:90 19:10'>1Sa 19:10</a></p><p>And it works the other way, too. Prophecies of doom can be turned round by our repentance. Nineveh avoiding certain destruction on account of their repentance is a clear example.</p>


text:
<p>It happened at that time, when Jeroboam went out of Jerusalem, that the prophet Ahijah the Shilonite found him in the way; now Ahijah had put on a new garment; and they two were alone in the field- </p><p>God never essentially recognized that division; for there was one Israel, one body. Indeed, He said that the division was the greatest tragedy to come upon His people (<a href='B:290 7:17'>Isa 7:17</a>). The way the new garment of Ahijah was torn up to symbolize the division, reflects the utter waste (<a href='B:110 11:29'>1Ki 11:29</a>). For an outer cloke was a garment a man could wear for life; to have a new one was something significant. Significantly, the road to Jericho which features in the parable of the good Samaritan was the very dividing line between Judah and Ephraim (<a href='B:60 16:1'>Jos 16:1</a>). The significance of this may be in the implication within the parable that Israel fell among thieves, needing the Messianic grace and rescue, as a result of their division into two kingdoms. And so many other spiritual lives have been shipwrecked over the rocks of division. Indeed, the Greek words for "division" and "stumbling block" are related; divisions are a stumblingblock to so many, even if they externally remain within their faith communities. </p><p>I suggest that the events predicted by Ahijah the Shilonite (the family of David and the tribe of Judah losing kingship over all Israel) are the fulfilment of Gen. 49:10 “The scepter will not depart from Judah” [he will not be banished from his kingdom] “until he comes to Shiloh”. When Judah came to Shiloh to crown Rehoboam there, and there the “peoples [of Israel] will gather to him” to crown him, there the kingship or scepter over the ten tribes was lost. Shechem and Shiloh are close to each other and mentioned together twice: “Behold, there is a sacrifice before the Lord in Shiloh... on the east side of the highway that goes up from Beth-El to Shechem” (Jud. 21:19). Likewise in Jer. 41:5: “from Shechem (and) from Shiloh”. The one who comes to Shiloh, the one from Shiloh, may refer not to Messiah but to Ahijah the Shilonite, the one from Shiloh, who prophesied how the kingship would depart from Judah. Ahijah is called "the Shilonite", the man from Shiloh, five times in the record. Quite some emphasis. If "until Shiloh come" refers to the Lord Jesus, it is hard to understand how the kingship departs from Judah when He comes, seeing He Himself is the lion from Judah. And it is hard to understand why He should be called "Shiloh" and the passage never apparently applied to Him in later scripture. The diadem / sceptre did depart from Judah, as Ezekiel 21:25-27 makes clear- and well before the Lord Jesus came. So to make "Shiloh" simply equal to Messiah just doesn't work.</p>


text:
<p>Ahijah laid hold of the new garment that was on him, and tore it in twelve pieces- </p><p>If we read the "him" as Ahijah [the LXX make this explicit], which seems logical seeing he had dressed himself with that garment (:29), then this gives the impression of mourning. For tearing ones' garment meant mourning. God truly sorrowed at the judgment of Solomon and the division of the kingdom- a division which Solomon had created by taxing the north to fund the south, and thereby causing disillusion with the temple as a place of worship. So the Divine judgment of division was in fact only confirming Solomon in what he had himself done and set up. All Divine judgment and condemnation is really only giving men what they themselves lived out in their lives. This is why 2 Kings 17:21 says that it was Israel who tore away from David, whereas Ahijah gives the perspective that it was God who tore them away: "For Israel [tore] away from the House of David, and they made Jeroboam son of Nebat king”. The same word is used as in 1 Kings 11:30 for the tearing of Ahijah's garment. "Garment" is shalmah and "Solomon" is shlomo- the same consonants in each word. The rending of the garment / kingdom was a rending of Solomon. It was judgment for what he had done. His huge efforts to create a massive kingdom / house had come to nothing and in fact the kingdom would be torn. </p><p> We ask why the robe was torn into twelve rather than into two. Possibly Solomon's twelve taxation districts are alluded to. Or perhaps the twelve sons of Jacob- the family was now to be divided. </p><p>The Lord’s robe was not to be torn, schizein. There was to be no schism in it. Ahijah tore his garment into twelve pieces to symbolize the division of Israel (<a href='B:110 11:30-31'>1Ki 11:30-31</a>). The Lord’s coat being unrent may therefore be another reflection of how His death brought about unity amongst His people (<a href='B:500 11:52'>Joh 11:52</a>; <a href='B:500 17:21-22'>Joh 17:21-22</a>). Before Him, there, we simply cannot be divided amongst ourselves. Likewise the net through which the Lord gathers His people was unbroken (<a href='B:500 21:11'>Joh 21:11</a>). Note how all these references are in John- as if he perceived this theme of unity through the cross.</p>


text:
<p>He said to Jeroboam, Take ten pieces; for thus says Yahweh the God of Israel, ‘Behold, I will tear the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and will give ten tribes to you- </p><p>The word "tear" is used several times in this chapter, and it is the word used multiple times when describing the rending of garments in grief and distress. The same idea is in view; but whose was the grief, and who as it were rent their garments? It was God. His intense grief was because of the division of His people. This judgment hurt Himself, and was not simply thrown by Him at His people without personal grief. And His grief about the division of His people continues to this day.</p><p>Jeroboam is asked to take the ten pieces, to accept the gift of the Kingdom from God. But the prophet Abijah condemns Jeroboam for this: "Jeroboam... rebelled against his master” (2 Chron. 13:6), which was a sin because "the Lord God of Israel gave David kingship over Israel forever—to him and his sons—by a covenant of salt” (2 Chron. 13:5). His kingdom was “the kingdom of the Lord, which is in the charge of the sons of David” (2 Chron. 13:8). We have a window here into the complex way God works. He gave the kingship to David's line "for ever", but conditionally. It was His intention that it would only be an eternal line in that a future descendant of David, God's begotten Son the Lord Jesus, would reign eternally. But David and Solomon liked to interpret this as meaning that their line of kings would endure eternally. God went along with this by telling Solomon that this was conditional upon his perfect obedience and not turning away from Him. Solomon failed in this. So God gave the kingdom to Jeroboam, but Jeroboam also sinned in taking it... And so God works oftentimes with man.</p>


text:
<p>(but he shall have one tribe, for My servant David’s sake and for Jerusalem’s sake, the city which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel)- </p><p>As noted earlier, by grace, David was given not just one tribe but two and a half tribes. The whole Bible is really the story of God’s endless grace in ameliorating the just judgments He has given; perhaps partly because, as explained on :31, they are so painful to Himself.</p>


text:
<p>because they have forsaken Me, and have worshiped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, Chemosh the god of Moab, and Milcom the god of the children of Ammon. They have not walked in My ways, to do that which is right in My eyes, and to keep My statutes and My ordinances, as David his father did- </p><p>Notice the "they", of Israel, who were effectively guilty of the very same apostacy as Solomon. Solomon was fully representative of Israel (<a href='B:110 11:1'>1Ki 11:1</a>; <a href='B:110 11:5-7'>1Ki 11:5-7</a> cp. 33; 8:52; and note the ye... thee confusion of <a href='B:110 9:4-7'>1Ki 9:4-7</a> AV); his prayer was their prayer (<a href='B:140 6:21'>2Ch 6:21</a>); his worship was theirs (<a href='B:140 1:3'>2Ch 1:3</a>; <a href='B:140 1:5'>2Ch 1:5</a>).</p>


text:
<p>However I will not take the whole kingdom out of his hand; but I will make him prince all the days of his life, for David My servant’s sake whom I chose, who kept My commandments and My statutes- </p><p>"Make him prince" suggests that in God’s eyes, Solomon was demoted from king to prince. Solomon of course acted as if he were still king, as if God’s appearance to him hadn't really happened; but his status changed in God’s sight.</p>


text:
<p>but I will take the kingdom out of his son’s hand, and will give it to you, even ten tribes- </p><p>If Rehoboam had listened to the advice of the older men and relaxed Solomon's oppressive taxation system, then Israel would likely have remained loyal to him. But he didn’t take that good advice, because it was "of the Lord" to fulfill prophecies like this (<a href='B:110 12:15'>1Ki 12:15</a>). There is a hand greater than our own, a factor beyond our freewill receipt and processing of information, which works to fulfil God’s will. And that is why we cannot judge human behaviour, because it reflects such a complex of factors which only God knows.</p>


text:
<p>To his son will I give one tribe, that David My servant may have a lamp always before Me in Jerusalem, the city which I have chosen for Me to put My name there- </p><p>"That David may have..." can mean  to the effect 'So that potentially David may have...'. This was God’s intended purpose, but its fulfilment was precluded by the unfaithfulness of the seed. He did not chose Jerusalem for ever; because it was to be destroyed, and was only to be chosen "again" at the restoration (<a href='B:450 2:12'>Zec 2:12</a>). The lamp in Jerusalem was the budding of the horn of David (<a href='B:230 132:17'>Psa 132:17</a>). And this was to finally come true in the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, David’s great son. But that lamp could have "always" burned in Jerusalem- potentially. But the various potential fulfillments failed to realize the potential:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>I will take you, and you shall reign according to all that your soul desires, and shall be king over Israel- </p><p>This seems to be saying that Jeroboam had absolute freewill, he could reign as he wished- but God had set him up with the amazing potential of being the seed through whom He would rule Israel (:38).</p>


text:
<p>It shall be, if you will listen to all that I command you, and will walk in My ways, and do that which is right in My eyes, to keep My statutes and My commandments, as David My servant did; that I will be with you, and will build you a sure house, as I built for David, and will give Israel to you- </p><p>This indicates the presence of some basic spirituality within him. In <a href='B:110 11:35'>1Ki 11:35</a> God tells Jeroboam that He would take the ten tribes from the house of David, and give them to Jeroboam. This is exactly the language of God speaking about righteous David, who was given the Kingdom which God took away from Saul. So initially, Jeroboam had some of David’s characteristics; it seems rather strange for God to take away the ten tribes from one sinner and give them to another sinner. At that time, Jeroboam's potential spirituality was reasonably to the fore. If Jeroboam had continued in God’s ways, God would have established Jeroboam as king over His Kingdom (<a href='B:110 11:38'>1Ki 11:38</a>). So Jeroboam was being given a chance to make the right choices. He had the potential to do so. This echoes God saying to Moses 'I will make of you a great nation' because of the apostasy of others. Thus Jeroboam is faintly connected with Moses. However, as noted on <a href='B:110 12:27'>1Ki 12:27</a>, Jeroboam simply didn’t have the faith to believe in this wonderful grace; that he, son of a whore (<a href='B:110 12:24'>1Ki 12:24</a> LXX) could be empowered by God to be the Divinely chosen king of Israel and the fulfilment of the promises to David.</p>


text:
<p>I will for this afflict the seed of David, but not forever’- </p><p>This could imply that Jeroboam would only rule as the king of Israel for the period during which God would afflict David’s seed. Or we could take this as meaning that the seed of David would be afflicted "for this", for the sake of Solomon's sin. But in this case we wonder why they are called "the seed of David". I suggest that "the seed of David" therefore refers to Solomon specifically, and that this final prophecy doesn't chronologically follow :38. It could be that God’s potential plan was that Solomon was to be afflicted for a period, during which Jeroboam and not Rehoboam was to reign, and then Solomon would repent and be fit to rule. But Solomon refused to respond, as did Jeroboam, and so this potential plan wasn't realized.</p>


text:
<p>Solomon sought therefore to kill Jeroboam- </p><p>Solomon's response to the message about the kingdom being rent from him was apparently to cynically comment that there is a time to rend... but he couldn't care less (Ecc. 3:7). We see here how little Solomon respected God’s word. He though that by murdering someone he could stop the fulfilment of the prophecies. He was acting just like Saul, who tried to kill David when told that David was to have the kingdom.</p><p>But Jeroboam arose, and fled into Egypt, to Shishak king of Egypt, and was in Egypt until the death of Solomon- </p><p>Even politically, his marriages with all those Gentile women&nbsp; didn’t&nbsp; seem&nbsp; to&nbsp; achieve him the support he desired from their&nbsp; home&nbsp; countries; Egypt gave refuge to Jeroboam, Solomon's main rival (<a href='B:110 11:40'>1Ki 11:40</a>), even though he always acquiesced to his wives and even in his very old age he still didn’t destroy the idol temples he built for them (<a href='B:120 23:13'>2Ki 23:13</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, and all that he did, and his wisdom, aren’t they written in the book of the acts of Solomon?- </p><p>This book may have been a compilation from various prophetic writings, for the equivalent in <a href='B:140 9:29'>2Ch 9:29</a> is "the history of Nathan the prophet, the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and the visions of Iddo the seer concerning Jeroboam".</p>


text:
<p>The time that Solomon reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel was forty years- </p><p>Saul, David and Solomon are all said to have reigned for "forty years", but the similarity is such that we wonder whether this isn't a symbolic period. For numbers were not used in Semitic literature in the precise way which we are accustomed to. Thus three consecutive kings of Babylon, Saosduchinus, Chiniladanus, and Nabopolassar are each recorded as having reigned 21 years.</p>


text:
<p>Solomon slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David his father: and Rehoboam his son reigned in his place- </p><p>The description of death as sleeping with fathers is clear evidence that death is seen as a sleep, unconsciousness, and not as the start of an immortal soul going to heaven or 'hell'. Good and bad, David and Solomon, are gathered together in death. The division between them will only therefore come at the resurrection of the dead, and the granting of immortality at the judgment seat of the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>Rehoboam went to Shechem: for all Israel had come to Shechem to make him king- </p><p>The LXX addition on :24 adds: "And Jeroboam went to Shechem in mount Ephraim, and assembled there the tribes of Israel; and Roboam the son of Solomon went up thither". This would explain why this gathering to instate Rehoboam as king was held in Shechem and not in Jerusalem. And yet although Jeroboam was present with supporters, it appears that "all Israel" favoured the idea of Rehoboam as king. The old men truly advised him that if he would only ease the taxation, all Israel would remain loyal to him (:7). It could even be that the ten tribes had invited Rehoboam from Jerusalem to their great meeting place in Shechem specifically because they wanted him to be king. But this had to change, according to God’s judgment upon Solomon- the ten tribes had to be removed from the control of his dynasty:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>We enquire why Rehoboam chose Shechem rather than Jerusalem as the place for his coronation, as it was the leading city of Ephraim. I suggest he realized how his father had alienated Ephraim and he wanted to reconcile with them. This points up how his abusive language to the men of Ephraim was indeed "of the Lord", for it goes against his own intentions. Likewise Jeroboam came with the rest of Israel to Shechem offering to serve him (2 Chron. 10:3), as if Jeroboam at that point had no designs on the throne but was suddenly as it were catapulted onto it- all clearly of God. It was all "of the Lord" (:15). This is how the Spirit works in our lives, over and above our own power and conscious intentions, and yet confirming us in where we really want to go.</p>


text:
<p>It happened, when Jeroboam the son of Nebat heard of it (for he was still in Egypt, where he had fled from the presence of king Solomon, and Jeroboam therefore lived in Egypt- </p><p>It seems this verse and :3 should follow <a href='B:110 11:43'>1Ki 11:43</a> as in LXX and some Hebrew manuscripts.</p>


text:
<p>and they sent and called him), that Jeroboam and all the assembly of Israel came and spoke to Rehoboam saying- </p><p>We note that Jeroboam didn’t immediately begin by demanding the throne, but rather led the people in asking Rehoboam to reduce his father’s excessive taxation system. But his return from Egypt, and his awareness of the prophecy about him ruling over Israel, surely meant he had in view the possibility of Rehoboam rejecting the request.</p><p>In a distorted way, Jeroboam was almost a type of Christ; for as made clear at the end of 1 Kings 11, he could have been the Messianic ruler over Israel had he chosen Yahweh's way. I'd suggest that many wicked Old Testament characters could have been types of Christ if they had lived righteously, and the record indirectly indicates this. Jeroboam fled to Egypt because of the persecution of Solomon, as did the Lord. When Solomon died, "they sent and called him", connecting with the record of the Lord Jesus going to Egypt and coming back after Herod's death. Jeroboam came back on the third day (:12) and offered freedom from bondage to Israel, as did Christ on his resurrection. In <a href='B:110 13:10'>1Ki 13:10</a> we read of the prophet who came to prophesy about Jeroboam; we are told that he didn’t return the way he came, but went back another way. That's an echo of the wise men, who came to see Jesus, and returned another way.</p>


text:
<p>Your father made our yoke grievous: now therefore make the grievous service of your father, and his heavy yoke which he put on us, lighter, and we will serve you- </p><p>Ephraim had been specifically targetted as a provider of labour and tax revenues (<a href='B:110 11:28'>1Ki 11:28</a>). The influence of Egypt upon Solomon is reflected by the way in which he is described as making the people serve him with "hard bondage" (<a href='B:140 10:4'>2Ch 10:4</a>; <a href='B:110 12:4'>1Ki 12:4</a>). This is the very Hebrew phrase used to describe what the Egyptians did to Israel (<a href='B:20 1:14'>Exo 1:14</a>; <a href='B:20 6:9'>Exo 6:9</a>; <a href='B:50 26:6'>Deu 26:6</a>). Solomon put his people under a yoke (<a href='B:140 10:4'>2Ch 10:4</a>), just as Egypt did to them (<a href='B:30 26:13'>Lev 26:13</a>). And so we see the progression. Solomon loved an Egyptian woman, came to serve her gods, traded with Egypt... and the attitude of Egypt to God’s people became Solomon's attitude to them. There is something unique about God’s people; and yet the closer we come to the world, the more we come to see our own community, God’s special family, just as this world sees us. The world's attitude to us can so easily become our attitude to our brethren- no longer seeing them as the specially chosen little children of God, sensitive to them as our very own brothers and sisters. And indeed, the attitude of the world to people must not be ours. For the world is narcissistic, they fail to see the value and meaning of the human person.</p><p>The very possession of wisdom and teaching of it to others can of itself make a man or woman demotivated to personally apply it. He foretold that the people would sign when a wicked man ruled them (<a href='B:240 29:2'>Pro 29:2</a> RV)- and they did "sigh" because of the heavy burdens he placed upon them (<a href='B:110 12:4'>1Ki 12:4</a>). He imposed the "yoke" of tribute upon the people (<a href='B:140 10:4'>2Ch 10:4</a>), whereas he himself had warned that a king that imposes tribute on his people "overthrows" a country (<a href='B:240 29:4'>Pro 29:4</a> RV mg:). He saw it all as true- and yet it was far from him personally.</p>


text:
<p>He said to them, Depart for three days, then come back to me. The people departed- </p><p>The three days may have been in order to allow the advisers to be summoned from Jerusalem.</p>


text:
<p>King Rehoboam took advice with the old men, who had stood before Solomon his father while he yet lived, saying, What advice do you give me to return answer to this people?- </p><p>If Solomon was 41 at this time and the "young men" were those who had grown up with him, these men would have been really quite "old", old enough to have lived through much of David’s reign and to have been influenced by his spirituality. Or the word may be used here to simply refer to the elders, whereas Rehoboam had also surrounded himself with his own peer group as advisers.</p><p>In this context, we may consider Solomon's frequent proverbs about the wisdom of having advisors, and his words in <a href='B:240 20:18'>Pro 20:18</a>: "Plans are established by advice". Solomon's advice to his son sounds all well and good; but Rehoboam was given two different paths of advice by his advisors. Again, Solomon's words are true, but simplistic. Because as Rehoboam's case shows, the issue is not so much having advisors per se, but deciding which advisors to listen to. Solomon too had advisors, but did what he wanted, making this Proverb somewhat hollow when applied to himself.</p><p>We note Rehoboam's term "this people" (:6,9). He felt a separation between himself and them; they were not 'his people' nor did he see them as Yahweh's people. They were just an entity that disturbed his kingly enjoyment- exactly his father's attitude. And we see lived out the principle that according to how we perceive people, so we treat them.</p>


text:
<p>They said, If you will be a servant to this people this day, and will serve them, and answer them, and speak good words to them, then they will be your servants forever- </p><p>See on :1. The general will of Israel was for Rehoboam and not Jeroboam, but the taxation issue was crucial.</p><p>The paradox of servant leadership is found here- if Rehoboam had been a servant of his people, then he would have ruled over them. In all ways, the Lord is our pattern. He was a servant of all, and so should we be. His servanthood dominated His consciousness. He said that He came not [so much as] to be ministered unto, but so as to minister, with the end that He gave His life for others (<a href='B:480 10:45'>Mar 10:45</a>).</p>


text:
<p>But he ignored the advice of the old men which they had given him, and took advice with the young men who had grown up with him, who stood before him- </p><p>Rehoboam didn't like the advice of the older men, and so he asked advice from his own peer group. Asking advice is so often just a mask for seeking confirmation in the way we have ourselves already decided. And we also are reminded here of how strong is our desire to be seen by our peer group as in line with their thinking. The power of God's word is negated by all such psychological games. </p><p>It is true that as we go through life, we ought to realize that harsh responses and demands upon others are not really the way to go. These "young men" were perhaps the boys he had grown up with in Solomon's harem, his half brothers. They, like him, would not have been pure Israelites as their mothers were Gentiles, and they didn’t have the long term well being of the nation at heart. Rehoboam was 41 at this stage. Perhaps then we can understand this as meaning that he had appointed young men as his advisers, who had been raised near him (the Hebrew eth translated "with" is a very wide word). They were young, but the Hebrew doesn't have to mean he had grown up with them. Rather they were young men who had been raised as he had been, in the same harem, which would hardly have been much of a place of wisdom.</p>


text:
<p>He said to them, What advice do you give, that we may return answer to this people, who have spoken to me saying, ‘Make the yoke that your father put on us lighter?’-</p><p>He had written in his Proverbs that the ruler who lacks wisdom will oppress his people (<a href='B:240 28:16'>Pro 28:16</a>); and although his wisdom remained with him right to the end, in terms of knowledge (<a href='B:250 2:9'>Ecc 2:9</a>; <a href='B:250 12:10'>Ecc 12:10</a>), yet at the end of his reign Solomon was the ruler who did oppress his people (<a href='B:110 12:11'>1Ki 12:11</a>). And he had gone on in <a href='B:240 28:16'>Pro 28:16</a> to warn against covetousness in a ruler, even though he went ahead with practicing every conceivable form of it in Ecclesiastes 2. “Therefore remove sorrow from thy heart, and put away evil from thy flesh” (<a href='B:250 11:10'>Ecc 11:10</a>) Solomon taught- and yet Solomon in Ecclesiastes is the very picture of such a person:&nbsp; Like the experienced pilot who takes off with frozen wings and then crashes, so Solomon’s very wisdom somehow disinclined him to living it out in practice. This is the perversity of our nature- the higher we may rise, the deeper we are inclined to fall.</p>


text:
<p>The young men who had grown up with him spoke to him saying, Thus you shall tell this people who spoke to you saying, ‘Your father made our yoke heavy, but make it lighter to us;’ you shall say to them, ‘My little finger is thicker than my father’s waist- </p><p>The Lord appears to allude to this when He invites all those burdened and heavy laden to come to Him because His yoke is easy and the burden light (<a href='B:470 11:28'>Mat 11:28</a>). It could be argued that He is thereby acknowledging that Jeroboam, who offered the easier burden, could have been as Him, a fulfilment of the promise of the Messianic king (<a href='B:110 11:38'>1Ki 11:38</a>). He saw in those people abused by Solomon the religiously abused people who were suffering under the burdens placed upon them by their religious leaders; and He saw those Jews as represented by Solomon, whom He continually reads in a bad light:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Now whereas my father burdened you with a heavy yoke, I will add to your yoke: my father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions’- </p><p>The contrast is not between whips and scorpions, but the idea is rather than he would use a far heavier whip known as a scorpion. The Romans had a whip called a "scorpio", used for punishment.</p><p>We have an insight into why Solomon was like this in <a href='B:240 10:13'>Pro 10:13</a> LXX: "He that brings forth wisdom from his lips smites the fool with a rod". Solomon has himself in view, but now instead of attributing wisdom to Divine inspiration, he starts to consider that it emanated from himself. When he died, the people complained that he had whipped [Heb. 'beaten'] them unreasonably. It was Solomon's false view of his wisdom which led him to do this. He assumed that he must be right, he was infallible, because of his possession of Divine truths. He justified indulging his natural human tendency to be overly harsh on others because he claimed he was the source of all wisdom. And again we see a parallel in fundamentalist Christian groups; where the more dogmatic are the claimants to possession of absolute truth about everything, the more they tend to abuse others and show no mercy to any who fail to attain to their supposed wisdom:&nbsp; <a href='B:240 26:3'>Pro 26:3</a> is also relevant, in the LXX "As a whip for a horse, and a goad for an ass, so&nbsp;is&nbsp;a rod for a simple nation". It was this attitude which led Solomon to beat his own people. Like many who hold God’s truth, the mere holding of it lifted Solomon up in pride, and he came to despise all others who didn’t accept his wisdom.</p><p>Despite having such knowledge and wisdom with which to rule Israel (for this was the primary purpose of the gift of wisdom to him), Solomon oppressed his people. With evident reference to himself, he commented: “Because the king’s word has power, who may say unto him, What doest thou?” (<a href='B:250 8:4'>Ecc 8:4</a> RV). It is only God who cannot be questioned in this way. But Solomon felt that because he possessed God’s wisdom, he could therefore act as God: “I counsel you, Keep the King’s command, and that in regard of the oath of God” (<a href='B:250 8:2'>Ecc 8:2</a>) could suggest that he thought that his commandments were in fact God’s. So the possession of Truth, which we too have, can lead to an incredible arrogance, a lack of openness to others’ comments upon us, and a certainty that we are right in all that we do and are beyond criticism. The hardness of a man is changed by true wisdom (<a href='B:250 8:1'>Ecc 8:1</a> RV), but knowing this, Solomon became hard hearted. He had the wisdom- but as he said, it was far from him personally. &nbsp;</p><p>“Surely oppression maketh a wise man foolish” (<a href='B:250 7:7'>Ecc 7:7</a> RV), he commented at the end of his life- even though right then he was chastising the people with whips, oppressing them (<a href='B:110 12:11'>1Ki 12:11</a>). He knew the true wisdom, he saw his reflection so accurately in the mirror, but resigned from its personal implications. He could even write that “I returned and considered all the oppression that are done under the sun [by himself!]: and behold the tears of such as were oppressed, and they had no comforter; and on the side of their oppressors there was power [Solomon was king and had set up the tax system in a clever and biased way]; but they had no comforter” (<a href='B:250 4:1'>Ecc 4:1</a>; <a href='B:250 5:8'>Ecc 5:8</a>). It was a real case of spiritual schizophrenia- he sorrowed for the people he oppressed. All groups who feature absolute truth claims, considering themselves the one true church and their system of theology to be "the truth" and all others to be without God... run the risk of becoming like Solomon. "The truth" eclipses personal moral obligation, and leads to abuse or abusive positions to those inferior to our level of "truth". The meaning and value of the human person becomes forgotten.</p>


text:
<p>So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam the third day, as the king asked, saying, Come to me again the third day- </p><p>We the readers are drawn into a sense of expectation; we ourselves know what Rehoboam is going to say, but we are placed in the position of the suffering people, who didn’t yet know what Rehoboam was going to answer.</p>


text:
<p>The king answered the people roughly, and forsook the advice of the old men which they had given him- </p><p>"Roughly" is the word used of how the Egyptians treated the Israelites in whipping them and giving them heavy burdens to carry (<a href='B:20 1:14'>Exo 1:14</a>). This was how he was behaving. It is the word the people have just used when they complained that Solomon had treated them 'grievously' (:4); and Rehoboam confirms that he is going to do the same. Solomon had frequently warned against forsaking the advice of elders (s:w. <a href='B:240 2:17'>Pro 2:17</a>; <a href='B:240 4:2'>Pro 4:2</a> and especially the warning of <a href='B:240 27:10'>Pro 27:10</a> not to forsake the advice of your father’s friend). But Rehoboam had probably not even read or heard all these Proverbs, as Solomon himself had ignored his own Proverbs and lived quite opposite to them. And so did his son.</p>


text:
<p>and spoke to them according to the advice of the young men, saying, My father made your yoke heavy, but I will add to your yoke. My father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions- </p><p>Solomon has so much to say about 'chastisement' / "correction" / "instruction" coming from the possession of wisdom (<a href='B:240 8:10'>Pro 8:10</a>; <a href='B:240 8:33'>Pro 8:33</a>; <a href='B:240 10:17'>Pro 10:17</a>; <a href='B:240 12:1'>Pro 12:1</a>; <a href='B:240 13:1'>Pro 13:1</a>; <a href='B:240 13:24'>Pro 13:24</a>; <a href='B:240 15:5'>Pro 15:5</a>; <a href='B:240 15:10'>Pro 15:10</a>; <a href='B:240 15:32'>Pro 15:32</a>; <a href='B:240 16:22'>Pro 16:22</a>; <a href='B:240 19:20'>Pro 19:20</a>; <a href='B:240 19:27'>Pro 19:27</a>; <a href='B:240 22:15'>Pro 22:15</a>; <a href='B:240 23:12-13'>Pro 23:12-13</a>). But in the end he chastised or corrected his people by whipping them (s:w. <a href='B:110 12:11'>1Ki 12:11</a>; <a href='B:110 12:14'>1Ki 12:14</a>). Solomon initially asked for wisdom in order to guide his people, but he ended up whipping / physically chastising them into conformity with his wishes rather than allowing wisdom to correct. Again, he was playing God; for it is God through His wisdom who chastises, and not man. But Solomon thought he was effectively God to his people. This is why Solomon argues that servants cannot be corrected by words (<a href='B:240 29:19'>Pro 29:19</a> s:w:), and a child must be physically chastised (s:w. <a href='B:240 19:18'>Pro 19:18</a>; <a href='B:240 29:17'>Pro 29:17</a> cp. <a href='B:240 13:24'>Pro 13:24</a>; <a href='B:240 23:13'>Pro 23:13</a>), regardless of his screams of pain. This kind of thing is a denial of his claims elsewhere that it is Divine wisdom which chastises / corrects, and such correction is from God and not man. Solomon's final description of himself as an old and foolish king who refuses to be admonished says it all (<a href='B:250 4:13'>Ecc 4:13</a>); he admonishes others (s:w. <a href='B:250 12:12'>Ecc 12:12</a>), but refuses to be admonished or corrected by his own wisdom. He failed to personalize it.</p>


text:
<p>So the king didn’t listen to the people; for it was a thing brought about of Yahweh, that He might establish His word which Yahweh spoke by Ahijah the Shilonite to Jeroboam the son of Nebat-</p><p>There are times when God has influenced men not to respond to the evidently wise words of other men, in order to fulfill His purpose (e.g. <a href='B:110 12:15'>1Ki 12:15</a>; <a href='B:140 25:20'>2Ch 25:20</a>). There are a number of other passages which mention how "it was of the Lord" that certain attitudes were adopted by men, resulting in the sequence of events which He desired (<a href='B:60 11:20'>Jos 11:20</a>; <a href='B:90 2:25'>1Sa 2:25</a>; <a href='B:110 12:15'>1Ki 12:15</a>; <a href='B:140 10:15'>2Ch 10:15</a>; <a href='B:140 22:7'>2Ch 22:7</a>; <a href='B:140 25:20'>2Ch 25:20</a>). It is tempting to read <a href='B:70 14:4'>Jdg 14:4</a> in this context, meaning that God somehow made Samson desire that woman in order to bring about His purpose of freeing Israel from Philistine domination. God through His Spirit works to confirm men in the path they wish to go. And this is the huge significance of the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives today.</p>


text:
<p>When all Israel saw that the king didn’t listen to them, the people answered the king saying, What portion have we in David? Neither do we have an inheritance in the son of Jesse. To your tents, Israel! Now see to your own house, David. So Israel departed to their tents- </p><p>This was the cry of Sheba in <a href='B:100 20:1'>2Sa 20:1</a>. But the promises of 2 Samuel 7 were to David and his seed / house. By resigning from any association with that house, they were walking out of the hope of Israel which was in those promises. This has been done so many times by those who [understandably] become disillusioned with the family of believers, but their break with them develops into a break with the things of God’s Kingdom.</p><p>"See to your own house, David" could be a reference to the house in the sense of the temple. Indeed it reads strangely if it simply refers to 'house' as in a family. The idea would then be that the temple was so deeply associated with David and his line that the people were saying they refused to worship in it. They now considered it was to just be for the house of David. And I have suggested earlier that the temple was little more than the king's chapel, attached by an "ascent" to his palace which was far bigger and more glorious than the temple. And so it often happens, that unreasonable behaviour by religious leadership means the flock don't want to attend church, and are left wide open to being led away by totally non Christian ideas. </p><p>LXX gives "Now feed your own house", as if the bitterness arose from decades of the other tribes being taxed in order to feed Solomon's huge royal family, arising from his 1000 wives.
</p>


text:
<p>But as for the children of Israel who lived in the cities of Judah, Rehoboam reigned over them-</p><p>This means that there were people from the ten tribes living in Judah, particularly those who had been transported there by Solomon to live in the various defensive outpost towns he had built in southern Judah. And they remained under Rehoboam. See on :23.</p>


text:
<p>Then king Rehoboam sent Adoram, who was over the men subject to forced labour; and all Israel stoned him to death with stones. King Rehoboam made speed to get himself up to his chariot, to escape to Jerusalem- </p><p>If the forced labour quotas of Solomon were to now be multiplied, life would literally be impossible for the ten tribes. It is no surprise therefore that Adoram was stoned and Rehoboam had to flee for his life back to Jerusalem- reflecting on the folly of his young advisors.</p>


text:
<p>So Israel rebelled against the house of David to this day- </p><p>The same phrase used of Edom in <a href='B:120 8:22'>2Ki 8:22</a>. The word for "rebelled" is also translated "transgressed". Their division from the house of David was a division away from the promises about the eternal establishment of that house, as noted on :16. In this sense it was therefore sinful.</p>


text:
<p>It happened, when all Israel heard that Jeroboam had returned, that they sent and called him to the congregation, and made him king over all Israel: there was none who followed the house of David, but the tribe of Judah only- </p><p>We are given the impression that Jeroboam did not present himself as king nor seek the throne. He was invited to be king by the people. This again suggests that the will was there to continue under Rehoboam; but it was "of the Lord" that Jeroboam became king, almost against his will. At least, without undue effort on his part to claim the throne over Israel. </p><p>They presumably made him king by anointing him. "All Israel" may therefore imply that those present at the meeting with Rehoboam in Shechem had largely been more local people. The mention of "Judah only" is a nod to the fulfilment of the promise that Rehoboam would be left with but one tribe; but :21 goes on to say that Benjamin were also given to him, by grace. For Benjamin was the tribe of Saul who had for many years been bitterly opposed to David and his tribe of Judah. It was the men of Benjamin who had supported previous revolts against Davidic rulership (<a href='B:100 19:17'>2Sa 19:17</a>; <a href='B:100 20:1'>2Sa 20:1</a>). Ahijah had torn the garment into 12 strips and given 10 to Jeroboam. There was one strip or tribe for Rehoboam, and the Levites were God's. But by grace, Rehoboam ended up with Benjamin too, and in fact also half the tribe of Manasseh. Again we see how this too was "of the Lord" and grace was ever present even in judgment. Perhaps they were simply influenced by the fact that Jerusalem was technically in their tribal allotment (<a href='B:60 18:28'>Jos 18:28</a>). If they were not with Judah, then they would apparently have to accept Shechem or some other northern city as their capital and effectively abandon Jerusalem, which Solomon had built up to be the most impressive city of the whole Middle East at the time.</p>


text:
<p>When Rehoboam had come to Jerusalem, he assembled all the house of Judah and the tribe of Benjamin, a hundred and eighty thousand chosen men who were warriors, to fight against the house of Israel, to bring the kingdom again to Rehoboam the son of Solomon- </p><p>Benjamin was a small tribe (<a href='B:90 9:21'>1Sa 9:21</a>; <a href='B:230 68:27'>Psa 68:27</a>). 18 years later, there were 400,000 warriors in Judah (<a href='B:140 13:3'>2Ch 13:3</a>), so this was a very significant proportion of warriors. But in David's time there had been 470,000 (2 Sam. 24:9). Although "thousand" may refer to a military division rather than 1,000.</p>


text:
<p>But the word of God came to Shemaiah the man of God saying- </p><p>This may be now a quotation from the history written by Shemaiah about Rehoboam (<a href='B:140 12:15'>2Ch 12:15</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Speak to Rehoboam the son of Solomon, king of Judah, and to all the house of Judah and Benjamin, and to the rest of the people saying- </p><p>"The rest of the people" presumably refers to those of the ten tribes who lived in Judah and were loyal to Rehoboam (:17). The records dovetail so perfectly, as we would expect of a history written ultimately under Divine inspiration.</p>


text:
<p>‘Thus says Yahweh, You shall not go up, nor fight against your brothers, the children of Israel. Everyone return to his house; for this thing is of Me’. So they listened to the word of Yahweh, and returned and went their way, according to the word of Yahweh-</p><p>This was significant humility, involving a recognition that what had happened was "of God", in judgment for Solomon's sins. To fight against our brothers can never be justified. <a href='B:110 14:30'>1Ki 14:30</a> "There was war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam continually" would indicate disobedience to this command to Rehoboam not to fight the ten tribes. The Spirit may lead us against a course of action and we initially accept that, but over time we can revert to our own way again... for the work of the Spirit is not to force a man against his genuine freewill.</p><p>At this point, LXX adds to the record: "Roboam his son reigned in his stead in Jerusalem, being sixteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned twelve years... And there was a man of mount Ephraim, a servant to Solomon, and his name was Jeroboam: and the name of his mother was Sarira, a harlot: and Solomon made him head of the levies of the house of Joseph: and he built for Solomon Sarira in mount Ephraim; and he had three hundred chariots of horses: he built the citadel with the levies of the house of Ephraim; he fortified the city of David, and aspired to the kingdom... ".</p>


text:
<p>Then Jeroboam built Shechem in the hill country of Ephraim, and lived in it; and he went out from there, and built Penuel-</p><p>Shechem was ideally centrally situated within his territory. Penuel was on the east side of Jordan, and would consolidate his power there, as well as controlling the fords of Jordan. The record mirrors how David had chosen Jerusalem and built it.</p>


text:
<p>Jeroboam said in his heart, Now the kingdom will return to the house of David- </p><p>As noted on :1, the ten tribes had initially welcomed Rehoboam as their king. Their only issue was with the taxation system. ‘Said in his heart’ is a common Biblical phrase (e.g. <a href='B:10 17:17'>Gen 17:17</a>; <a href='B:90 27:1'>1Sa 27:1</a>; <a href='B:110 12:26'>1Ki 12:26</a>; <a href='B:190 6:6'>Est 6:6</a>). There is a huge importance attached to self talk and spiritual mindedness. Further, there are many instances where we read that a person ‘said’ something; but it’s apparent that they said it to themselves, in their heart. Take Gehazi in <a href='B:120 5:20'>2Ki 5:20</a>: “But Gehazi said, Behold, my master has spared Naaman this Syrian, in not receiving at his hands that which he brought; but, as the Lord lives, I will run after him, and take somewhat of him”. For sure, Gehazi said this to nobody but himself. Or Moses – he’s recorded as saying “People have found out what I have done!” – surely he said this within himself (<a href='B:20 2:14'>Exo 2:14</a> GNB).</p>


text:
<p>If this people goes up to offer sacrifices in the house of Yahweh at Jerusalem, then the heart of this people will turn again to their lord, to Rehoboam king of Judah; and they will kill me, and return to Rehoboam king of Judah- </p><p>This reasoning was maybe true enough on a secular level, but it reflects a lack of faith in the promise made to Jeroboam in <a href='B:110 11:38'>1Ki 11:38</a>. Jeroboam simply didn’t have the faith to believe in this wonderful grace; that he, son of a whore (:24 LXX) could be empowered by God to be the Divinely chosen king of Israel and the fulfilment of the promises to David. Perhaps Jeroboam was forced into this way of thinking by the approach of a feast, probably tabernacles (:32), when his people would usually go up to Jerusalem to worship.</p>


text:
<p>Whereupon the king took counsel, and made two calves of gold; and he said to them, It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem. Look and see your gods, Israel, which brought you up out of the land of Egypt!- </p><p>It's been suggested that theses calves were false cherubim. There is certainly a connection between the calf and the cherubim. In <a href='B:330 1:10'>Eze 1:10</a> we read that the living creatures had "the face of an ox on the left side". In <a href='B:330 10:14'>Eze 10:14</a> we learn that this face was that of a cherub. Jeroboam placed the calves at each end of the land of Israel, as if it was the ark (the ark had the cherubim at each end of it). By doing so, Jeroboam excluded Jerusalem, the temple, from God’s presence. He excluded others from the presence of God. The calves were therefore a mixture of true religious symbolism with gross apostasy. In <a href='B:350 8:2-3'>Hos 8:2-3</a> we read a prophecy against Jeroboam: "Israel shall cry unto me, My God, we know thee. Israel hath cast off the thing that is good... of their silver and their gold have they made them idols... thy calf, O Samaria hath cast thee off... (it) shall be broken in pieces", as they were later by Josiah. So Israel thought that they knew God at this time, they felt in fellowship with Him, when actually the anger of God was deeply against them. Jeroboam was the one on whom the sin of Israel's later idolatry is blamed. But Jeroboam is not called an idolater. He no doubt had an element of good spiritual motivation in him. <a href='B:120 3:2-3'>2Ki 3:2-3</a> implies that Jeroboam did not actually worship Baal. Jehoram put away the image of Baal, but he cleaved to the sins of Jeroboam. The implication is that Jeroboam was not a Baal worshipper, which is what the majority of the wicked kings were guilty of.</p><p>Jeroboam quotes the words of <a href='B:20 32:4'>Exo 32:4</a> "These be your gods, O Israel, which brought you up from the land of Egypt". The connection is conscious and intentional. His argument was presumably that the golden calf was quite legitimate and built by none other than Aaron. What was wrong, so he perhaps reasoned, was that the people had worshipped it as an idol. Whereas Jeroboam was initially arguing that his calves were a legitimate part of Yahweh worship. And Jeroboam is going right against the clear statement that it was Yahweh and not anyone or anything else that brought Israel up from Egypt: "I am Yahweh your God, who brought you out from the land of Egypt" (Ex. 20:2).</p>


text:
<p>He set the one in Bethel, and the other he put in Dan- </p><p>These were at the far north and south of his territory. Perhaps if indeed his calves were alluding to the cherubim (:28), his idea was that they were as the cherubim overshadowing the land.</p>


text:
<p>This thing became a sin; for the people went to worship before the one, even to Dan- </p><p>This doesn't have to mean that they only went to Dan. Bethel was a well known sanctuary, but Dan was in a remote northern part of the land. So I would paraphrase this as meaning 'The people went to worship before one or the other of them, yes, they even made the journey all the way up to Dan'. Therefore LXX adds "and they neglected the house of the Lord".</p>


text:
<p>He made houses on high places, and made priests from among all the people, who were not of the sons of Levi- </p><p>The Levites went to Judah (<a href='B:140 11:13-14'>2Ch 11:13-14</a>). The migration of the Levites to Judah may not have been from purely spiritual motives. Probably Jeroboam confiscated the Levitical lands within his dominions for the benefit of the new priestly order (2 Chron. 11:13,14). And they were not very effective, because after three years idolatry became rampant in Judah and the people turned away from Yahweh. So Jeroboam allowed the ordinary people to be priests; in Exodus 32 we learn that the ordinary people offered the sacrifices to the golden calf, not the priests. Again, it seems that Jeroboam was trying to consciously mimic the golden calf apostasy, perhaps arguing that Israel were a nation of priests. It is no accident that Josiah stamped his calves to powder, just as Moses did to the golden calf. Now why&nbsp;did Jeroboam so consciously lead Israel into the same apostasy which brought them as it were within a hairs breadth of national rejection in Exodus 32? Jeroboam wasn't ignorant. Perhaps he had gone down a path of contorted exposition which made out that Israel didn’t really sin by worshipping the calf. Or perhaps he got so carried away with the idea that he was like Aaron, the priest, that he thought (like some modern Rabbis) that Aaron couldn't have done anything wrong, and therefore he consciously copied Aaron, as he did David, Solomon, Jacob and Samuel. Again, we see Jeroboam having a familiarity with Scripture, but not pausing to really meditate upon his actions or upon the real spirit of the word. We see him failing to analyze why Aaron acted as he did, failing to see that Aaron acted politically, failing to deeply analyze his own motives:&nbsp; The character of Jeroboam shines through here. Jeroboam named his sons Abijah [Abihu] and Nadab- the very names of Aaron's sons. It seems Jeroboam tried to model himself upon Aaron, and justify the building of the calves by interpreting what Aaron did as a positive, righteous thing (as some Jewish expositors do today). He politely overlooked the fact that Aaron was condemned for making the calf, and that Nadab and Abihu were slain for unacceptable worship (<a href='B:30 10:1-2'>Lev 10:1-2</a>). We too can justify outright wrong behaviour in the name of superficial allusion to Scripture, willfully failing to see the similarities between our actions and those of men who were condemned for doing in essence the things which we seek to justify.</p>


text:
<p>Jeroboam ordained a feast in the eighth month, on the fifteenth day of the month, like the feast that is in Judah, and he went up to the altar; he did so in Bethel, sacrificing to the calves that he had made: and he placed in Bethel the priests of the high places that he had made- </p><p>Jeroboam was full of works, of activity in fighting the Lord's battles. He was active in the Truth, as we would say. He ordained a feast "Like the feast which was in Judah". He ordained a new feast on the 15th day of the 8th month, no doubt copying the feast of tabernacles, on the 15th of the 7th month. See on :27. So Jeroboam lacked an attention to detail, despite an appearance of spirituality. <a href='B:130 5:17'>1Ch 5:17</a> says that in Jeroboam's reign, the genealogies we read in the early chapters of Chronicles were written. So in some ways, he gave great attention to detail- when it suited him.</p><p>The feast of tabernacles was on the 15th day of the seventh month, but Jeroboam announced a feast on the 15th day of the eighth month. Perhaps he argued that as harvest came a month later in northern Israel, then this was acceptable. Perhaps he alluded to the way that a second passover could be kept a month after the prescribed date for those impure or otherwise unable to keep it on that date (Num. 9:6-12). So he may have presented this as a feast of tabernacles- "like the feast which was in Judah". He was clearly making vague allusions to spiritual reasoning and out of context Biblical precedent- just as so many do today. </p><p>Jeroboam's building of an altar for the calves as well as a proclamation of a feast is another similarity with Aaron, who built the golden calf, with an altar for it, and then proclaimed a feast to Yahweh (Ex. 32:5). Jeroboam is so carefully copying a Biblical example- but a bad one. The connection between Aaron and Jeroboam is confirmed by the record describing both as 'making Israel to sin' ["What did this people do to you that you have brought such a great sin upon them?" (Ex. 32:21). And the desecration and destruction of their altars, and judgment upon the priests, is again so similar (Ex. 32:20; Dt. 9:21 =  2 Kings 23:15 and 1 Kings 13:2 = 2 Kings 23:16-20). The irony is that it was the Levites who were appointed priests because of their faithfulness at the time of the golden calf apostasy; whereas Jeroboam is careful to do the very opposite, appointing non Levites as priests. </p>


text:
<p>He went up to the altar which he had made in Bethel on the fifteenth day in the eighth month, even in the month which he had devised of his own heart: and he ordained a feast for the children of Israel, and went up to the altar, to burn incense- </p><p>He went up to the altar, making himself the priest. It seems that he was copying David and Solomon, who did just this. But he lacked David’s motivation and spirituality. Another example of his mixture of truth and error is shown by the way he built an altar at Bethel. Now this had many religious associations; Jacob offered there, Samuel held regular gatherings there; and as with trying to be like David and Solomon, it seems that Jeroboam went in for even more self-conscious spiritual exhibitionism and seeking to publicly associate himself with righteous men. In :28 we read that the idea of the calves was a result of taking counsel with others; but the idea of ordaining an alternative feast of tabernacles, picking a random date near enough to the Mosaic one, was purely "devised of his own heart". We can ask others for advice when really we are intent on following our own narrative of what we anyway want to do.He has to take much personal responsibility, and so "Jeroboam the son of Nebat who made Israel to sin" is the continual judgment of the records upon him personally.</p>


text:
<p>There came a man of God out of Judah by the word of Yahweh to Beth El: and Jeroboam was standing by the altar to burn incense-</p><p>This prophet would have been tempted to reason that he need not make this long and dangerous journey; for after all, the ten tribes had chosen to secede from Judah. But we learn here of our responsibility to all our brethren, even if they have separated from us wrongfully. And this prophet was willing to risk death to do so (:4).</p>


text:
<p>He cried against the altar by the word of Yahweh and said, Altar, altar, thus says Yahweh: ‘Behold, a son shall be born to the house of David, Josiah by name. On you he shall sacrifice the priests of the high places who burn incense on you, and they will burn men’s bones on you’- </p><p>The fulfillment came 330 years later (<a href='B:120 23:15-16'>2Ki 23:15-16</a>). This is one of the few prophecies which apparently had no short term fulfilment to validate it; but there was therefore a dramatic sign given at the time (:3).</p>


text:
<p>He gave a sign the same day saying, This is the sign which Yahweh has spoken: Behold, the altar will be split apart, and the ashes that are on it will be poured out- </p><p>LXX and Hebrew "fat" instead of "ashes". "Split" is the word used for the 'rending' of the kingdom from Judah to Jeroboam (<a href='B:110 11:13'>1Ki 11:13</a>; <a href='B:110 11:30-31'>1Ki 11:30-31</a>). But the lesson was that Jeroboam's false religious system would now be rent apart. The potential promised to Jeroboam of becoming king of the 'split / rent' kingdom on God’s behalf, experiencing the fulfilment of God’s promises to David (<a href='B:110 11:38'>1Ki 11:38</a>) had now in turn been rent.</p>


text:
<p>It happened, when the king heard the saying of the man of God which he cried against the altar in Bethel, that Jeroboam put out his hand from the altar, saying, Seize him! His hand, which he put out against him, dried up, so that he could not draw it back again to himself- </p><p>Jeroboam's reaction to the prophet was exactly that of Saul to David and Solomon to Jeroboam. They all thought that their action in murdering people could somehow stop the fulfilment of God’s word. Jeroboam's action is a typical example of anger with the messenger because of the message. And we experience this often in our preaching of God’s word to others.</p>


text:
<p>The altar also was split apart, and the ashes poured out from the altar, according to the sign which the man of God had given by the word of Yahweh- </p><p>I noted on :2 that the prophecy about Josiah was not to be fulfilled for 330 years. But most prophecies had a short term fulfilment, for according to the Mosaic law, this was how a prophet could be tested and validated. Therefore this dramatic sign was given. An earthquake or earth tremour split the altar, and the ashes or "fat" fell to the ground.</p>


text:
<p>The king answered the man of God, Now entreat the favour of Yahweh your God, and pray for me, that my hand may be restored to me again. The man of God entreated Yahweh, and the king’s hand was restored him again, and became as it was before- </p><p>The prayer of the man of God caused Jeroboam’s hand to be healed. But he used the words of Pharaoh to Moses: "Pray for me...". The prayers of someone else can affect the fortunes of another in a way which would not happen if they just prayed for themselves. The Corinthians “helped… by prayer for us” (<a href='B:540 1:11'>2Co 1:11</a>)- as if Paul’s unaided prayers had less power than when the Corinthians were praying for him too. we note Jeroboam refers to "Yahweh your God". Despite all his cleverly planned allusions to Yahweh worship in his new religious system, and his awareness of Yahweh's word- Yahweh was not his God. We marvel that a man can experience an absolute miracle- and still not be convicted of Yahweh as his God. This is further evidence against the Pentecostal idea that miracles are necessary in order to elicit faith. The Bible is full of examples of where they do not do so.</p>


text:
<p>The king said to the man of God, Come home with me, and refresh yourself, and I will give you a reward- </p><p>"Home" was presumably to Shechem. For they were at Bethel at the time. Jeroboam still saw things in a very materialistic way, reasoning as did Saul (<a href='B:90 9:7'>1Sa 9:7</a>), and had utterly failed to appreciate the great spiritual potentials offered to him in <a href='B:110 11:38'>1Ki 11:38</a>. We see internal corroboration of the record in the character presentation of Jeroboam; in <a href='B:110 13:7'>1Ki 13:7</a> and also <a href='B:110 14:3'>1Ki 14:3</a>, Jeroboam thinks that prophets must be paid for their services.</p>


text:
<p>The man of God said to the king, Even if you gave me half of your house, I would not go in with you, neither would I eat bread nor drink water in this place- </p><p>The prophet is tempted to break the commandment received not to do so (:9), but he overcomes it. He is then to be tested in a similar way again, and he fails it. God tests us and then repeats the test, that we might learn; or that our apparent obedience may be tested and proven to ourselves as real.</p>


text:
<p>for so was it commanded me by the word of Yahweh saying, ‘You shall eat no bread, nor drink water, neither return by the way that you came’- </p><p>There was possibly the idea that eating and drinking together with others was a sign of religious fellowship (<a href='B:530 5:11'>1Co 5:11</a>). But likely the prophet was being empowered miraculously as Elijah was later, to make a journey in God’s strength. And the lack of food and water was to make him closer to God through fasting. Bethel was south of Shechem, so the prophet coming from Judah would not have travelled on this road. Perhaps the command not to return was because God wanted the prophet not to be delayed by people who had seen him coming wanting to congratulate him or otherwise delay him on his return journey. His whole period outside the border of Judah was to be without eating or drinking, so he was being told to make the journey as quickly as possible, and not allow himself to be delayed.</p>


text:
<p>So he went another way, and didn’t return by the way that he came to Bethel-</p><p>See on :9. However the exact reason for this is unclear. It may have been just a simple test. The first part of the commandment, not to eat food, he had obeyed. Now he was to be tested regarding the second part of the commandment.</p>


text:
<p>Now there lived an old prophet in Bethel; and one of his sons came and told him all the works that the man of God had done that day in Bethel. They also told their father the words which he had spoken to the king- </p><p>The prophet was returning to Judah, so he was moving south of Bethel. To go back to Bethel would require him to return by the way he had come, in spirit, although he may have argued that seeing he was travelling a different road back home (:10), his return to Bethel by that road was not strictly returning by "the way that he came to Bethel". But such legalism leads into sin, as we see here. We wonder why this prophet was still in Bethel and had not joined the Levites in going to live in Judah. Perhaps it was because he was old. Yet his subsequent behaviour makes us wonder whether he was in fact a prophet of Yahweh, or just a "prophet" in a general sense.</p>


text:
<p>Their father said to them, Which way did he go? Now his sons had seen which way the man of God went, who came from Judah- </p><p>We note the emphasis upon "the way". He had been told by his sons all the words spoken (:11), so he knew the prophet from Judah was not to eat or drink, nor return by "the way" he had come. Perhaps as discussed on :11 he reasoned that returning to his house would not be returning by the way the prophet had come to Bethel- because he was on a different route. But knowing he had been forbidden to eat and drink, it was surely wrong of him to fake a word from Yahweh commanding him now to eat and drink. Perhaps he reasoned that the command not to eat and drink meant not to do so with Jeroboam. We can see the wrong thinking which his legalism led him to.</p>


text:
<p>He said to his sons, Saddle the donkey for me. So they saddled the donkey for him; and he rode on it- </p><p>The focus of the Divine cameraman is zoomed in close up. Sometimes we have scant detail, at others, such as this, we get much detail. We are thereby invited to imagine what the man was thinking as they saddled the donkey and he mounted it, and why he was doing this...</p>


text:
<p>He went after the man of God, and found him sitting under an oak. He said to him, Are you the man of God who came from Judah? He said, I am- </p><p>If he had not eaten nor drunken, he was presumably tired. This would militate against my earlier suggestion that he was given miraculous power with which to make the journey without eating or drinking.</p>


text:
<p>Then he said to him, Come home with me, and eat bread- </p><p>We naturally ponder the man's motives. He faked a word of Yahweh, and yet is not so dramatically punished as the brave prophet from Judah who had done what he ought to have done, if he were a true prophet of Yahweh. Perhaps on the other hand, he realized this, and desperately wanted to show his respect to this prophet who was braver than he. So desperate that he faked a word from Yahweh. And yet that weakness was used by God to test the prophet from Judah. We marvel at the Divine ecology revealed in all this. The situation gets the less strange the more we think about it. For this kind of mixed motive is quite imaginable:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>He said, I may not return with you, nor go in with you; neither will I eat bread nor drink water with you in this place-</p><p>"This place" presumably refers to the ten tribes, although perhaps Bethel and its environs is specifically in view.</p>


text:
<p>For it was said to me by the word of Yahweh, ‘You shall eat no bread nor drink water there, nor turn again to go by the way that you came’- </p><p>By taking a different route home, the prophet had fulfilled this. But he rightly interpreted the spirit of it as meaning that he must not return at all by any road he had travelled on.</p>


text:
<p>He said to him, I also am a prophet as you are; and an angel spoke to me by the word of Yahweh, saying, ‘Bring him back with you into your house, that he may eat bread and drink water’. He lied to him- </p><p>The whole incident underlines the importance of personal relationship with God. If we are given a word from the Lord to do something, we are to do it, and not let that be overridden by the words of others, even if they claim to also be reasoning according to God’s word. Our personal understanding of God’s word is to be utterly paramount. No matter how apparently credible is another argument against it. And we must remember that the man had not eaten nor drunk for some time, and was resting, exhausted, beneath a tree (:14). Perhaps in his weakness he wondered whether this was God’s way of sustaining him. But God will not send help to us in any way which so fragrantly breaks His own word to us.</p>


text:
<p>So he went back with him, and ate bread in his house, and drank water- </p><p>LXX "So he turned him back". The problem with what he did was that the prophet of Judah's word to Jeroboam now appeared compromised. For Jeroboam had tried to seize him after his condemnation of the altar, but had been stopped. But now it seemed God had intervened to slay His prophet, and so there was no need to take his word seriously.</p>


text:
<p>It happened, as they sat at the table, that the word of Yahweh came to the prophet who brought him back- </p><p>Whether or not this old man was a true prophet of Yahweh, he was used to speak Yahweh's word to the prophet of Judah.</p>


text:
<p>and he cried to the man of God who came from Judah, saying- </p><p>"Cried" is s:w. in :2 for how the prophet cried against Jeroboam for his disobedience. For all his bravery, he was no better; at least in this moment of his life. He is condemned to death, not perhaps because he will not be saved, but as a lesson for us as to the importance of very personal obedience to God’s word. The old prophet apparently sinned worse, but wasn't immediately slain. That point is so obvious in the story, and we are surely to conclude from it that sometimes men are punished with death for far 'less', apparently, than others sin. We think of Uzzah being slain for touching the ark in an apparently well meaning way, and David preserved after the sin with Uriah. The outcomes of our sins are sometimes so that others may hopefully learn something. Everything in our lives is so multi factorial. See on :24.</p><p>Thus says Yahweh, ‘Because you have been disobedient to the mouth of Yahweh, and have not kept the commandment which Yahweh your God commanded you-</p><p>God’s word is His actual word. The prophet heard "the mouth of Yahweh". And those words have been recorded. When we read His word, we hear His voice. Jeremiah spoke "from the mouth of the Lord" (<a href='B:140 36:12'>2Ch 36:12</a>). His word brings Him that near to us, if we will perceive it for what it is. Jeremiah also was "disobedient to the mouth of Yahweh" (same phrase in <a href='B:310 1:18'>Lam 1:18</a>), but wasn't immediately slain; see commentary on the first half of this verse.</p>


text:
<p>but came back, and have eaten bread and drunk water in the place of which He said to you, Eat no bread, and drink no water; your body shall not come to the tomb of your fathers’- </p><p>"The place" was the apostate area of the ten tribes, and Bethel in particular. The old prophet's house is included within that, another indication that he was perhaps not untainted by the apostacy around him. On :30 I will note that the prophet's body didn’t come to the tomb of his fathers, but rather to the tomb of the old prophet. But this came about through the old prophet's deep respect for the prophet of Judah.</p>


text:
<p>It happened, after he had eaten bread, and after he had drunk, that he saddled the donkey for the prophet whom he had brought back- </p><p>His sons had saddled the donkey for their father, but now the old prophet, despite his age, does this menial task for the prophet of Judah, as a sign of respect. We note that the old prophet carries the blame- "he had brought back" the prophet of Judah, resulting in his death.</p>


text:
<p>When he had gone, a lion met him by the way, and killed him. His body was cast in the way, and the donkey stood by it. The lion also stood by the body- </p><p>I suggested on :21 that the apparently harsh judgment of the prophet was in order to teach others a lesson. And so the manner of his death advertised this. The lion killed him, but didn’t eat him. Nor did he touch the donkey. Lions kill to eat, but this lion didn’t eat the prophet. And it was all done in such a public manner (:25). Everyone would know that this was a judicial death from Yahweh. And they would have marvelled at His insistence upon personal obedience to Him, and not following anyone even if they falsely claimed to speak in Yahweh's Name. The equivalent of the old prophet was Jeroboam, who was setting up another religion on the basis of falsely representing Yahweh's word.</p>


text:
<p>Behold, men passed by, and saw the body cast in the way, and the lion standing by the body; and they came and told it in the city where the old prophet lived- </p><p>See on :24. The public nature of the strange slaying would have been gossiped far and wide, as it was such an unusual scene that was described. For everyone knew that lions kill only to eat.</p>


text:
<p>When the prophet who brought him back from the way heard of it, he said, It is the man of God who was disobedient to the mouth of Yahweh. Therefore Yahweh has delivered him to the lion, which has mauled him and slain him, according to the word of Yahweh, which He spoke to him-</p><p>The old prophet realized that he had been merely a channel. He doesn't say "the word of Yahweh which I spoke to him", but rather "which He spoke to him". "Mauled" is 'ripped', and the same Hebrew phrase for "mauled / ripped and slain" is used of the death of Eli, also by Divine judgment (<a href='B:90 4:18'>1Sa 4:18</a>). As the altar had been ripped (:3), showing how the kingdom had been ripped from Jeroboam as it had been from Solomon, so now the prophet of Judah was ripped or torn by the lion. He is presented as representative of Jeroboam and all disobedient to God’s word.</p>


text:
<p>He spoke to his sons saying, Saddle the donkey for me. They saddled it- </p><p>The repeated emphasis upon saddling donkeys in this story (:13,23,27) may be to connect with how the false prophet Balaam likewise saddled his ass and disobeyed God’s word (<a href='B:40 22:21'>Num 22:21</a> s:w:).</p>


text:
<p>He went and found his body cast in the way, and the donkey and the lion standing by the body. The lion had not eaten the body, nor mauled the donkey- </p><p>There was a fair chance that the old prophet would be killed by the lion, and realizing he too deserved Divine judgment for faking His word, he went there prepared to be slain too. He went therefore out of very deep respect, willing to pay with his life for that respect.</p>


text:
<p>The prophet took up the body of the man of God, and laid it on the donkey, and brought it back. He came to the city of the old prophet to mourn, and to bury him- </p><p>The old prophet, despite his age, travelled the road which the prophet of Judah would have travelled had he survived. This was a sign of identity with the prophet of Judah, again indicating that he felt this man had done what he ought to have done.</p>


text:
<p>He laid his body in his own grave; and they mourned over him saying, Alas, my brother!- </p><p>It seems that the old prophet kept the body, laid it in the grave prepared for himself, and then went to the old prophet's city to mourn there (:29). This keeping of the body is unusual and may suggest the prophet had no living family. Again we see the Divine economy in how things worked out; for the old prophet's desire to identify himself with the death of the prophet of Judah, placing that man's body where his should have gone, resulted in the fulfilment of God’s judgment of :22.</p>


text:
<p>It happened, after he had buried him, that he spoke to his sons saying, When I am dead, then bury me in the tomb in which the man of God is buried. Lay my bones beside his bones- </p><p>This was a final act of identity with the prophet of Judah. The old prophet shows himself to be sincere in his devotion to God’s word and the cause of the prophet. Despite faking Yahweh's word and bringing that prophet to his death. We see here what we are confronted by in our own lives and those around us- a sincere belief in Yahweh and genuine love of His ways, despite terrible failure at specific points (such as his faking of Yahweh's word and thereby leading a good prophet to his death), as well as general failure to attain our highest potentials (in this case, the old prophet ought to have delivered the message to Jeroboam, since he lived in Bethel. But he didn’t). LXX adds "in order that my bones may be preserved along with his bones", suggesting he believed in a resurrection of the body for them both, by grace.</p>


text:
<p>For the saying which he cried by the word of Yahweh against the altar in Bethel, and against all the houses of the high places which are in the cities of Samaria, will surely happen- </p><p>This may imply that the prophet's message was against the other high places as well. The city of Samaria is not in view, but the towns in the region of Samaria (<a href='B:110 16:24'>1Ki 16:24</a>). "Will surely happen" was faith indeed, for Josiah didn’t fulfil the prophecies for another 330 years. The old prophet loved the prophet of Judah for what he had done and for his message, and although he lived in Bethel and was likely to be persecuted by Jeroboam for his stance, the death of the prophet from Judah inspired him to speak out as he ought to have done earlier:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>After this thing Jeroboam didn’t return from his evil way- </p><p>The implication may be that he could have done, according to the spiritual potential he had explained on <a href='B:110 11:38'>1Ki 11:38</a>.</p><p>But again made priests of the high places from among all the people. Whoever wanted to, he consecrated him, that there might be priests of the high places- </p><p>"Again" doing this suggests the incident with his hand withering and then the subsequent slaying of the prophet were all intended to make him stop and change his policy. But he didn’t.</p>


text:
<p>This thing became sin to the house of Jeroboam, even to cut it off, and to destroy it from off the surface of the earth- </p><p>The language here is slightly strange, as if the sin became sin and the sin was intended to destroy them. The idea is that God confirms people in their sins, and sin has its own downward dynamic, leading to destruction.</p>


text:
<p>At that time Abijah the son of Jeroboam fell sick- </p><p>"Abijah" is 'father of Yah' but that effectively means 'worshipper of Yah', and his naming further indicates that Jeroboam was initially aware of Yahweh worship. He had the potential of being the Divinely blessed king of Israel, with the promises to David fulfilled through him (<a href='B:110 11:38'>1Ki 11:38</a>). His twisting of Yahweh worship is therefore the more reprehensible. Abijah is not to be imagined as a little child; see on :13.</p><p> We note that Rehoboam also had a son called Abijah, who succeeded him as king (:31). The contrast could hint that God was somewhat more acceptant of Rehoboam in the end, despite his unwisdom and harshness at the start of his reign; but not with Jeroboam. And yet Rehoboam in summary "did that which was evil, because he didn’t set his heart to seek Yahweh" (2 Chron. 12:14). Perhaps here we have a case of God being less displeased with one king than He was with another. Just as Jehoshaphat was told “some good is found in you” (2 Chron. 19:3). </p>


text:
<p>Jeroboam said to his wife, Please get up and disguise yourself, that you won’t be recognized as the wife of Jeroboam. Go to Shiloh. Behold, there is Ahijah the prophet, who spoke concerning me that I should be king over this people-</p><p>This turning to Yahweh in time of need, rather than to other gods, indicates that he had a conscience toward Yahweh and after the healing of his withered hand by the prophet from Judah, he knew that Yahweh was really the only God who could heal. "Ahijah" is 'brother of Yah' but that effectively means 'worshipper of Yah'. It is very similar to "Abijah", and we wonder if Jeroboam initially believed Ahijah's prophecies of <a href='B:110 11:38'>1Ki 11:38</a>, and named his child after the prophet, as well as making a statement of his commitment to Yahweh worship.</p>


text:
<p>Take with you ten loaves, cakes and a jar of honey, and go to him- </p><p>The possible death of the child would confirm the annulling of the promises about Jeroboam fulfilling the promises about the house of David. That had been made clear by the prophet from Judah in 1 Kings 13, and now at this same time (:1) the message was being confirmed by the death of Jeroboam's son Abijah, who symbolized his weak attempt at fulfilling the potential of the prophecies of Ahijah about him. We see internal corroboration of the record in the character presentation of Jeroboam; in <a href='B:110 13:7'>1Ki 13:7</a> and also <a href='B:110 14:3'>1Ki 14:3</a>, Jeroboam thinks that prophets must be paid for their services.</p><p>He will tell you what will become of the child- </p><p>Again we sense Jeroboam's recognition of the power and truth of Yahweh and His prophets, although he preferred his own power and kingdom to His.</p>


text:
<p>Jeroboam’s wife did so, and arose, and went to Shiloh, and came to the house of Ahijah. Now Ahijah could not see; for his eyes were set by reason of his age- </p><p>"His eyes were set" is the phrase used about Eli (<a href='B:90 4:15'>1Sa 4:15</a>), and he was also in Shiloh, at the sanctuary. The statistical chance of the phrase and town occurring together is too great to be chance. But as with our own lives, we cannot always attach meaning to event and coincidence. It could simply be that Ahijah was to meditate upon the similarities between himself and Eli and learn the lessons from Eli's failures and final rejection by God. Shiloh was in Ephraim, near Shechem, the capital of Jeroboam. It was a priestly city, but we wonder why Ahijah had not joined the other Levites in migrating to Judah. Perhaps old age had stopped him. We note from here and the prophet of Yahweh in Bethel of 1 Kings 13 that there were faithful prophets still in the ten tribes. Indeed by Elijah's time there were 7000 who were still faithful, and Obadiah hid 100 of Yahweh's prophets in a cave.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh said to Ahijah, The wife of Jeroboam is coming to inquire of you concerning her son; for he is sick. This is what you shall tell her; for it will be, when she comes in, that she will pretend to be another woman- </p><p>Jeroboam knew that Ahijah was likely to condemn him and his wife for the golden calves and other idolatry. We have an insight into human nature here. Jeroboam and his wife believed Ahijah had God’s help and power to know the future for their child, and the power to heal him. But they thought they could deceive him, so that his blindness stopped him perceiving that she was not Jeroboam's wife. We may believe in God’s knowledge of the future and His power; but yet disbelieve His ability to see us and know us right now for who we really are. This is why the tendency of some to focus upon Bible prophecy, God’s knowledge of the future and power in future history, can become an obsession which somehow mutes our awareness of His knowledge of us personally right now.</p>


text:
<p>It was so, when Ahijah heard the sound of her feet, as she came in at the door, that he said, Come in, you wife of Jeroboam! Why do you pretend to be another? For I am sent to you with heavy news- </p><p>The woman came to Ahijah, having been sent by Jeroboam; but Ahijah was "sent" to him. This is part of a wider theme of God’s word 'coming' to us, and God 'coming' to us, through His word. God Himself is spoken of as coming, descending etc. when He ‘preaches’ to humanity (e.g. <a href='B:10 11:5'>Gen 11:5</a>; <a href='B:20 19:20'>Exo 19:20</a>; <a href='B:40 11:25'>Num 11:25</a>; <a href='B:100 22:10'>2Sa 22:10</a>). In <a href='B:300 39:16'>Jer 39:16</a>, the imprisoned Jeremiah is told to “go, tell Ebed-melech..." a word from the Lord about him. Jeremiah couldn’t have literally left prison to do so – but the idea is that a person encountering the Lord’s word has as it were experienced the Lord ‘going’ to him or her. And in this sense the message of the Lord Jesus (in its essence) could ‘go’ to persons without Him physically going anywhere or even existing consciously at the time (<a href='B:670 3:19'>1Pe 3:19</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Go, tell Jeroboam, ‘Thus says Yahweh, the God of Israel: Because I exalted you from among the people, and made you prince over My people Israel- </p><p>The "Because... therefore" judgment (:10) shows that those who are called to potentials are held responsible for their failure to realize them, and are judged accordingly. And we are all called to various potential good works (<a href='B:560 2:10'>Eph 2:10</a>). Jeroboam had been the son of a prostitute (LXX) whom God exalted very far. But he used it for himself rather than God’s service. "Exalted" is the same word used of how Jeroboam "lifted up his hand" against Solomon (<a href='B:110 11:26-27'>1Ki 11:26-27</a>). But God exalted / lifted up Jeroboam, and ultimately he became king of the ten tribes. His revolt or lifting up his hand against Solomon was therefore of God.</p><p>Baasha was intended to learn from the path of Jeroboam, for he too was "exalted" (s:w. <a href='B:110 16:2'>1Ki 16:2</a>) from nothing to be prince over Israel. But Baasha like Jeroboam made the people sin. We are intended to learn from the life path of others. This is why we have Biblical history, and it is why God controls the encounters of those we meet in life.</p>


text:
<p>and tore the kingdom away from the house of David, and gave it you; and yet you have not been as My servant David who kept My commandments, and who followed Me with all his heart, to do only that which was right in My eyes- </p><p>The final comment upon Jeroboam is that he was not as God’s servant David (<a href='B:110 14:7-9'>1Ki 14:7-9</a>). And yet he was set up with that potential possibility. Consider:</p><p>Jeroboam (1 Kings 11) - David</p><p>Man of valour v. 28- As David <a href='B:90 16:18'>1Sa 16:18</a> RV;</p><p>Young man v. 28 - <a href='B:90 17:58'>1Sa 17:58</a></p><p>Ruler over all v. 28 - <a href='B:90 18:5'>1Sa 18:5</a></p><p>I will take you and you shall reign over Israel v. 37 - <a href='B:100 7:8'>2Sa 7:8</a></p><p>Build a house v. 38 - <a href='B:100 7:11'>2Sa 7:11</a></p><p>v. 40 - <a href='B:90 19:2'>1Sa 19:2</a>; <a href='B:90 19:10'>1Sa 19:10</a></p><p>And it works the other way, too. Prophecies of doom can be turned round by our repentance. Nineveh avoiding certain destruction on account of their repentance is a clear example.</p>


text:
<p>but you have done evil above all who were before you, and have gone and made you other gods and molten images, to provoke Me to anger- </p><p>God can be grieved [s:w. 'provoke to anger']. He has emotions, and His potential foreknowledge doesn't mean that these feelings are not legitimate. They are presented as occurring in human time, as responses to human behaviour. This is the degree to which He has accommodated Himself to human time-space limits, in order to fully enter relationship and experience with us. As He can limit His omnipotence, so God can limit His omniscience, in order to feel and respond along with us.</p><p>And have cast Me behind your back- </p><p>The same phrase is used in <a href='B:160 9:26'>Neh 9:26</a> of how Israel cast God’s law behind their backs. "The word was God", attitudes to God’s word are attitudes to Him.</p>


text:
<p>therefore, behold, I will bring evil on the house of Jeroboam, and will cut off from Jeroboam every male, he who is shut up and he who is left free in Israel, and will utterly sweep away the house of Jeroboam, as a man sweeps away dung, until it is all gone- </p><p>The preceding verses show that the extreme judgment pronounced was because of the great potentials God had enabled for Jeroboam (see <a href='B:110 11:38'>1Ki 11:38</a>). But he refused to realize them. We live in an age of great potentials. We are generally literate, mobile, with easy access to God’s word; and many members of the body of Christ live in relative ease and luxury, free from persecution. The potentials for service are far higher for the average believer today than they were centuries ago. So this issue of judgment according to wasted potentials is so relevant to our age. "He who is shut up and he who is left free" is apparently an idiom referring to children still shut up at home, and those who are free to move about independently. The meaning would then be "young and old".</p>


text:
<p>He who dies of Jeroboam in the city shall the dogs eat; and he who dies in the field shall the birds of the sky eat: for Yahweh has spoken it’- </p><p>The next verse goes on to state that Jeroboam's child "in the city" was to die. But then the judgment that he would be eaten by dogs is not applied to him in :13. To not "come to the grave" (:13) meant being thrown onto the rubbish tip like Gehenna, and eaten by dogs. The Lord's New Testament references to Gehenna are another way of saying 'Those put there will not have a decent burial', which was the greatest fear of the Semitic mind.</p>


text:
<p>Arise therefore, and go to your house. When your feet enter into the city, the child shall die- </p><p>See on :11. By returning home, she was bringing about the death of her child. There could have been here an appeal for repentance; if she had not returned to her home in Tirzah, thereby resigning her position as queen of the apostate kingdom, then she might have saved her child's life. See on :17.</p>


text:
<p>All Israel shall mourn for him, and bury him; for he only of Jeroboam shall come to the grave, because in him there is found some good thing toward Yahweh, the God of Israel, in the house of Jeroboam- </p><p>In Jeroboam's son "there was found some good thing"&nbsp; toward God. If Jeroboam's son was righteous, it is likely that Jeroboam and / or his wife had a spiritual side to them. But they didn’t live up to their potential. See on <a href='B:110 11:38'>1Ki 11:38</a>. The child was old enough to have some spirituality, and God recognized this. "All Israel" knew of him, so he was presumably not a small child. The word for "child" is used of Solomon when he became king (<a href='B:110 3:7'>1Ki 3:7</a>). He must have been an unusual child to have "some good thing toward Yahweh", because he was surrounded by every possible influence away from the true God. It is stressed that the child died "in the city", as soon as his mother returned there. The judgment of :11 was that those who died in the city would be eaten by dogs, but this is here ameliorated, by grace.</p>


text:
<p>Moreover Yahweh will raise Him up a king over Israel, who shall cut off the house of Jeroboam. This is the day! What? Even now- </p><p>What God plans and purposes is effectively done at that moment of planning, so certain is His will and power. Therefore He speaks of those things which do not exist physically as if they do (<a href='B:520 4:17'>Rom 4:17</a>). What will be, is now, from God’s perspective. The Angel commented that God’s words of future prophecy are “true and faithful… they are come to pass” (<a href='B:730 21:6'>Rev 21:6</a> RV). They are as good as done as soon as they are uttered, so certain are they of fulfillment. Thus <a href='B:110 14:14'>1Ki 14:14</a> AV: "The Lord shall raise him up a king… but what? Even now". The future reality could be spoken of as effectively "even now":&nbsp;This is the way to understand those passages which appear to teach that both Jesus and ourselves existed physically before our birth. God doesn't completely express Himself in our terms and language (although of course to some degree He does).</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh will strike Israel, as a reed is shaken in the water; and He will root up Israel out of this good land which He gave to their fathers, and will scatter them beyond the River, because they have made their Asherim, provoking Yahweh to anger- </p><p>As Egypt was a reed, so were Israel (<a href='B:110 14:15'>1Ki 14:15</a>). As Pharaoh’s heart was plagued (<a href='B:20 9:14'>Exo 9:14</a>), so was Israel’s (<a href='B:110 8:38'>1Ki 8:38</a>); as Pharaoh-hophra was given into the hand of his enemies, so would Israel be (<a href='B:300 44:30'>Jer 44:30</a>). She would be&nbsp; “Condemned with the world...". There is a major Biblical theme that when God’s people lose faith, they are described and treated as the world. The uprooting of Israel was because they as a people had broken covenant (<a href='B:50 29:28'>Deu 29:28</a>). But the same word is used in <a href='B:300 18:7'>Jer 18:7</a>; if God says He will uproot a nation, then they can still repent and change the otherwise inevitable outcome. This is why there is a gap between the statement of judgment, and its fulfilment. The statement that God’s people would no longer be uprooted (s:w. <a href='B:370 9:15'>Amo 9:15</a>) therefore means that the good news of the Kingdom is that God’s people will no longer sin and have to be judged.</p>


text:
<p>He will give Israel up because of the sins of Jeroboam, which he has sinned, and with which he has made Israel to sin-</p><p>The 'giving up' was to captivity, which is the context of :15. Yet the prophets repeatedly appealed for Israel's repentance, so that this outcome would not happen. But Ahijah here says that they were to go into captivity because of Jeroboam's sins. One way to reconcile this is to understand that there is a gap between God’s statement of judgment, and His fulfilment of it. In that gap, repentance and prayer can change the execution of what has been stated. We all stand and live in such a gap, and it gives intensity to the need for prayer and repentant living.</p>


text:
<p>Jeroboam’s wife arose, and departed, and came to Tirzah. As she came to the threshold of the house, the child died- </p><p>We see grace interlaced throughout the judgments. Whoever of Jeroboam's children died in the city was to be eaten by dogs and not buried. But an exception was made for this child. The judgment had been that as soon as she entered the city, the child would die (:12). But God allowed her to walk from the city limits to her house before the child died. We wonder if this delay was a reflection of God’s desperate hope for her repentance.</p>


text:
<p>All Israel buried him and mourned for him, according to the word of Yahweh, which He spoke by His servant Ahijah the prophet-</p><p>This fulfilment of :13 suggests Abijah was not a small child but was known in Israel.</p>


text:
<p>The rest of the acts of Jeroboam, how he warred and how he reigned, behold, they are written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel- </p><p>This is not necessarily the same as the "book of Chronicles" which we have in the Bible. However, <a href='B:140 13:3-20'>2Ch 13:3-20</a> describes the wars of Jeroboam with Judah, and how Judah captured cities from Jeroboam.</p>


text:
<p>Jeroboam reigned for twenty two years: and he slept with his fathers, and Nadab his son reigned in his place-</p><p>Jeroboam named his sons Abijah [Abihu] and Nadab- the very names of Aaron's sons. It seems Jeroboam tried to model himself upon Aaron, and justify the building of the calves by interpreting what Aaron did as a positive, righteous thing (as some Jewish expositors do today). He overlooked the fact that Aaron was condemned for making the calf, and that Nadab and Abihu were slain for unacceptable worship (<a href='B:30 10:1-2'>Lev 10:1-2</a>). We too can justify outright wrong behaviour in the name of superficial allusion to Scripture, willfully failing to see the similarities between our actions and those of men who were condemned for doing in essence the things which we seek to justify. Jeroboam allowed the ordinary people to be priests; in Exodus 32 we learn that the ordinary people offered the sacrifices to the golden calf, not the priests. Again, it seems that Jeroboam was trying to consciously mimic the golden calf apostasy. It is no accident that Josiah stamped his calves to powder, just as Moses did to the golden calf. Now why did Jeroboam so consciously lead Israel into the same apostasy which brought them as it were within a hairs breadth of national rejection in Exodus 32? Jeroboam wasn't ignorant. Perhaps he had gone down a path of contorted exposition which made out that Israel didn’t really sin by worshipping the calf. Or perhaps he got so carried away with the idea that he was like Aaron, the priest, that he thought (like some modern Rabbis) that Aaron couldn't have done anything wrong, and therefore he consciously copied Aaron, as he did David, Solomon, Jacob and Samuel. Again, we see Jeroboam having a familiarity with Scripture, but not pausing to really meditate upon his actions or upon the real spirit of the word. We see him failing to analyze why Aaron acted as he did, failing to see that Aaron acted politically, failing to deeply analyze his own motives:&nbsp; The character of Jeroboam shines through here.</p>


text:
<p>Rehoboam the son of Solomon reigned in Judah. Rehoboam was forty-one years old when he began to reign, and he reigned seventeen years in Jerusalem- </p><p><a href='B:110 14:21'>1Ki 14:21</a>; <a href='B:140 12:13'>2Ch 12:13</a> says Rehoboam was 41 when he became king. But he was "young and tender hearted" (<a href='B:140 13:7'>2Ch 13:7</a>). The LXX addition at <a href='B:110 12:24'>1Ki 12:24</a> says he was 16 when he began to reign. He was surrounded by young men who had grown up with him. I suggest on balance that he was indeed 41 and the "young men" were "young" in comparison to the older men present. The description "young and tender hearted" could simply be a purposeful repetition of the description of his father Solomon when he ascended the throne; or it could mean that he was a rather weak and child like man.</p><p>The city which Yahweh had chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, to put His name there: and his mother’s name was Naamah the Ammonitess- </p><p>The&nbsp; criticism&nbsp; of Solomon for marrying Gentile women also applies to&nbsp; his&nbsp; first&nbsp; marriage&nbsp; with&nbsp; the daughter of Pharaoh; besides marrying&nbsp; her,&nbsp; he&nbsp; married&nbsp; the&nbsp; others too, and the criticisms which&nbsp; follow&nbsp; are&nbsp; spoken in the context of both these actions. Yet Solomon married Pharaoh's daughter in his early days, before he asked for wisdom. This is another indication that Solomon did not&nbsp; start&nbsp; off well and then go wrong; right from the beginning he&nbsp; had this incredible dualism in his spirituality. The Talmud (Shabbath F, 56,2) records that “When Solomon married the daughter of Pharaoh she brought to him 1000 kinds of musical instruments, and taught him the chants to the various idols”. Even when Solomon was young, he evidently loved wine (<a href='B:260 1:2'>Son 1:2</a>; <a href='B:260 1:4'>Son 1:4</a>)- which was later to be something he (temporarily) abandonned himself to. He had a child by an Ammonite girl one year before he became king (<a href='B:110 14:21'>1Ki 14:21</a>)- so his relationships with foreign women cannot be put down to mere political alliances. If the Song of Solomon is about her rather than the Egyptian woman he married, one can only say that one early error, unrepentended of, paved the way for his later disasters with foreign women.</p>


text:
<p>Judah did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh, and they provoked Him to jealousy with their sins which they committed, even worse than all that their fathers had done- </p><p>Jealousy is a lead feature within Yahweh's personality (<a href='B:20 20:5'>Exo 20:5</a>; <a href='B:20 34:14'>Exo 34:14</a>). It speaks specifically of the jealousy of a man concerning the faithfulness of his wife (<a href='B:40 5:14'>Num 5:14</a>). God was the passionate lover and husband of His people, and it is inevitable therefore that the extent of that love would produce jealousy when they spurned Him and went after other men, the idols. At this point they only began to do this evil after Rehoboam had established his kingdom and felt strong (<a href='B:140 12:1'>2Ch 12:1</a>). Yahweh was no longer apparently needed by them, and so they turned to other gods. Maachah his beloved wife (<a href='B:140 11:20-22'>2Ch 11:20-22</a>) was an idolater (<a href='B:140 15:16'>2Ch 15:16</a>).</p>


text:
<p>For they also built themselves high places, and pillars and Asherim on every high hill, and under every green tree- </p><p>Houses of worship were built on the high places as Jeroboam had done (<a href='B:110 12:31'>1Ki 12:31</a>), and these became Jeroboam's answer to centralized worship on one building, the temple, in one place, Jerusalem. But Judah "also" did this, they were influenced by Jeroboam's style of worship.</p>


text:
<p>and there were also sodomites in the land: they did according to all the abominations of the nations which Yahweh drove out before the children of Israel- </p><p>These sodomites were associated with the idol shrines (<a href='B:110 14:23'>1Ki 14:23</a>; <a href='B:110 15:12'>1Ki 15:12</a>). They may well have been Gentiles from Phoenicia, hence they were expelled from the land rather than killed (<a href='B:110 15:12'>1Ki 15:12</a>). They may well have been involved with homosexual practices, but the Hebrew qadesh means literally a devoted person.</p>


text:
<p>It happened in the fifth year of king Rehoboam-</p><p>This was after Rehoboam was established in his own strength; see on :22.</p><p>That Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem- </p><p>Shishak had given refuge to Jeroboam (<a href='B:110 11:40'>1Ki 11:40</a>), so it could be that he urged Shishak to attack Judah once Rehoboam became established as king of Judah. "A monument of this king, the first of the 22nd dynasty, has been discovered at Karnak in Upper Egypt, recording his conquests and the names of certain towns which he had taken in Palestine". Inscriptions on the wall of the temple at Karnak list many conquered cities, including three of the "cities for defence" which Rehoboam had built, Shoco, Adoraim and Aijalon (<a href='B:140 11:7-10'>2Ch 11:7-10</a>). The list also includes many cities within the ten tribes, suggesting that if Jeroboam got Shishak to invade Judah, Shishak then turned against his one time protégé Jeroboam and invaded the ten tribes also.</p>


text:
<p>and he took away the treasures of the house of Yahweh, and the treasures of the king’s house; he took away all: and he took away all the shields of gold which Solomon had made- </p><p>&nbsp;LXX mentions that David took golden spears from Hadadezer: “And the golden spears which David took from the hand of the servants of Adraazar king of Soba and carried to Jerusalem, he took them all”:&nbsp; These would not have been used as real spears, but were part of the worship of the golden sun which was the main religion in Syria at the time. David would have been better destroying them, rather than bringing idol paraphernalia into Jerusalem. For it later contributed towards the freedom Judah felt to worship sun gods. These spears would have been taken at the time of <a href='B:100 8:7'>2Sa 8:7</a>: "David took the shields of gold that were on the servants of Hadadezer, and brought them to Jerusalem". "Hadad" was the god of the sun, "Hadadezer" had not been 'helped by Hadad' as his name means, and so David brought these golden imitations of the sun to Yahweh's temple. It is perhaps questionable whether David should have brought idols into Jerusalem; we note that later Judah worshipped sun gods. David’s actions here were not blessed, for the LXX adds “And Susakim [i:e. Shishak] king of Egypt took them, when he went up to Jerusalem in the days of Roboam the son of Solomon”.</p><p><a href='B:140 12:5-8'>2Ch 12:5-8</a> recounts the temporary repentance of Rehoboam as a result of the challenge of the prophet Shemaiah at this time.</p>


text:
<p>King Rehoboam made in their place shields of brass, and committed them to the hands of the captains of the guard, who kept the door of the king’s house- </p><p>Gold being downgraded to brass reflects the decline of faith in Rehoboam, for gold is a symbol of faith (<a href='B:670 1:7'>1Pe 1:7</a>).</p>


text:
<p>It was so, that as often as the king went into the house of Yahweh, the guard bore them, and brought them back into the guard room- </p><p>This indicates that there was a very low level of security even in the Jerusalem temple. Rehoboam wished by all means to imitate the worship of his father Solomon, but it was on a pathetically lower level. Despite all his idolatry, he still entered the temple for public worship of Yahweh. This was Israel's recurrent problem, to worship both Yahweh and the idols.</p>


text:
<p>Now the rest of the acts of Rehoboam, and all that he did, aren’t they written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?- </p><p>This may not be a reference to the books we know as "Chronicles", but it is noteworthy that the parallel record in Chronicles is far more detailed at this point than what we are reading in Kings.</p>


