# comment

text:
<p>Now, behold, I have made a great effort in preparing for the house of Yahweh one hundred thousand talents of gold, one million talents of silver, and brass and iron without weight; for it is in abundance. I have also prepared timber and stone; and you may add to them- </p><p>"Made a great effort" is RVmg. "in my low estate". David makes a juxtaposition between his own lowness, and the super abundance of wealth he has given for the temple. He makes an appropriate distinction between his wealth and himself personally. However the figures seem so exaggerated and not literal. The more wealthy Solomon only received 666 talents of gold / year (<a href='B:110 10:14'>1Ki 10:14</a>), so 100,000 talents of gold is an unrealistic figure. Although if Chronicles was rewritten in exile, the talents may refer to Persian talents, which were far less than hebrew talents:&nbsp; Again we get the impression David was obsessed with numbers and exaggerated them; as it seems he did later with the numbers of Levites, comparing his claimed numbers with those recorded in the book of Numbers. He reduced the age for counting them to 20 (1 Chron. 23:24) and possibly expanded the definition of a Levite. And it could be argued that the system David established effectively made all Levites able to serve as priests, whereas this was not at all the teaching of the Mosaic law; see on 1 Chron. 23:31.
</p>


text:
<p>There are also workmen with you in abundance, cutters and workers of stone and timber, and all kinds of men who are skilful in every kind of work- </p><p>Solomon however didn’t begin the work until after David’s death. David had prepared the workmen at this stage but it seems they were not used, and so when Solomon began the work, he had to seek such workmen again (<a href='B:140 2:7'>2Ch 2:7</a>).</p>


text:
<p>of the gold, silver, brass and iron, there is no number. Arise and be doing, and may Yahweh be with you- </p><p>David makes no reference to how these things were to happen when he slept with his fathers (<a href='B:100 7:12'>2Sa 7:12</a>). Rather does he tell Solomon to get on and begin the building work immediately, now he had the commission. "Arise and be doing" is quoted in <a href='B:150 10:4'>Ezr 10:4</a> about the work of the restoration of the temple.</p>


text:
<p>David also commanded all the princes of Israel to help Solomon his son, saying- </p><p>This again sounds like David was asking them to give Solomon their immediate and instant support. David makes no reference to how these things were to happen when he slept with his fathers (<a href='B:100 7:12'>2Sa 7:12</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Isn’t Yahweh your God with you? Hasn’t He given you rest on every side? For He has delivered the inhabitants of the land into my hand; and the land is subdued before Yahweh and before His people- </p><p>David "subdued" the nations, using the word often used of the command to subdue the nations of Canaan (<a href='B:40 32:22'>Num 32:22</a>; <a href='B:40 32:29'>Num 32:29</a>; <a href='B:60 18:1'>Jos 18:1</a>). He is presented as a second Joshua, subduing the land as it ought to have been subdued, and therefore becoming what Adam ought to have been in Eden (<a href='B:10 1:28'>Gen 1:28</a> s:w:). This is another indication that the garden of Eden was effectively the eretz or land promised to Abraham.</p><p>However, David’s presentation of himself and his kingdom being at peace is hardly accurate. He suffered rebellions, revolution, putsch and betrayal right to his death bed, where with his last breath he has to try to put down Adonijah's power grab, and he just about lived to see lifelong supporters like Joab turn against him politically in his closing days. He has in his mind the idea that peace is required for the temple to be built, and so he assumes that situation has now come. Such was his obsession and desire to see things coming true.</p>


text:
<p>Now set your heart and your soul to seek after Yahweh your God. Arise therefore, and build the sanctuary of Yahweh God, to bring the ark of the covenant of Yahweh, and the holy vessels of God, into the house that is to be built to the name of Yahweh- </p><p>Indeed it is the state of the human heart which is critical. But David wrongly sees the natural outcome of a heart focused upon Yahweh as wanting to build the temple. Although God had forbidden it. God had clearly stated that the ark was where He wanted it- in a tent, behind curtains. And He did not want a brick house around it. And yet David urges people to enable the very opposite- to build a sanctuary in terms of a physical building, and to place the ark within it. The whole land was seen by God as a sanctuary / holy place s:w. <a href='B:20 15:17'>Exo 15:17</a>). "Let them make Me a sanctuary" (<a href='B:20 25:8'>Exo 25:8</a>) uses a very general word for making / doing, whereas&nbsp; David is trying to localize and define the sanctuary / holy place and is implying God had no such holy place- until it had been built according to his plans. The Kohathites are described as carrying "the sanctuary" (s:w:, <a href='B:40 10:21'>Num 10:21</a>); it was the ark which was the essential sanctuary or holy place. But David speaks about the building he proposed around that ark as being the sanctuary. And so form had replaced content, the external the internal, as so often happens when the pole of religion overtakes that of spirituality.</p>


text:
<p>Now David was old and full of days; and he made Solomon his son king over Israel-</p><p>The very language used of the death of the patriarchs, as if to show that David was directly their seed, and also in spirit. "Full of days" rather than full of years could mean that his days had been filled with significance, rather than living the same day over and over year after year. The term is clearly not the same as just meaning "old".</p>


text:
<p>He gathered together all the princes of Israel, with the priests and the Levites-</p><p>We now have four chapters describing the Levites, the 24 orders of priests and singers, and the divisions of the gatekeepers / porters. David’s idea was that the Levites were to be divided up to do tasks and hold offices according to the various families which are listed in these chapters. They are effectively genealogies, and the idea was that the descendants of those families were to have specific roles. This was a level of division of labour which was not found in the law of Moses.</p>


text:
<p>The Levites were numbered from thirty years old and over: and their number by their polls, man by man, was thirty-eight thousand-</p><p>Joab had refused to do this earlier, although he was specifically counting the Levite soldiers, whereas this was a general census of Levites available for religious service (<a href='B:130 21:3-6'>1Ch 21:3-6</a>). David numbered the Levites from 30 years old (<a href='B:130 23:3'>1Ch 23:3</a>), in accordance with the law which said Levites were to serve between the ages of 30 and 50 (<a href='B:40 4:3'>Num 4:3</a>; <a href='B:40 4:23'>Num 4:23</a>; <a href='B:40 4:35'>Num 4:35</a>; <a href='B:40 4:39'>Num 4:39</a>). But in <a href='B:130 23:24'>1Ch 23:24</a> we are told that David numbered the Levites from 20 years old. We note in <a href='B:40 8:23'>Num 8:23</a> that there appeared some flexibility within the Mosaic law; the Levites could be numbered from 25 years old. This is one of many examples of how the Mosaic law was not set in stone. It was principle and spirit rather than letter of the law, and within it there are examples of where one law overrode another, or one principle overrode letter of the law. The law was not designed as a simple test of obedience, for it was far more detailed than that. It was designed to inculcate a spirit of living which looked forward to the spirit of the Lord Jesus. And so David felt free to number the Levites from 20 years old, even though we also read that he numbered 'the Levites from 30 years old', suggesting that this was a technical term rather than a literal description. This would go toward explaining why 38,000 Levites were numbered by David in <a href='B:130 23:3'>1Ch 23:3</a>, although "thousand" may mean a division rather than a literal 1000. At the time of <a href='B:40 4:47-48'>Num 4:47-48</a> there were only 8,580. And Levite males from a month old were 22,000 in Num. 3:39 and 23,000 at the time of <a href='B:40 26:62'>Num 26:62</a>. This suggests a great increase in the number of Levites by David’s time; or perhaps he more generously counted who was a Levite, because he wanted to have as many as possible involved in his grandiose plans for the temple services. There was no need for such large numbers of Levites in order to serve God effectively, for there were far fewer Levites at the time of the figures given in the book of Numbers, and the sanctuary and Divine service still continued.</p><p>The fact David initially counted the Levites from 30 and then later reduced the age to 20 (1 Chron. 23:24) suggests that progressively, he was obsessed with numbers, wanting to have as many as possible serving his narrative about the temple.</p>


text:
<p>David said, Of these, twenty-four thousand are to oversee the work of the house of Yahweh; six thousand are to be officers and judges- </p><p>"Thousand" can not be a literal 1000 but rather a division. These 24 divisions may connect with the 24 orders of singers in 1 Chronicles 25. Solomon taught that if the ants can be so zealous, well why can’t the ecclesia of God be zealous [for it was ‘believers’ that he was teaching]. The ants scurry around, working as if there is no tomorrow, to build up something so precarious that is in any case so tragically short lived. Can’t we be yet more zealous, with a like loving co-operation, building the eternal things that we are (<a href='B:240 6:6-7'>Pro 6:6-7</a>)? And Solomon pressed the point further, in that ants are self-motivated; they need no “guide, overseer or ruler”. This was surely a reference to the complex system of overseers which Solomon had to place over Israel in order to build the temple and build up the Kingdom. The same Hebrew word for “overseer” is found in <a href='B:130 23:4'>1Ch 23:4</a>; <a href='B:130 26:29'>1Ch 26:29</a>:&nbsp; Yet ideally, he seems to be saying, every Israelite ought to be a zealous worker. <a href='B:240 12:24'>Pro 12:24</a> says the same: “The hand of the diligent [whoever he / she is] shall bear rule [in practice]” [s:w. <a href='B:240 6:7'>Pro 6:7</a> “ruler”]. And we must ask ourselves, whether for whatever reason the new Israel hasn’t slumped into the same problem, of lack of self-motivation, waiting to be asked to do something before we do it, over-relying upon our “overseers”. The ants aren’t like this. They see the job to be done, and naturally get on with it.</p>


text:
<p>four thousand are to be doorkeepers; and four thousand are to praise Yahweh with the instruments which I made for giving praise- </p><p>"Thousand" here may not be literally 1000, but may be a technical term for a division of people, similar to the "divisions" of :6. The "doorkeepers" were literally, the openers or dividers of the gates. The word is also translated "porters". To have so many suggests David envisaged his future temple as having many gates which were to be guarded. The instruments "made" can simply mean 'appointed', although note <a href='B:370 6:5'>Amo 6:5</a>, which implies David did indeed make the instruments. It all seems however rather narcissistic, the fantasy of an old man, all about himself and how he dreamed of things becoming in this temple complex .</p><p>The temple building was not that large. 4000 doorkeepers is another example of grandiose dreaming, reflecting how David's self narrative for the temple had spun out of control.</p>


text:
<p>David divided them into divisions according to the sons of Levi: Gershon, Kohath, and Merari- </p><p>I suggested on 1 Chronicles 22 that David arranged for everything to be ready for the temple to be built even during his lifetime, and urged Solomon and the princes of Israel to get on with it immediately, whilst he was still alive. Solomon however didn’t begin the work until after David’s death. David had prepared the workmen at this stage but it seems they were not used, and so when Solomon began the work, he had to seek such workmen again (<a href='B:130 22:15'>1Ch 22:15</a> cp. <a href='B:140 2:7'>2Ch 2:7</a>). And likewise it seems David had even prepared the Levites in great detail to actually start officiating in the new building. But it seems likely that all his careful plans regarding all the intended individuals weren't quite used by Solomon, or at least not for some time, by which time some of the individuals may have died. Solomon obeyed the general pattern, however (<a href='B:140 8:14'>2Ch 8:14</a>; <a href='B:140 29:25'>2Ch 29:25</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Of the Gershonites: Ladan and Shimei- </p><p>The idea was that those in David’s time who were from these branches of the Gershonites were to serve in the new temple complex he had planned.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Ladan: Jehiel the chief, Zetham and Joel, three- </p><p>Zethan and Joel were grandsons (<a href='B:130 26:22'>1Ch 26:22</a>), but "son of..." is a Hebrew phrase with very elastic meaning.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Shimei: Shelomoth, Haziel and Haran, three. These were the heads of the fathers’ households of Ladan- </p><p>As this Shimei was from Ladan, he is not the Shimei of :7 but some other descendant of Ladan. The Shimei of :10 is that of :7.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Shimei: Jahath, Zina, Jeush and Beriah. These four were the sons of Shimei- </p><p>This is the Shimei of :7, not the one of :9.</p>


text:
<p>Jahath was the chief, and Zizah the second: but Jeush and Beriah didn’t have many sons; therefore they combined to become a father’s house- </p><p>Heb. 'in one reckoning' or 'office' (:18). The descendants of these branches of the family were to have the same 'office' in David’s planned temple. This could imply that all the other 'father’s houses' also had a specific 'office' planned for them by David. He certainly made very detailed plans, to the point of obsession.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Kohath: Amram, Izhar, Hebron, and Uzziel, four- </p><p>"Gershon" can mean 'expelled', maybe meaning that like Reuben he was expelled from the role of firstborn [he is mentioned first as if he was the firstborn]. This is a theme of the Genesis record. But perhaps because of these weaknesses, the line to the high priest ran through Kohath.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Amram: Aaron and Moses; and Aaron was sanctified, that he should sanctify the most holy things, he and his sons, forever, to burn incense before Yahweh, to minister to Him, and to bless in His name, forever- </p><p>This is alluded to by the Lord in <a href='B:500 17:17'>Joh 17:17</a>: "Sanctify them in the truth. Your word is truth". The reference is to how the Levites were sanctified. The Levites were initially consecrated in God’s eyes by their zeal to rid Israel of apostacy; this is what constituted them Yahweh's "holy (sanctified) one" (<a href='B:50 33:8-9'>Deu 33:8-9</a>). They sanctified themselves to God, and He sanctified them. Through His allusions to this, the Lord was telling the disciples not to be frightened to stand alone from the Israelite community they knew; for it was deeply apostate. So often, the Lord is speaking of the development of a new Israel, with new Rabbis and Levites taken from the ranks of very ordinary and dysfunctional people who had believed in Him.</p>


text:
<p>But as for Moses the man of God, his sons were named among the tribe of Levi- </p><p>The sense is that the sons of Moses were not priests, but Levites, general servants of the priests. This was purposeful, because Moses was also descended from Amram and Kohath. His sons could have been priests, but God specifically didn’t want any cult of pride or personality developing around the descendants of Moses, who was Israel's greatest leader. Perhaps the legendary meekness of Moses led he himself to insist upon this. He thereby showed his appreciation of servant leadership.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Moses: Gershom and Eliezer- </p><p>In reading the genealogies we must be aware that people often had more than one name. They were given a birth name, reflecting their parents' hopes or situation at the time of the birth; and then later acquired a name which reflected their character and life experience. Some retained their birth name; "Gershom" was named by Moses in reflection of how he had been a stranger in a strange land. And his son apparently retained that name, as it would have also fitted his own life experience.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Gershom: Shebuel the chief- </p><p>"Shebuel", 'returned of God', would be an appropriate name for a child born in the wilderness who entered Canaan.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Eliezer were: Rehabiah the chief. Eliezer had no other sons; but the sons of Rehabiah were very many- </p><p>We note from <a href='B:130 23:15-17'>1Ch 23:15-17</a> that there were descendants of Moses through Gershom and Eliezer in Israel at David’s time, who could demonstrate their pedigree. They were given designated roles of service within David’s plans for the new temple system; which is why they are mentioned in 1 Chronicles 23. So we can deduce from this that they did not remain in Midian but identified themselves with Israel. It seems that the marriage of Moses and Zipporah broke up, and she returned to her father in Midian with the two boys. But Jethro brought them all back to Moses (<a href='B:20 18:2-4'>Exo 18:2-4</a>). He advises Moses not to work so hard and to delegate more- perhaps in order to have more time for his wife and family. Moses agrees, and then Jethro returns home alone (<a href='B:20 18:27'>Exo 18:27</a>), the implication being that Zipporah and the boys now remained with Moses.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Izhar: Shelomith the chief- </p><p>Six family groups emerged from Amram but only one from Izhar. This could have been because of lack of commitment to their priestly calling; or quite simply the genealogical records were lacking:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Hebron: Jeriah the chief, Amariah the second, Jahaziel the third, and Jekameam the fourth- </p><p>These would have all been born in Egypt, and it is noteworthy that they all retain the Yahweh Name somewhere in their names. For it seems Israel generally turned away tot he gods of Egypt at that time, taking the gods of Egypt with them through the Red Sea (Ezekiel 20).</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Uzziel: Micah the chief, and Isshiah the second-</p><p>Micah, 'who is like Yah?', was an appropriate name for a child born in a faithful family whilst Israel was in Egypt, surrounded by false gods which they largely accepted.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Merari: Mahli and Mushi. The sons of Mahli: Eleazar and Kish- </p><p>"Mahli" and "Mushi" mean 'sickly' and 'sensitive' respectively:&nbsp; This confirms the suggestion I have often made, that names were given in response to later character and life experience. Sometimes in these genealogies we read the birth names, at others, the names they were given later in life. And therefore the same person can have more than one name.</p>


text:
<p>Eleazar died, and had no sons, but daughters only; and their brothers the sons of Kish took them as wives- </p><p>The levirate law of <a href='B:40 36:5-12'>Num 36:5-12</a> was that a man should marry his relative's widow to raise up children to keep the inheritance through in dead man's name. But the Levites had no inheritance. So they were obeying the spirit rather than the letter of the law. To take extra wives and have extra children was a financial burden, so they did this in obedience to the spirit of the law and respect for Eleazar. And that is recorded and remembered in the record to this day. See on :23 for another example.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Mushi: Mahli, and Eder, and Jeremoth, three- </p><p>Mushi has a son who has the same name as his brother, Mahli (:21); which meant 'sickly', so perhaps he died, and he raised up a son in his brother's name, seeing that Mahli's young son Eleazar died childless (<a href='B:130 24:28'>1Ch 24:28</a>). This may be as in the spirit of :22 (see note there).</p>


text:
<p>These were the sons of Levi after their fathers’ houses, even the heads of the fathers’ houses of those who were counted individually, in the number of names by their polls, who did the work for the service of the house of Yahweh, from twenty years old and over- </p><p>For the difference with :3 where they were apparently numbered from 30 years old, see on :3. David was trying to increase the numbers of Levites, failing utterly to learn the lesson about not numbering Israel and not trusting in numbers. He now reduces the age Levites can serve, from 30 to 20. And the upper limit of 50 is apparently just ignored by David now. He dies obsessed with numbers and human strength, unilaterally deciding to change and ignore God's laws. </p>


text:
<p>For David said, Yahweh, the God of Israel, has given rest to His people; and He dwells in Jerusalem forever- </p><p>David had in his mind that he couldn't build the temple because he had been a man of war. But he wanted Solomon to build the temple, in his name, to get around God’s prohibition of David building it. But this was all in David’s mind. God’s reasons for not wanting a temple were nothing to do with David’s personal history. And so in line with this twisted thinking, David wishes to present Israel as being at rest. Even though the nation was in turmoil and David faced a putsch from his son Adonijah even on his deathbed. He also overlooks the conditional nature of God’s promise to dwell "forever" in Jerusalem; as well as the fact God had said that instead of dwelling in a physical place, He would dwell in the hearts of His people, David’s "house".</p>


text:
<p>Also the Levites will no longer need to carry the tabernacle and all its vessels for its service- </p><p>David was enthralled with the idea that the tabernacle would now not be carried but would have a permanent place. But this was at variance with God’s explanation to him of why He didn’t want such a permanent place; He was a God on a journey, as He always had been, mobile and forging forward. But David’s religious pole quite blinded him to the spiritual pole of perceiving the dynamic nature of God. And we see that tendency in all His people.</p>


text:
<p>For by the last words of David the sons of Levi were numbered, from twenty years old and over- </p><p>This could be a different numbering from that of :3, which counted them from 30 years old. But see note there. Perhaps David was desperate to show he had an ever larger number of Levites, whom he could use in his various plans [fantasies?] for the new temple system. Even though the sanctuary had operated quite fine with a fraction of the numbers he was now claiming.</p><p>David's last words were in fact of disobedience in that he ordered the Levites to be numbered for service from 20 years old, when the law stated from 30 years old. He died obsessed with the need for numbers, for human strength, refusing to learn the lesson from his earlier recent disastrous numbering of Israel. His repentance at that time wasn't maintained until his final death, just as his forgiveness of Shimei wasn't. Perhaps this is the force of the note that these were his "last ordinances".</p>


text:
<p>Their ministry was to wait on the sons of Aaron for the service of the house of Yahweh, in the courts, and in the rooms, and in the purifying of all holy things, even the work of the service of God’s house- </p><p>See on :31. "Their ministry was to wait on the sons of Aaron for the service of the house of Yahweh" is strictly "was to be at the side of the sons of Aaron", as if all Levites were being elevated to the level of priests, equal with them. The translators have generally shied away from this.  The number of Levites David claims as available for service was out of proportion to the number of priests. The whole scale of the new temple system was quite beyond the more humble set up of the tabernacle, which God’s law had established. The danger was that the priests were elevated to a high position, effectively having thousands of servants, which was beyond what the law of Moses envisaged. The priests were to teach the people, but there is little evidence this happened in Solomon's temple. The focus was all upon offering far more sacrifices and doing far more rituals than the law of Moses stipulated. And David should have remembered the lesson taught through his sin with Bathsheba and his wilderness years away from the sanctuary- that sacrifice and offering were not really what God was looking for, but rather contrite hearts (<a href='B:230 40:6-7'>Psa 40:6-7</a>). And Solomon therefore totally failed to understand this.</p>


text:
<p>for the showbread also, and for the fine flour for a meal offering, whether of unleavened wafers, or of that which is baked in the pan, or of that which is soaked, and for all kinds of measure and size- </p><p>These things were all required under the law of Moses, but David envisaged setting up thousands of Levites and priests to offer them in the temple- rather than being out in the provinces, teaching the people. He clearly thought God would be better served by offering the required offerings but on a far grander scale- rather than teaching simple village folks about God’s ways. We sense that David rather lost his spirituality at the end of his life, although he still died in faith.</p>


text:
<p>And to stand every morning to thank and praise Yahweh, and likewise in the evening- </p><p>These regular offerings would have been made by just a fraction of the number of Levites and priests which David now had in mind. So he presumably wanted to bring in all this extra labour to the temple because he imagined huge numbers of offerings being made, far beyond those required by the law.</p>


text:
<p>and to offer all burnt offerings to Yahweh, on the Sabbaths, on the new moons, and on the set feasts, in number according to the ordinance concerning them, continually before Yahweh- </p><p>"In number..." is misleading, because I have suggested above that the greater number of Levites and priests brought in to the temple was because David envisaged offering far greater numbers of sacrifices than stipulated. And Solomon began the temple dedication with huge numbers of offerings. The sense is rather as GNB "Rules were made specifying the number of Levites assigned to do this work each time".</p><p>
"To offer all burnt offerings" raises the possibility that the Levites were now being allowed by David to act as priests. His own self created narrative of a huge temple system led him to reduce the service age of the Levites to 20 from 30 (1 Chron. 23:24). And now he reduces the qualification for priestly service- he allows any Levite to do priestly work. Whereas under the law of Moses, all priests were Levites but not all Levites were priests. "Their ministry was to wait on the sons of Aaron for the service of the house of Yahweh"(:28) is strictly "was to be at the side of the sons of Aaron", as if all Levites were being elevated to the level of priests, equal with them. The translators have generally shied away from this. </p><p>
In :32, the Levites generally are told to "keep watch on the sanctuary", but this was specifically for the Kohathite priests to do (Num. 18:5). But David is now declaring, unilaterally and without any Divine word, that any Levite can do this. His splitting up of the temple duties, described in detail in Chronicles, do not specify which duties should be done by the Kohathites, Merarites and Gershonites. He overlooks that entirely. David had been taught in the incident of Uzzah that Divine commandment about who did priestly service was to be taken seriously. And he apparently repented and did things properly at the time. But now he throws all that Divine teaching to the winds... he who boasted of how he loved God's law and studied it all the day and hated his disobediences to it. This is what happens when narratives become so dominant in religious people. We think of William Golding's novel "The Spire", where the bishop becomes obsessed with building a huge spire, subconsciously understanding it as a phallic symbol. The same is happening here with David. </p><p>
It is clear from the usage of Persian terms like "Darics" that Chronicles was written or rewritten during the captivity to encourage the exiles to return and accept a Davidic Messiah, and reestablish his kingdom and temple. But the commands and laws in Ez. 40-48 about the temple are in many points at variance with the system of worship set up by David and described in such detail in Chronicles. Surely that is an implied criticism of David's system.
</p>


text:
<p>and that they should keep the duty of the Tent of Meeting, and the duty of the holy place, and the duty of the sons of Aaron their brothers, for the service of the house of Yahweh- </p><p>See on :31. The allusion is to the commands about the Levites assisting the priests in <a href='B:40 18:2-7'>Num 18:2-7</a>. But those commands repeatedly state that they were to assist in "the service of the tent" (LXX), or tabernacle. But David purposefully replaces "tent" with "house". And that is exactly out of step with God’s reasons for not wanting a temple. He wanted a tent, and not a house. David was really obsessed with his own vision, rather than faith in the grace offered to him in the promise to build him a house of redeemed people.</p>


text:
<p>These were the divisions of the sons of Aaron. The sons of Aaron: Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar-</p><p>This continues the major Biblical theme, that the firstborn is often not used by God and is replaced. This is His style, to exalt the under dogs.</p><p>1 Chron. 24:4 describes David carefully dividing up the priests according to their numbers, how many to each course etc. Again the impression is of a man obsessed with numbers. Or again in 1 Chron. 25:1 "The number of them that did the work was...", and the number of Heman's sons is noted as being 14 in 1 Chron. 25:5 and the whole of 1 Chron. 25 carefully records exact numbers... "The number of them was 288" (1 Chron. 25:7) etc. The exact numbers were clearly important to David as he was counting carefully. </p><p>
The Levites who were numbered are called "valiant men" (1 Chron. 26:8), the same term used of how David had wrongly numbered the valiant men of Israel in 2 Sam. 24. He is repeating the same mistake which at the time he had repented of. 1 Chron. 27:1-15 lists the leaders of the military divisions David established, with 24000 different men serving every month. Clearly this was yet another attempt to in essence number Israel militarily. David in 1 Chron. 27:23 claims to have learnt from the mistake Joab made when numbering all Israel... But the error was clearly David's and Joab tried to stop him. David is rewriting even a recent narrative to exonerate himself, when at the time he took some responsibility, arguing with God that the sheep were innocent and only he was guilty. Then in 1 Chron. 28:1 we read David had appointed captains over hundreds and over thousands. This was another way of numbering Israel. Not to the last man, as he had attempted to earlier, but good enough so as to have an accurate rough idea of his numbers. He was repeating the essence of his sin... David also appointed officers over his donkeys, his fields, olive trees etc. This was another way of taking an account of his total wealth. And he does it in the last year of his life, probably in the last months. He is totally obsessed with counting his human strength even when he is facing his own death. So many men have done the same, rather than focusing on the things of God's future Kingdom and His Son. Yet still David will be saved... </p><p>
And yet in 1 Chron. 28:9 David rightly says that God searches or seeks for every human heart and he has much to say about the need foe the right heart in 1 Chron. 29. He had searched and found David's heart. In the midst of all David's unspiritual numbering, he still had a heart for God. And that was what saved him. Yet right after saying that he tells Solomon to "be strong" and build the temple, wrongly speaking of spiritual strength as doing something which God had not commanded and was opposite to His stated plan. This is a classic example of religious men urging that fulfilling their wrong narrative is in fact spiritual strength. "Strong in the truth" is a phrase that has so often been mispurposed. 1 Chron. 28:12 says David claimed the Spirit had given him a plan to build treasuries for the wealth of the temple. But God despises human wealth... The David who had once been a poor man who despised wealth ends his days demanding that all the gold and silver temple vessels be weighed, even the weight of the lamps separate from the candlesticks (1 Chron. 28:15 etc.). There is no such commandment in the law of Moses. He again is obsessed with numbers and miserably failed to learn the lesson of not numbering Israel. And all this was done by him in his last few months of life, as bizarre as the wealthy man dying in a hospice who is obsessed with counting up his wealth... </p>


text:
<p>But Nadab and Abihu died before their father, and had no children; therefore Eleazar and Ithamar executed the priest’s office- </p><p>Despite having gone up Sinai and witnessing the theophany of <a href='B:20 24:9'>Exo 24:9</a>, their desire to 'play God' for personal power had been stronger than their awe at God’s presence and majesty. Visible acts of God are often desired by His servants, but they do not of themselves inculcate spirituality. The language here clearly alludes to <a href='B:40 3:4'>Num 3:4</a>: "Nadab and Abihu died before Yahweh... and they had no children". But "Before Yahweh" is replaced with "before their father". Aaron was the manifestation of Yahweh and is thus spoken of as Him, just as the Lord Jesus can be spoken of likewise. The other references to their death repeatedly speak of it as being 'before Yahweh'. Why does Chronicles alone imply that Aaron was present with them when they made the offering? Perhaps it is to highlight the weakness of Aaron and indeed of the whole priesthood; for these genealogies were likely prepared whilst Judah were in captivity and the priesthood no longer functioned because of their sins.</p><p>"And had no children" may not be intended literally. The genealogy is speaking of the Levites who did Divine service, and the idea is that their children did not serve God. And so we see His perspective on family life over the generations of history- if our children don't enter into His service, it's as if we had no children.</p>


text:
<p>David with Zadok of the sons of Eleazar, and Ahimelech of the sons of Ithamar, divided them according to their ordering in their service- </p><p>"According to their duties" (GNB). We are the new priesthood; each of us have specific duties or ministries intended for us. Man is never better than when he perceives his calling before God, and does it. Pray earnestly that you will realize what were the good works before ordained for you to do (<a href='B:560 2:10'>Eph 2:10</a>).</p>


text:
<p>There were more chief men found of the sons of Eleazar than of the sons of Ithamar. They were divided like this: of the sons of Eleazar there were sixteen, heads of fathers’ houses; and of the sons of Ithamar, according to their fathers’ houses, eight- </p><p>We must remember that we are reading here of how David wished to divide up the descendants of these family groups, so that they could perform certain duties in the new temple system he was planning. "There were... found" would therefore refer to how at his time, there were found more of Eleazar than Ithamar. Perhaps not all were willing to participate in his grandiose plans, or maybe simply the genealogical records had been lost for some:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Thus were they divided impartially by drawing lots; for there were princes of the sanctuary, and princes of God, both of the sons of Eleazar, and of the sons of Ithamar- </p><p>This may be one of several places in the Old Testament where the lines of Judah and Levi overlapped, so that these men were in fact king-priests. This is what we are designated in <a href='B:730 5:10'>Rev 5:10</a>. The Lord Jesus, although directly in the line of Judah, was likewise a king-priest. These historical points of overlap between the two tribes were surely to psychologically prepare the people for the coming of their king-priest Messiah. Our sensitive Father likewise seeks to prepare the way for us to accept things.</p>


text:
<p>Shemaiah the son of Nethanel the scribe, who was of the Levites, wrote them in the presence of the king, and the princes, and Zadok the priest, and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar, and the heads of the fathers’ households of the priests and of the Levites; one father’s house being taken for Eleazar, and one taken for Ithamar-</p><p>"The king" is David. He took this division of the Levites very seriously, because his planned grandiose temple system required a huge amount of labour. "The alternate drawing here described could have lasted only for the first sixteen lots; in the last eight drawings the descendants of Eleazar must have drawn against each other only".</p>


text:
<p>Now the first lot came forth to Jehoiarib, the second to Jedaiah- </p><p>According to <a href='B:150 2:37'>Ezr 2:37</a>, only four courses of priests returned from exile, when there were supposed to be 24 of them, namely Pashhur, Jedaiah, Immer, and Hardin (<a href='B:130 24:7-8'>1Ch 24:7-8</a>; <a href='B:130 24:14'>1Ch 24:14</a>). The priesthood had been deeply corrupt at the time of the exile, and it seems most of them preferred to remain in Babylon.</p><p>Joiarib was drawn to serve first in <a href='B:130 24:7'>1Ch 24:7</a>, but presumably the lots came out differently when they were drawn at the restoration, and in <a href='B:160 12:6'>Neh 12:6</a> he was drawn 17th out of 22 orders.</p>


text:
<p>the third to Harim, the fourth to Seorim- </p><p>The planned temple system required much labour, it was a glorification of works rather than faith, and so the Levites had to come and serve there for a certain amount of time each year. And the various jobs to be done likewise had to be split up. So there was a system of lots to arrange these things.</p>


text:
<p>the fifth to Malchijah, the sixth to Mijamin- </p><p>"Malchijah", 'Yah is king', was the name of 10 separate Israelites. It reflected an awareness amongst the faithful that the human system of kingship was not at all what God really wanted, and Yahweh was Israel's true king. As the generations went by, it would have been hard to retain this awareness; although it was revived by the removal of the royal line of kings at the exile.</p>


text:
<p>the seventh to Hakkoz, the eighth to Abijah- </p><p>From whence came Zacharias, father of John the Baptist (<a href='B:490 1:5'>Luk 1:5</a>). If the temple records of the genealogies drawn up by David (:6) were destroyed when Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians, then what we are reading here in Chronicles may have been an inspired replacement for them, and it was clearly in usage in the time of Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>the ninth to Jeshua, the tenth to Shecaniah- </p><p>In <a href='B:160 10:4'>Neh 10:4</a>; <a href='B:160 12:14'>Neh 12:14</a> “Shebaniah”. It is easy in written Hebrew to confuse B and C, so we have here an example of where there may have been slight copying errors in the Divinely inspired text.</p>


text:
<p>the eleventh to Eliashib, the twelfth to Jakim- </p><p>'God will restore' and 'God will raise up', names appropriate to the restoration.</p>


text:
<p>the thirteenth to Huppah, the fourteenth to Jeshebeab- </p><p>These names are completely secular in meaning, and are a tacit reflection of the fact that the priesthood and Levitical service was largely seen as a merely secular job for much of Israel's history. The nation's apostacy can largely be blamed upon the spiritual failure of the priesthood in practice.</p>


text:
<p>the fifteenth to Bilgah, the sixteenth to Immer- </p><p>The descendants of Bilgah were some of the few faithful priests who returned at the time of <a href='B:160 10:8'>Neh 10:8</a>; <a href='B:160 12:5'>Neh 12:5</a>.</p>


text:
<p>the seventeenth to Hezir, the eighteenth to Happizzez- </p><p>AV "Aphses", an Egyptian name, hinting (as noted on :13) at the corruption of the priesthood.</p>


text:
<p>the nineteenth to Pethahiah, the twentieth to Jehezkel-</p><p>Or "Ezekiel". Perhaps these names of the orders were later changed when David’s list was rewritten at the time of the restoration, to reflect faithful characters like Ezekiel.</p>


text:
<p>the twenty-first to Jachin, the twenty-second to Gamul- </p><p>"Gamul" means 'weaned' (s:w. <a href='B:10 21:8'>Gen 21:8</a>). This was the name given at birth, and in this case it stuck. It confirms the suggestion I have often made, that sometimes in these genealogies we read the birth names, at others, the names they were given later in life. And therefore the same person can have more than one name.</p>


text:
<p>the twenty-third to Delaiah, the twenty-fourth to Maaziah- </p><p>'Yah has delivered' and 'Yah has rescued / saved', names appropriate to the restoration.</p>


text:
<p>This was their ordering in their service, to come into the house of Yahweh according to the ordinance given to them by Aaron their father, as Yahweh, the God of Israel, had commanded him- </p><p>It is not defined here for how long each order of priests served. <a href='B:120 11:9'>2Ki 11:9</a> speaks of the priests 'coming in' and going out on the Sabbath, as if they served for a week at a time; Josephus supports this (Antiquities 7:14:7). Yet if there were 24 lots, perhaps they served for just over 2 weeks each. But the lots may also have been drawn with respect to what work they did, not only what time of the year they came to the temple to work.</p>


text:
<p>Of the rest of the sons of Levi: of the sons of Amram, Shubael; of the sons of Shubael, Jehdeiah- </p><p>Having listed the priests, we now read of the other Levites who were to support them in their work, although not themselves being priests. In 1 Chronicles 25 we have listed the musicians, in <a href='B:130 26:1-19'>1Ch 26:1-19</a> the doorkeepers, and in <a href='B:130 26:20-32'>1Ch 26:20-32</a> the scribes and guards of the treasures.</p>


text:
<p>Of Rehabiah: of the sons of Rehabiah, Isshiah the chief- </p><p>"Isshiah", 'lent to Yah', was perhaps named after the influence of Hannah (who was not a Levite), who considered her giving of Samuel to the Levitical ministry as a lending of him to Yahweh (<a href='B:90 1:28'>1Sa 1:28</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Of the Izharites, Shelomoth; of the sons of Shelomoth, Jahath- </p><p>The four families arising from Kohath are listed in order, Amram (:20), Izhar (:22), Hebron (:23) and Uzziel (:24).</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Hebron: Jeriah, Amariah the second, Jahaziel the third, Jekameam the fourth- </p><p>I discussed on :13,15 how and why some of the names in this list are completely secular. But these all have the name of God in them.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Uzziel, Micah; of the sons of Micah, Shamir- </p><p>Micah, 'who is like Yah?', was an appropriate name for a child born in a faithful family whilst Israel was in Egypt, surrounded by false gods which they largely accepted.</p>


text:
<p>The brother of Micah, Isshiah; of the sons of Isshiah, Zechariah- </p><p>"Isshiah", 'lent to Yah', was perhaps named after the influence of Hannah (who was not a Levite), who considered her giving of Samuel to the Levitical ministry as a lending of him to Yahweh (<a href='B:90 1:28'>1Sa 1:28</a>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Merari: Mahli and Mushi. The sons of Jaaziah: Beno- </p><p>"Mahli" and "Mushi" mean 'sickly' and 'sensitive' respectively:&nbsp; This confirms the suggestion I have often made, that names were given in response to later character and life experience. Sometimes in these genealogies we read the birth names, at others, the names they were given later in life. And therefore the same person can have more than one name.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Merari: of Jaaziah, Beno, and Shoham, and Zaccur, and Ibri- </p><p>"Merari" means "bitter"; from these rather unpromising beginnings were to arise those who gave their lives to the service of God and His people. And we see similar transformation in the lives of so many.</p>


text:
<p>Of Mahli: Eleazar, who had no sons- </p><p><a href='B:130 23:23'>1Ch 23:23</a> says that Mushi, brother of Mahli, had a son who has the same name as his brother, Mahli (<a href='B:130 23:21'>1Ch 23:21</a>); which meant 'sickly', so perhaps he died, and he raised up a son in his brother's name, seeing that Mahli's young son Eleazar died childless (<a href='B:130 24:28'>1Ch 24:28</a>). This may be as in the spirit of <a href='B:130 23:22'>1Ch 23:22</a> (see note there). We marvel at how the huge amount of data given in these lists contains no contradictions; which would only be possible in a Divinely inspired account.</p>


text:
<p>Of Kish; the sons of Kish: Jerahmeel- </p><p>"Jerahmeel" means "God will be compassionate", and that was how Jerahmeel was, reflecting God’s compassion in hi own compassion. For we read in <a href='B:130 23:22'>1Ch 23:22</a> that "Eleazar died, and had no sons, but daughters only; and their brothers the sons of Kish took them as wives". The levirate law of <a href='B:40 36:5-12'>Num 36:5-12</a> was that a man should marry his relative's widow to raise up children to keep the inheritance through in dead man's name. But the Levites had no inheritance. So they were obeying the spirit rather than the letter of the law. To take extra wives and have extra children was a financial burden, so they did this in obedience to the spirit of the law and respect for Eleazar. And that is recorded and remembered in the record to this day.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Mushi: Mahli, and Eder, and Jerimoth. These were the sons of the Levites after their fathers’ houses-</p><p>Mushi seems to have had a son called "Mahli", the name of his brother, because the 'sickly' Mahli had died; see on :28.</p>


text:
<p>These likewise cast lots even as their brothers the sons of Aaron in the presence of David the king, and Zadok, and Ahimelech, and the heads of the fathers’ households of the priests and of the Levites; the fathers’ households of the chief even as those of his younger brother- </p><p>These lists have repeat the list of Levitical family groups found in <a href='B:130 23:6-23'>1Ch 23:6-23</a>, but omitting the Gershonites (<a href='B:130 23:6-11'>1Ch 23:6-11</a>). "Gershon" can mean 'expelled', maybe meaning that like Reuben he was expelled from the role of firstborn [he is mentioned first as if he was the firstborn]. This is a theme of the Genesis record. Perhaps because of these weaknesses, the line to the high priest ran through Kohath.</p>


text:
<p>Moreover, David and the captains of the army set apart for the service certain of the sons of Asaph, Heman and Jeduthun, who should prophesy with harps, stringed instruments and cymbals. The number of those who did the work according to their service was- </p><p>See on 1 Chron. 24:1. According to <a href='B:150 2:41'>Ezr 2:41</a>, of the singers, only 128 of the children of Asaph returned. This was very poor response. We note that apparently the famous singing families of Heman and Jeduthin didn’t return (<a href='B:130 25:1'>1Ch 25:1</a>). "Captains of the army" could be "captains of the host", referring to the chiefs of the various family groupings now listed, and not referring to military captains. See on :2.</p>


text:
<p>Of the sons of Asaph: Zaccur, Joseph, Nethaniah and Asharelah, the sons of Asaph, under the hand of Asaph, who prophesied after the order of the king- </p><p>'Prophecy' refers to speaking forth God’s word, not necessarily predicting the future. But it would seem great presumption on David’s part to arrange 'prophets' who would speak God’s word through the music they sung (:1). This would be after the pattern of <a href='B:90 10:5'>1Sa 10:5</a> and <a href='B:120 3:15'>2Ki 3:15</a>: "While the minstrel played, the hand of the Lord [i:e:, the spirit of prophecy] was upon him". Perhaps the idea was that they would only sing music which had been already given by Divine inspiration in the gift of prophecy. But now we read that they were to prophesy "after the order of" David. This could mean they would take it in order to prophesy according to the sequence or order which David had prepared. Or it could mean they would prophecy at David’s order, suggesting he imagined he would still be alive when this new temple system had been built by Solomon, thus getting around God’s order for him not to build it himself. Even if the "order" is the 'sequence', we are still left with an unpleasant tension between prophesy being from God’s instigation and initiative; and David considering that it was to be done according to his 'order', either the sequence he commanded, or his direct command. His spirituality is getting edged out by his evident love of religion.  Just as David ordered men to prophesy / speak forth God's word, so it seems he pretty well made up God's word in his own mind...</p>


text:
<p>Of Jeduthun; the sons of Jeduthun: Gedaliah, Zeri, Jeshaiah, Hashabiah and Mattithiah, six, under the hands of their father Jeduthun with the harp, who prophesied in giving thanks and praising Yahweh- </p><p>They were known for prophesying in their praise. As discussed on :2, this could mean that the Spirit came upon them, and the songs they sung were directly inspired by God. But as discussed on :2, it was therefore inappropriate to demand that they did so only at a specific place in the program David had created. That was effectively trying to constrain the Spirit of God.</p>


text:
<p>Of Heman; the sons of Heman: Bukkiah, Mattaniah, Uzziel, Shebuel, Jerimoth, Hananiah, Hanani, Eliathah, Giddalti, Romamti-Ezer, Joshbekashah, Mallothi, Hothir and Mahazioth- </p><p>The meanings of these names forms an appropriate sentence: "Have mercy upon me, O Lord, have mercy upon me; I have magnified and exalted Your help; I spake of it sitting in affliction; grant us still Your visions". This would have been so relevant to the situation at the restoration, and perhaps the Divinely inspired editor of that time arranged the list in this order.</p>


text:
<p>All these were the sons of Heman the king’s prophet of the words of God, to lift up the horn. God gave to Heman fourteen sons and three daughters- </p><p>This probably doesn't refer to the use of a literal horn in worship, but rather is it to be connected to the preceding reference to the gift of a large family to Heman. To life up the horn was a Hebraism for power and ability. Heman wanted to fulfill his calling, and God gave him a large and musically gifted family to enable him to do so.</p>


text:
<p>All these were under the hands of their father for the singing ministry in the house of Yahweh, with cymbals, stringed instruments and harps, for the service of God’s house: Asaph, Jeduthun, and Heman being under the order of the king- </p><p>This could mean they would take it in order to prophesy according to the sequence or order which David had prepared. Or it could mean they would prophecy at David’s order, suggesting he imagined he would still be alive when this new temple system had been built by Solomon, thus getting around God’s order for him not to build it himself. Even if the "order" is the 'sequence', we are still left with an unpleasant tension between prophesy being from God’s instigation and initiative; and David considering that it was to be done according to his 'order', either the sequence he commanded, or his direct command. His spirituality is getting edged out by his evident love of religion.</p>


text:
<p>The number of them, with their brothers who were instructed in singing to Yahweh, even all who were skilful, was two hundred and eighty-eight- </p><p>They were supposed to be prophets, receiving God’s word and expressing that divine input in the words they sung under the influence of prophesy. But here we read that they were singing "to Yahweh". It is the same confusion as when David wants to build God a house, but God replies by saying that He will build David a house.</p>


text:
<p>They cast lots for their offices, all alike, as well the small as the great, the teacher as the scholar- </p><p>These Levites were to support the 24 orders of priests listed in chapter 24. They weren't to chose which order they wanted to support or serve together with- that decision was taken by lot. Otherwise, the cliquey spirit which characterizes so many of God’s servants would have developed, and this is often the church's greatest disadvertisment.</p><p>The Hebrew could be "Lots for attendance", as if they were asked to come up from the provinces and serve at the temple at the times of year which the lot defined. But the lots could refer to the order in which they presented their music, which would require all to be present in Jerusalem all the time.</p>&nbsp;<p>Notice the stress on the equality of the priests and the studied irrelevance of their personal wealth (<a href='B:130 24:31'>1Ch 24:31</a>; <a href='B:130 25:8'>1Ch 25:8</a>; <a href='B:130 26:12'>1Ch 26:12</a>). The Law was geared around the assumption that the priests would be so caught up in Yahweh's work that they would never be rich (consider <a href='B:50 14:29'>Deu 14:29</a>), and the wonder of doing His work would compensate for their lack of physical possessions (<a href='B:40 18:23'>Num 18:23</a>). The early church began by having all things common, in imitation of&nbsp; how the priests had "like portions to eat" (<a href='B:50 18:8'>Deu 18:8</a>). Yet the early church couldn't sustain the intensity of their initial realization of these things.</p>


text:
<p>Now the first lot of Asaph came forth to Joseph: the second to Gedaliah, he and his brothers and sons were twelve- </p><p>There were a total of 4000 Levites envisioned as making music (<a href='B:130 23:5'>1Ch 23:5</a>), so these would have been split up amongst these 24 orders.</p>


text:
<p>the third to Zaccur, his sons and his brothers, twelve- </p><p>The record reads as if the lots were cast at David’s time. Yet this was before the temple had been built. But the scale of his grandiose plans for the temple required this huge number of Levites and singers. So we assume he was really running ahead of his time, as if quite obsessed, by working out the musical plans and actually drawing lots for who was going to serve when; although the temple hadn't been built.</p>


text:
<p>the fourth to Izri, his sons and his brothers, twelve- </p><p>None of the leaders of these 24 courses were firstborn sons. This confirms God’s style of preferring to work with those whom man would place far down the list:&nbsp; 1. Joseph was the second son of Asaph. 2. Gedaliah the eldest son of Jeduthun. 3. Zaccur the eldest of Asaph. 4. Izri the second of Jeduthun. 5. Nethaniah the third of Asaph. 6. Bukkiah the eldest of Heman. 7. Jesharelah the youngest of Asaph. 8. Jeshaiah the third of Jeduthun. 9. Mattaniah the second of Heman. 10. Shimei the youngest of Jeduthun. 11. Azareel the third of Heman. 12. Hashabiah the fourth of Jeduthun. 13. Shubael the fourth of Heman. 14. Mattithiah the fifth of Jeduthun. 15. Jeremoth the fifth of Heman. 16. Hananiah the sixth of Heman. 17. Joshbekashah the eleventh of Heman. 18. Hanani the seventh of Heman. 19. Mallothi the twelfth of Heman. 20. Eliathah the eighth of Heman. 21. Hothir the thirteenth of Heman. 22. Giddalti the ninth of Heman. 23. Mehazioth the fourteenth of Heman. 24. Romamti-ezer, the tenth of Heman:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>the fifth to Nethaniah, his sons and his brothers, twelve- </p><p>The groups of 12 relatives would have formed a small musical band, maybe a choir, or some instrumentalists and some choir.</p>


text:
<p>the sixth to Bukkiah, his sons and his brothers, twelve- </p><p>These names appear to refer to actual Levites living at the time of David who were chosen by lot to perform. We wonder what they did in the seven years [at least] between this time and the completion of the temple. Perhaps they did sing in the existing tabernacle in Zion.</p>


text:
<p>the seventh to Jesharelah, his sons and his brothers, twelve- </p><p>Another name for Uzziel, son of Heman.</p>


text:
<p>the eighth to Jeshaiah, his sons and his brothers, twelve- </p><p>'Yah saves'. The words 'Yahweh' and 'saved' occur so often in the life of David and in his Psalms, and so we wonder whether this child had been named in memory of that fact.</p>


text:
<p>the ninth to Mattaniah, his sons and his brothers, twelve- </p><p>Nearly all these names have God’s Name within them. They were clearly all committed followers of Yahweh, at least in name.</p>


text:
<p>the tenth to Shimei, his sons and his brothers, twelve- </p><p>Shimei isn't mentioned in :2-4 in the Hebrew, but his name occurs there in the L.<XX/p>


text:
<p>the twelfth to Hashabiah, his sons and his brothers, twelve- </p><p>'Yahweh has imputed', perhaps reflective of how someone had perceived the wonder of Yahweh's imputation of righteousness by grace, as the basis of salvation. This had been taught to Israel by God’s response to David’s sin with Bathsheba. See on :23.</p>


text:
<p>the fourteenth, to Mattithiah, his sons and his brothers, twelve-</p><p>'Gift of Yah', as in :16. This was the name given at birth, and in this case it stuck. It confirms the suggestion I have often made, that sometimes in these genealogies we read the birth names, at others, the names they were given later in life. And therefore the same person can have more than one name.</p>


text:
<p>the fifteenth to Jeremoth, his sons and his brothers, twelve-</p><p>Keil observes: "The order of succession was so determined by lot, that the four sons of Asaph (:3) received the first, third, fifth, and seventh places; the six sons of Jeduthun, the second, fourth, eighth, twelfth, and fourteenth; and finally, the four sons of Heman (first mentioned in :4), the sixth, ninth, eleventh, and thirteenth places; while the remaining places, 15-24, fell to the other sons of Heman. From this we learn that the lots of the sons of the three chief musicians were not placed in separate urns, and one lot drawn from each alternately; but that, on the contrary, all the lots were placed in one urn, and in drawing the lots of Asaph and Jeduthun came out so, that after the fourteenth drawing only sons of Heman remained".</p>


text:
<p>the sixteenth to Hananiah, his sons and his brothers, twelve- </p><p>'The grace of Yah'. Grace was and is the distinctive feature of the one true faith and God. David’s sin with Bathsheba would have underlined it to all that generation. See on :19,25.</p>


text:
<p>the seventeenth to Joshbekashah, his sons and his brothers, twelve- </p><p>This name stands out from all the others- 'stiffnecked liver'. Sometimes in these genealogies we read the birth names, at others, the names they were given later in life. This was surely one of the latter. And therefore the same person can have more than one name.</p>


text:
<p>the eighteenth to Hanani, his sons and his brothers, twelve- </p><p>I have noted on :19,23 the number of names from David’s generation which allude to grace, and this is another one. God’s grace to David would have gripped an entire generation of believers at that time.</p>


text:
<p>the nineteenth to Mallothi, his sons and his brothers, twelve- </p><p>'Speaker forth', an appropriate name for one who was to be involved in speaking forth God’s praises. It is s:w. <a href='B:230 106:2'>Psa 106:2</a> "Who can utter / speak forth the mighty acts of the Lord'. All those who perform public service, especially in the area of worship, should be in the grip of a deep sense of inadequacy for their task before the wondrous spiritual realities they seek to articulate. See on :27.</p>


text:
<p>the twentieth to Eliathah, his sons and his brothers, twelve- </p><p>'For the God who consents' would continue the same idea as in :26; a sense of awe that God has allowed us to be involved in His service.</p>


text:
<p>the twenty-first to Hothir, his sons and his brothers, twelve- </p><p>'Those caused to remain' would have been an appropriate name to speak to those at the time of the exile and restoration.</p>


text:
<p>the twenty-second to Giddalti, his sons and his brothers, twelve- </p><p>'One made great' would perhaps reflect the repeated teaching of David from his own life, and which had affected that generation of believers, that it is God’s grace / gentleness that makes any of us great (<a href='B:230 18:35'>Psa 18:35</a>).</p>


text:
<p>the twenty- third to Mahazioth, his sons and his brothers, twelve- </p><p>'Receiver of visions', an appropriate name for one whose music was to express the visions of God (see on :2,3).</p>


text:
<p>the twenty-fourth to Romamti-Ezer, his sons and his brothers, twelve- </p><p>'Raised up from a heap', a name encouraging to the exiles, and perhaps reflecting Hannah's awareness when she gave Samuel over to Levitical service, that such service is performed in gratitude for having been raised up like Job from the heap (<a href='B:90 2:8'>1Sa 2:8</a>).</p>


text:
<p>For the divisions of the doorkeepers: of the Korahites, Meshelemiah the son of Kore, of the sons of Asaph- </p><p>This would have had special relevance for the returned exiles at the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, who had to guard the gates and new walls of the temple. The list of the names of the families who were to do this work in Nehemiah contrasts sharply with the list we find here-&nbsp; the Levites simply didn’t all do that work, which was so vital during the period of rebuilding. Ezra 2 says that the Gentile nethinim, probably the Gibeonites, were pressed into service as porters / doorkeepers. And so Nehemiah was glad to use anyone willing to do it. We see here the principle of 'The end justifies the means' being put to the test. That principle cannot be applied universally; but we see how by the same token, legalistic obedience to command cannot be allowed to stop the essence of His work being done.</p>


text:
<p>Meshelemiah had sons: Zechariah the firstborn Jediael the second, Zebadiah the third, Jathniel the fourth- </p><p><a href='B:130 23:5'>1Ch 23:5</a> says that there were 4000 such porters or "gatekeepers". The Mosaic tabernacle had functioned without these huge numbers. But the scale of David’s grandiose plans for the temple required this huge number of Levites and singers. He made the mistake which Solomon followed, in thinking that mere scale of worship was somehow pleasing to God; when instead David ought to have learned from his sin with Bathsheba that God looks upon the heart.</p>


text:
<p>Elam the fifth, Jehohanan the sixth, Eliehoenai the seventh- </p><p>The "porters and singers" at the restoration were Levites (<a href='B:160 7:1'>Neh 7:1</a>). The use of Levites to guard the gates was a conscious attempt to restore the situation in Solomon's temple (<a href='B:130 9:17-22'>1Ch 9:17-22</a>; <a href='B:130 26:12-19'>1Ch 26:12-19</a>), suggesting these huge numbers were not just to be porters but also literal defenders of the gates. We should also remember that the Levites and priests accounted for about half the population of Jerusalem (<a href='B:160 11:6-19'>Neh 11:6-19</a> cp. <a href='B:130 9:9-22'>1Ch 9:9-22</a>). According to <a href='B:330 44:11-14'>Eze 44:11-14</a>, the repentant Levites were to be the gatekeepers in the restored temple. But there is no evidence they did repent, indeed the record in Nehemiah shows they were on the side of the Samaritan opposition, intermarrying with them; and so the Kingdom situation possible at the restoration was precluded.</p>


text:
<p>Obed-Edom had sons: Shemaiah the firstborn, Jehozabad the second, Joah the third, Sacar the fourth, Nethanel the fifth- </p><p>Obed-Edom had faithfully cared for the ark when others, including David, didn’t want to know about it and even considered it to bring cursing rather than blessing. But he is given no special reward for that spiritual maturity and all those years of quiet work. His family were made mere gatekeepers (<a href='B:230 84:10'>Psa 84:10</a>). And recognition of our quiet service will likewise not be in this life.</p>


text:
<p>Ammiel the sixth, Issachar the seventh, Peullethai the eighth; for God blessed him- </p><p>Eight sons was seen as a special blessing. God made Obed-Edom a 'house' because he had truly cared for the ark. David had failed to learn from this point. For God had told him that He didn’t want this temple, but rather wanted to make David a house of people.</p>


text:
<p>Also to Shemaiah his son were sons born, who ruled over the house of their father; for they were mighty men of valour- </p><p>The great blessing of Obed-Edom's "house" or family is stressed; they were "mighty men of valour", "capable men" (:7). But "just" gatekeepers (<a href='B:230 88:10'>Psa 88:10</a>). As noted on :5, God blessed Obed-Edom by building him a house, just as He had promised to do to David. But David didn’t seem interested in that, so fixated was he on his plan to build God the house which God didn’t want.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Shemaiah: Othni, Rephael, Obed and Elzabad, whose brothers were capable men, Elihu and Semachiah- </p><p>See on :6. We note all these names have God in them and are not at all secular. They reflect the abiding spirituality of Obed-Edom's family. And he himself was a mere Edomite ["Edom"] servant ["obed"].</p>


text:
<p>All these were of the sons of Obed-Edom: they and their sons and their brothers, able men in strength for the service; sixty-two of Obed-Edom- </p><p><a href='B:130 26:8'>1Ch 26:8</a> speaks of a group of 62 relatives of Obed-Edom, whereas <a href='B:130 16:38'>1Ch 16:38</a> speaks of 68. The extra six may refer to "Asaph and his brothers, who are referred to in the otherwise strange reference in <a href='B:130 16:38'>1Ch 16:38</a> to "Obed-Edom with their brothers". The preceding verse (<a href='B:130 16:37'>1Ch 16:37</a>) has spoken of "Asaph and his brothers". See on 1 Chron. 24:1.   </p>


text:
<p>Meshelemiah had sons and brothers, valiant men, eighteen- </p><p>The reference to "valiant men" suggests that the work of being a "gatekeeper" indeed focused upon the defence of the gates, although the Hebrew word can equally mean "porter".</p>


text:
<p>Also Hosah, of the children of Merari, had sons: Shimri the chief, (for though he was not the firstborn, yet his father made him chief)- </p><p>Again continues the theme so often noted in the Biblical record and these name lists, that the firstborn is rejected and others take his place.</p>


text:
<p>Hilkiah the second, Tebaliah the third, Zechariah the fourth. All the sons and brothers of Hosah were thirteen- </p><p>Hosah along with Obed-edom was one of those with the honour of carrying the ark (<a href='B:130 16:38'>1Ch 16:38</a>), but he is still made a humble gatekeeper (<a href='B:230 88:10'>Psa 88:10</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Of these were the divisions of the doorkeepers, even of the chief men, having offices like their brothers, to minister in the house of Yahweh- </p><p>The idea is that the chief men as well as their [lesser] "brothers" were all still brethren, and the experience of serving God was to level them. Notice the stress on the equality of the priests and the studied irrelevance of their personal wealth (<a href='B:130 24:31'>1Ch 24:31</a>; <a href='B:130 25:8'>1Ch 25:8</a>; <a href='B:130 26:12'>1Ch 26:12</a>). The Law was geared around the assumption that the priests would be so caught up in Yahweh's work that they would never be rich (consider <a href='B:50 14:29'>Deu 14:29</a>), and the wonder of doing His work would compensate for their lack of physical possessions (<a href='B:40 18:23'>Num 18:23</a>). The early church began by having all things common, in imitation of&nbsp; how the priests had "like portions to eat" (<a href='B:50 18:8'>Deu 18:8</a>). Yet the early church couldn't sustain the intensity of their initial realization of these things.</p>


text:
<p>They cast lots, the small as well as the great, according to their fathers’ houses, for each gate- </p><p>This continues the theme discussed on :12, of all these men, of whatever secular standing, being united together in the Lord's service. And that is an abiding principle. True unity and brotherhood is found from serving together, and is never an outcome of merely theoretical agreement.</p>


text:
<p>The lot eastward fell to Shelemiah. Then for Zechariah his son, a wise counsellor, they cast lots; and his lot came out northward- </p><p>David’s temple envisaged the temple having four main gates, and presumably having a large square wall around it. For the gates he envisages are simply divided according to the points of the compass.</p>


text:
<p>To Obed-Edom southward; and to his sons, the storehouse- </p><p>"The gates of the stores", which apparently had two entrances to it (:17).</p>


text:
<p>To Shuppim and Hosah, westward, by the gate of Shallecheth, at the causeway that goes up, watch against watch- </p><p>'Shallecheth' means "sending or throwing down", and may mean that this was to be "the refuse gate". That is possibly the vision for the west gate behind <a href='B:330 46:19-20'>Eze 46:19-20</a>. However :18 seems to describe this west gate as having a colonnade and causeway. It could be that this was “the entering in of the house of the Lord". See on :18. It would have led up to the Temple either from Ophel on the south, or from the Western part of the city across the Tyropoeon Valley. Archaeologists have discovered remnants of two such causeways “Wilson’s Arch” and “Robinson’s Arch”.</p>


text:
<p>Eastward were six Levites, northward four a day, southward four a day, and for the storehouse two and two- </p><p>The storehouse gate was on the south (:15), so this refers to the south gate with two entrances, rather than the west gate, which is described in :18.</p>


text:
<p>For the colonnade on the west, four at the causeway, and two at the colonnade- </p><p>See on :16. It seems David envisaged the entrance as being from the west. But in fact in God’s vision of the temple in Ezekiel 40-48, the east gate, the very opposite, is the entrance. The original word parvaim is Persian and means “lighted by the sun”, explaining why later these precincts became a place for sun worship (<a href='B:120 13:11'>2Ki 13:11</a> s:w:). AV "Parbar westward" became the name of a 1980s Christadelphian rock band, named after what they considered was one of the Bible's obscurest verses.</p>


text:
<p>These were the divisions of the doorkeepers; of the sons of the Korahites, and of the sons of Merari-</p><p>"Merari" means "bitter"; from these rather unpromising beginnings were to arise those who gave their lives to the service of God and His people. And we see similar transformation in the lives of so many.</p>


text:
<p>Of the Levites, Ahijah was over the treasures of God’s house, and over the treasures of the dedicated things- </p><p>We note from :26-28 that Samuel, Saul and Joab, as well as David, had dedicated spoils won in battle to the work of the sanctuary. Yet despite that generosity and all those victories, Joab and Saul apparently died unspiritual men and in condemnation. Saul certainly. So generous giving and victories for the Lord are no guarantee at all of true spirituality.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Ladan, the sons of the Gershonites belonging to Ladan, the heads of the fathers’ households belonging to Ladan the Gershonite: Jehieli- </p><p>We note that both Moses and Aaron had sons called Gershon (<a href='B:20 2:22'>Exo 2:22</a>). Such repetition of names within families and in the same generation was quite common, and is one thing which makes the study of the genealogies difficult in places.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Jehieli: Zetham and Joel his brother were over the treasures of the house of Yahweh- </p><p>These were "brothers" of Jehieli (<a href='B:130 23:8'>1Ch 23:8</a>), demonstrating how elastic are the Hebrew terms for "brothers" and "sons of".</p>


text:
<p>Of the Amramites, of the Izharites, of the Hebronites, of the Uzzielites- </p><p>That is, the Kohathites (<a href='B:130 23:12'>1Ch 23:12</a>).</p>


text:
<p>and Shebuel the son of Gershom, the son of Moses, was ruler over the treasures- </p><p>This is, I believe, the only reference to any direct descendant of Moses having any public role in the work and worship of Israel. The Bible is carefully against all nepotism, personality cults and inherited sense of spiritual leadership and worthiness. All are to serve God from their own experience and from forging their own personal relationships with Him.</p>


text:
<p>His brothers: of Eliezer, Rehabiah his son, Jeshaiah his son, Joram his son, Zichri his son and Shelomoth his son- </p><p>This could refer to four generations, but the idea was that the descendants of each of these families was to have a specific duty in the temple system. So probably these are all the sons of Rehabiah (<a href='B:130 23:17'>1Ch 23:17</a>).</p>


text:
<p>This Shelomoth and his brothers were over all the treasures of the dedicated things, which David the king, and the heads of the fathers’ households, the captains over thousands and hundreds, and the captains of the army, had dedicated- </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: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>They dedicated some of the spoil won in battles to repair the house of Yahweh- </p><p>This could refer to a separate fund set up for the long term maintenance or repairing of the house. The fund was evidently empty by the time of <a href='B:140 24:5'>2Ch 24:5</a>.</p>


text:
<p>All that Samuel the seer, Saul the son of Kish, Abner the son of Ner and Joab the son of Zeruiah had dedicated, whoever had dedicated anything, it was under the hand of Shelomoth, and of his brothers-</p><p>Samuel, Saul and Joab, as well as David, had dedicated spoils won in battle to the work of the sanctuary. Yet despite that generosity and all those victories, Joab and Saul apparently died unspiritual men and in condemnation. Saul certainly. So generous giving and victories for the Lord are no guarantee at all of true spirituality.</p>


text:
<p>Of the Izharites, Chenaniah and his sons were for the outward business over Israel, for officers and judges- </p><p>Solomon taught that if the ants can be so zealous, well why can’t the ecclesia of God be zealous [for it was ‘believers’ that he was teaching]. The ants scurry around, working as if there is no tomorrow, to build up something so precarious that is in any case so tragically short lived. Can’t we be yet more zealous, with a like loving co-operation, building the eternal things that we are (<a href='B:240 6:6-7'>Pro 6:6-7</a>)? And Solomon pressed the point further, in that ants are self-motivated; they need no “guide, overseer or ruler”. This was surely a reference to the complex system of overseers which Solomon had to place over Israel in order to build the temple and build up the Kingdom. The same Hebrew word for “overseer” is found in <a href='B:130 23:4'>1Ch 23:4</a>; <a href='B:130 26:29'>1Ch 26:29</a>. Yet ideally, he seems to be saying, every Israelite ought to be a zealous worker. <a href='B:240 12:24'>Pro 12:24</a> says the same: “The hand of the diligent [whoever he / she is] shall bear rule [in practice]” [s:w. <a href='B:240 6:7'>Pro 6:7</a> “ruler”]. And we must ask ourselves, whether for whatever reason the new Israel hasn’t slumped into the same problem, of lack of self-motivation, waiting to be asked to do something before we do it, over-relying upon our “overseers”. The ants aren’t like this. They see the job to be done, and naturally get on with it.</p>


text:
<p>Of the Hebronites, Hashabiah and his brothers, men of valour, one thousand seven hundred, had the oversight of Israel beyond the Jordan westward, for all the business of Yahweh, and for the service of the king- </p><p>"Across Jordan westward" suggests this was written from the perspective of being on the Persian side, suggesting this was a Divinely inspired edit carried out when Chronicles was written up or rewritten in captivity. The context is of the temple service, so perhaps these people were not mere administrative officials, but responsible for gathering the tithes from those areas.</p>


text:
<p>Of the Hebronites was Jerijah the chief, even of the Hebronites, according to their generations by fathers’ households. In the fortieth year of the reign of David they were sought for, and there were found among them mighty men of valour at Jazer of Gilead- </p><p>That is, at the very end of David’s life. He was active in making his plans right up to the end of his life. Even if building a temple was a case of misplaced ideals and obsession, we have to give him credit for zealously working and planning for the Lord's work right to the end of his days, even when he knew he would not live to see it coming to reality. "There were found" could suggest the problem with finding people according to the genealogical system worked out. Working out who actually were the living descendants of ancient families would not have been easy.</p>


text:
<p>His brothers, men of valour, were two thousand seven hundred, heads of fathers’ households, whom king David made overseers over the Reubenites, the Gadites and the half-tribe of the Manassites, for every matter pertaining to God, and for the affairs of the king- </p><p>David was clearly concerned that the tribes on the other side of Jordan might wander both spiritually and politically, and not pay their tithes to the temple. 2700 overseers in their territory was a lot. We note that their brief was to assist them firstly in things "pertaining to God". We can assume that as these were Levites, their duty was to teach these separatist tribes about God. We should be concerned firstly about the spiritual wellbeing of weaker, isolated brethren- and only secondly be concerned about their identity with our particular community. Solomon however abused this system by using this system of overseers to eventually whip the people with heavy taxes, which all went to him; even when he had turned away from Yahweh worship.</p>


text:
<p>Now the children of Israel after their number, the heads of fathers’ households and the captains of thousands and of hundreds, and their officers who served the king, in any matter of the divisions which came in and went out month by month throughout all the months of the year- of every division were twenty-four thousand- </p><p>See on 1 Chron. 24:1. Twelve groups of 24,000 men mean that David’s total army numbered 288,000 men- probably the majority of the fit men of Israel. David’s earlier desire to number the fighting men of Israel would rather suggest that this system didn’t work that well in the longer term. If he could trust the leaders to rally their men, then he wouldn't have needed to number them. We have an idealized picture of David’s Kingdom presented in Chronicles [hence the omission of his sin with Bathsheba]. This may be because it was understood by the time Chronicles was written that David was a prototype of Messiah. However it could be that the reference to David’s numbering in :24 suggests that David sought to number all Israel- as if he felt the 288,000 soldiers weren't enough and wondered how many other men there were available in Israel. In this case he was acting like the wealthy man who counts up his investments and panics that he really needs more.</p>


text:
<p>Over the first division for the first month was Jashobeam the son of Zabdiel; and in his division were twenty-four thousand- </p><p>"Jashobeam" was one of David’s followers in the wilderness (<a href='B:130 11:11'>1Ch 11:11</a>). Indeed, nearly all of those mentioned in the list of army commanders here were with him then. Those faithful in the wilderness years were exalted to leadership in David’s kingdom, and that is how it shall be with the loyal servants of the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>He was of the children of Perez, the chief of all the captains of the army for the first month- </p><p>This massive system of rotating army service matched that described in previous chapters for serving in the temple. I am uncomfortable with the spiritual implications of all this. It was not envisioned in the Mosaic law, and smacks of the kind of centralized control which is political and religious, rather than spiritual. And as often mentioned, the tabernacle didn’t require such huge amounts of labour; the whole temple system which did require it was of David’s creation, not God’s, although He worked through it.</p>


text:
<p>Over the division of the second month was Dodai the Ahohite, and his division; and Mikloth the ruler; and in his division were twenty-four thousand-</p><p>"Thousand" is often used not of 1000 literal persons but of an administrative or military division, and that may be the case here.</p>


text:
<p>The third captain of the army for the third month was Benaiah, the son of Jehoiada the priest, chief; and in his division were twenty-four thousand- </p><p>Those who followed David in his wilderness years became the senior officials in his Kingdom. There's a clear parallel with the Lord Jesus and we His followers. As a priest, he must have often been unable to fully achieve his priestly calling during the wilderness years. It could even be that Benaiah was not a priest (<a href='B:130 4:36'>1Ch 4:36</a> suggests he was a Simeonite), but functioned as one during the years of exile from the sanctuary. This may have led David to himself act as a priest when the ark was brought to Zion.</p>


text:
<p>This is that Benaiah, who was the mighty man of the thirty, and over the thirty; and of his division was Ammizabad his son- </p><p>Benaiah was one of David’s senior military commanders (<a href='B:100 8:18'>2Sa 8:18</a>; <a href='B:130 27:5'>1Ch 27:5</a>), and the Hebrew of <a href='B:100 23:20'>2Sa 23:20</a> can be translated "Benaiah the son of Jehoiada the priest, as head", i:e. of a group of David’s mighty men. The Jehoiada in view as his father would therefore be Jehoiada the priest. The idea is that priests were also military leaders within David’s army, indeed it seems there were a large group of them as ordinary soldiers in <a href='B:130 12:27'>1Ch 12:27</a>. This shows how priesthood was not understood as abstract spirituality, but that spirituality was articulated in practice.</p>


text:
<p>The fourth captain for the fourth month was Asahel the brother of Joab, and Zebadiah his son after him; and in his division were twenty-four thousand- </p><p>Asahel was long dead at this time (<a href='B:100 2:23'>2Sa 2:23</a>), so the names of these 'captains' may not refer to living men, but rather to symbolic heads. At the very end of David’s life, Joab was disloyal to him and Solomon slew him. So we wonder to what extent these detailed plans of David were in fact fulfilled.</p>


text:
<p>The fifth captain for this fifth month was Shamhuth the Izrahite; and in his division were twenty-four thousand- </p><p>Izrahite means from the family of Zerah (<a href='B:130 2:4'>1Ch 2:4</a>; <a href='B:130 2:6'>1Ch 2:6</a>), meaning he was from the tribe of Judah.</p>


text:
<p>The sixth captain for the sixth month was Ira the son of Ikkesh the Tekoite; and in his division were twenty-four thousand- </p><p>He too was from Judah if from Tekoah; these army captains are not evenly spread out throughout the 12 tribes, but many of them were from Judah, thus retaining national control in the hands of David and his immediate tribal and social circle.</p>


text:
<p>The seventh captain for the seventh month was Helez the Pelonite, of the children of Ephraim: and in his division were twenty-four thousand- </p><p>He is called a man of Ephraim here, but Beth-Palet [he was a "Paltite", <a href='B:100 23:26'>2Sa 23:26</a>] was a town in the tribe of Judah. See on :9.</p>


text:
<p>The eighth captain for the eighth month was Sibbecai the Hushathite, of the Zerahites; and in his division were twenty-four thousand- </p><p>He too was from Judah, from the family of Zerah (<a href='B:130 2:4'>1Ch 2:4</a>; <a href='B:130 2:6'>1Ch 2:6</a>); see on :9.</p>


text:
<p>The ninth captain for the ninth month was Abiezer the Anathothite, of the Benjamites: and in his division were twenty-four thousand- </p><p>Anathoth was a priestly town, so this may have been a faithful priest from Benjamin who would have been disillusioned with Saul's unspirituality.</p>


text:
<p>The tenth captain for the tenth month was Maharai the Netophathite, of the Zerahites; and in his division were twenty-four thousand- </p><p>This is now the third person from the subdivision of Zerah in Judah. The choice of leaders was clearly not representative of all the tribes of Israel, but rather power was being concentrated in the hands of David’s tribe and immediate circle.</p>


text:
<p>The eleventh captain for the eleventh month was Benaiah the Pirathonite, of the children of Ephraim; and in his division were twenty-four thousand- </p><p>Pirathon was in Ephraim (<a href='B:70 12:15'>Jdg 12:15</a>), and there was always antipathy between Judah and Ephraim. So as noted on :12, here again was a man who stepped out from his surrounding cultural expectations in loyalty to David.</p>


text:
<p>The twelfth captain for the twelfth month was Heldai the Netophathite, of Othniel; and in his division were twenty-four thousand-</p><p>This was near Jerusalem and the Levitical singers lived there after the exile (<a href='B:150 2:22'>Ezr 2:22</a>; <a href='B:160 11:28'>Neh 11:28</a>); so he too may have been a Levite living in Judah. See on :9.</p>


text:
<p>Furthermore over the tribes of Israel: of the Reubenites was Eliezer the son of Zichri the ruler: of the Simeonites, Shephatiah the son of Maacah- </p><p>Gad and Asher are omitted here- perhaps because they were not that loyal to David?</p>


text:
<p>of Levi, Hashabiah the son of Kemuel: of Aaron, Zadok- </p><p>This suggests the Levites had two 'rulers', perhaps one over the priests and another over the soldiers, or for the other Levites.</p>


text:
<p>of Judah, Elihu, one of the brothers of David: of Issachar, Omri the son of Michael- </p><p>In <a href='B:130 2:15'>1Ch 2:15</a>, David is placed seventh of seven sons, but elsewhere eighth of eight (<a href='B:90 14:10-11'>1Sa 14:10-11</a>; <a href='B:90 17:12'>1Sa 17:12</a>). Perhaps the eighth son was the Elihu of <a href='B:130 27:18'>1Ch 27:18</a>. Or perhaps one of the sons died without children, and is therefore not included in <a href='B:130 2:15'>1Ch 2:15</a>. LXX gives Eliab. Again we see the concentration of power in David’s immediate circle (see on :9).</p>


text:
<p>of Zebulun, Ishmaiah the son of Obadiah: of Naphtali, Jeremoth the son of Azriel- </p><p>The only other mentions of Obadiah and Azriel in Chronicles refer to Levites. So these men may have been Levites from those areas. Which fits in with the suggestion on :9 that David was appointing a leadership which was loyal to him; for the priesthood was loyal to him, and so the Levites likely were too.</p>


text:
<p>of the children of Ephraim, Hoshea the son of Azaziah: of the half-tribe of Manasseh, Joel the son of Pedaiah- </p><p>"Hoshea" is s:w. Joshua, who was also of the tribe of Ephraim (<a href='B:40 13:8'>Num 13:8</a>), and was likely named after him.</p>


text:
<p>of the half-tribe of Manasseh in Gilead, Iddo the son of Zechariah: of Benjamin, Jaasiel the son of Abner- </p><p>Jaasiel is the son of the Abner who was Saul’s cousin (<a href='B:130 9:36'>1Ch 9:36</a>; <a href='B:90 14:50'>1Sa 14:50</a>). This is a departure from the common theme in these lists of David concentrating power in his own circle (see on :9). It was perhaps a sign of David’s abiding softness and kindness towards the house of Saul, which is all the more notable because David was an astute politician and was used to cementing his own power through political appointments.</p>


text:
<p>of Dan, Azarel the son of Jeroham. These were the captains of the tribes of Israel- </p><p>We note that many if not all of these leaders of the tribes, and their fathers, had Godly names.</p>


text:
<p>But David didn’t take the number of them from twenty years old and under, because Yahweh had said He would increase Israel like the stars of the sky- </p><p>See on 1 Chron. 24:1.  This certainly seeks to present David positively. For his desire to take a census of Israel at the time of <a href='B:100 24:1'>2Sa 24:1</a> was a result of his lack of faith, and David himself took guilt over what he had done. We have an example here of God yet again imputing righteousness to David, as He did over the sin with Bathsheba. Or it could be that his refusal to number Israel under the age of 20 was indeed because of his faith that God would multiply Israel, yet at the same time he lacked faith in taking the census of all the fighting men. This co-existence of faith and unbelief in a person is quite typical; how many of us have prayed "Lord I believe, help my unbelief" (<a href='B:480 9:24'>Mar 9:24</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Joab the son of Zeruiah began to number, but didn’t finish; and there came wrath for this upon Israel; neither was the number put into the account in the chronicles of king David- </p><p>See on :1. The wrath came "upon Israel" because they sinned by not paying the temple tax due when they were numbered. The sin is presented as theirs, which is why they were punished. David was unwise in leading them into that sin, but he seems to have taken false guilt upon himself over the matter. Which is why they and not he were punished by God.</p>


text:
<p>Over the king’s treasures was Azmaveth the son of Adiel. Over the treasures in the fields, in the cities, and in the villages, and in the towers, was Jonathan the son of Uzziah- </p><p>This could imply that David had his own extensive personal wealth, including vineyards (:27), servants who worked the ground (:26). This was exactly what Samuel had warned Israel about; a human king would take Israel's men to till their ground, and would take their vineyards from them (<a href='B:90 8:12'>1Sa 8:12</a>; <a href='B:90 8:14'>1Sa 8:14</a>). That all suggests that David slipped spiritually at the end of his life. For he came from a poor family, and to have all these things meant he had taken them for himself, and had ignored these warnings of his one time mentor Samuel.</p>


text:
<p>Over those who did the work of the field for tillage of the ground was Ezri the son of Chelub-</p><p>See on :24. This clearly alludes to the warning of the misbehaviour of Israel's king in <a href='B:90 8:12'>1Sa 8:12</a>, so Ezri's job was to ensure that this work was done. We note that the overseers over this (Ezri, Shimei in :27 and Baal Hanan in :28) don't have Godly names but rather secular names:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>And over the vineyards was Shimei the Ramathite. And over the increase of the vineyards for the winecellars was Zabdi the Shiphmite- </p><p>See on :25,26.</p>


text:
<p>And over the olive trees and the sycamore trees that were in the lowland was Baal Hanan the Gederite. And over the cellars of oil was Joash-</p><p>"The lowland" refers to the Shephelah, one of the five subdivisions of the territory of Judah. Baal Hanan may have been a Gentile (<a href='B:130 1:49'>1Ch 1:49</a>).</p>


text:
<p>And over the herds that fed in Sharon was Shitrai the Sharonite. and over the herds that were in the valleys was Shaphat the son of Adlai- </p><p>"Sharon" seems to refer to the pastureland between mount Carmel and Joppa.</p>


text:
<p>And over the camels was Obil the Ishmaelite. And over the donkeys was Jehdeiah the Meronothite. And over the flocks was Jaziz the Hagrite- </p><p>The Hagrites were Gentiles who had been defeated by Israelites (<a href='B:130 5:18-22'>1Ch 5:18-22</a>). There is quite a theme of the former enemies of David becoming converted to his God and firmly personally loyal to him. We think of the Gittites being so faithful to David, the very men of Gath whose champion he had killed. This kind of radical transformation of human relationships is a major testament to the real power of God in human lives.</p>


text:
<p>All these were the rulers of the substance which was king David’s- </p><p>This may mean that there was a difference between David’s personal wealth, and that of the Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>Also Jonathan, David’s uncle, was a counsellor, a man of understanding, and a scribe. Jehiel the son of Hachmoni was with the king’s sons- </p><p>Again as noted on :9, we get the impression that David installed his own tribe and personal circle as the leaders of Israel. This list was presumably an older list, and not written at the time the lists of the temple orders were written, which was at the end of David’s life. And here we have a mention of David’s uncle. But he could be David’s nephew, see <a href='B:100 21:21'>2Sa 21:21</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Ahithophel was the king’s counsellor. Hushai the Archite was the king’s advisor- </p><p><a href='B:100 23:34'>2Sa 23:34</a> tells us that Bathsheba's father Eliam was "the son of Ahithophel the Gilonite". And he and Uriah were both amongst David’s "mighty men". Eliam was the father of Bathsheba, making Ahithophel her grandfather. We can more readily understand why he turned against David after his shameful behaviour with his granddaughter.</p>


text:
<p>and after Ahithophel was Jehoiada the son of Benaiah, and Abiathar. The captain of the king’s army was Joab- </p><p>Joab was given this role but had it removed at least twice. So this list is a snapshot of David’s kingdom at some particular point, perhaps taken earlier in his reign.</p>


text:
<p>David assembled all the princes of Israel, the princes of the tribes, the captains of the companies who served the king by division, the captains of thousands and hundreds, and the rulers over all the substance and possessions of the king and of his sons, with the officers and the mighty men, even all the mighty men of valour, to Jerusalem- </p><p>See on 1 Chron. 24:1. We note again that there was "all the substance and possessions of the king and of his sons". David came from poverty, but now at the end of his life he has personal ownership of substance and possessions. David had his own extensive personal wealth, including vineyards (<a href='B:130 27:27'>1Ch 27:27</a>) and servants who worked the ground (<a href='B:130 27:26'>1Ch 27:26</a>). This was exactly what Samuel had warned Israel about; a human king would take Israel's men to till their ground, and would take their vineyards from them (<a href='B:90 8:12'>1Sa 8:12</a>; <a href='B:90 8:14'>1Sa 8:14</a>). That all suggests that David slipped spiritually at the end of his life. For he came from a poor family, and to have all these things meant he had taken them for himself, and had ignored these warnings of his one time mentor Samuel. We noted that the overseers over this (Ezri, Shimei in <a href='B:130 27:27'>1Ch 27:27</a> and Baal Hanan in <a href='B:130 27:28'>1Ch 27:28</a>) don't have Godly names but rather secular names.</p>


text:
<p>Then David the king stood up on his feet- </p><p>As if standing was now difficult for him, with reduced strength and faculties in his old age.</p><p>And said, Hear me, my brothers and my people! As for me, it was in my heart to build a house of rest for the ark of the covenant of Yahweh, and for the footstool of our God; and I had prepared for the building- </p><p>See on <a href='B:230 132:8'>Psa 132:8</a>. The ark is called both the throne of God and also His footstool (<a href='B:230 94:5'>Psa 94:5</a>; <a href='B:230 132:7-8'>Psa 132:7-8</a>; <a href='B:130 28:2'>1Ch 28:2</a>). Above or sitting upon the cherubim, the pagan mind expected to see Israel's God. But there was (to their eyes) an empty throne. Yahweh had to be believed in by faith. And His supreme manifestation was through the blood of sacrifice. Cassuto gives evidence that the Egyptians and Hittites placed their covenant contracts in a box beneath the throne of their gods; and the tables of the covenant were likewise placed beneath the throne of Yahweh. This similarity begged the comparison yet stronger- Israel's God was not seated there. He had to be believed in by faith. Such a concept of faith in an invisible god was quite foreign to the pagan mind; and yet the whole tabernacle plan was designed to have enough points of contact with the pagan tabernacles in order to elicit this point in very powerful form: the one true God is invisible and must be believed in.</p><p>Or it could be argued that Yahweh was enthroned upon the cherubim, and the ark was His footstool. It was to the ark that Israel came to worship, although it was invisible to them, only visible to the priesthood.</p><p>David again expands his narrative, now speaking of the temple as a "house of rest for the ark". But God's resting or abiding was never in anything physical, but always through the abiding / resting of His Spirit in the human spirit / heart. </p>


text:
<p>But God said to me, ‘You shall not build a house for My name, because you are a man of war, and have shed blood’- </p><p><a href='B:130 22:8'>1Ch 22:8</a>; <a href='B:130 28:3'>1Ch 28:3</a> are reported speech by David. We wonder if David wasn’t imagining this. Why should it be morally objectionable for David to build the temple because he was a man of war? Yahweh is a man of war, yet He was to build David’s house. We only learn about God’s objection to David building the temple from the passages where David reports what God apparently told him, and from Solomon repeating this. If God did actually say this, then there is a logical contradiction between this and His statements about not wanting a house at all. If He was saying 'I want a physical house, but not built by David', then this appears irreconcilable with the reasons He is actually recorded as giving David for not wanting a house (see on <a href='B:100 7:7-11'>2Sa 7:7-11</a>). Either God wanted a house or He didn’t. See on <a href='B:130 28:5-6'>1Ch 28:5-6</a>.</p><p>Shimei called David a "bloodthirsty man" (<a href='B:100 16:7-8'>2Sa 16:7-8</a> s:w:). And the same words are [supposedly] used by God about David. So we can wonder whether David was too quick in <a href='B:230 5:6'>Psa 5:6</a> to assume that the 'man of blood' was hated by God and was of course not him. But there is the possibility that God did say this, but it wasn't earlier recorded. So often in the psalms, David reveals a vicious desire for the blood of his enemies (see on <a href='B:230 21:11'>Psa 21:11</a>). Perhaps it was because of this bloodlust that David was precluded from building the temple because he had been a man of wars and had shed blood (<a href='B:130 28:3'>1Ch 28:3</a>). Solomon also shed blood as did many of God’s servants, so that alone seems no reason why David couldn't build the temple. Perhaps it was his bloodthirsty attitude, albeit tinged with moments of great grace, forgiveness and gentleness, which led to God’s prohibition.</p>


text:
<p>However Yahweh, the God of Israel, chose me out of all the house of my father to be king over Israel forever. For He has chosen Judah to be prince; and in the house of Judah, the house of my father; and among the sons of my father He took pleasure in me to make me king over all Israel- </p><p>David is arguing that Judah had been chosen as the kingly tribe, and then the family of Jesse chosen, and then David. But there is no evidence for these statements. God chose Saul of Benjamin, and worked to provide him every potential to be the king of Israel. It was only because of his failure that God removed him, and then chose not Judah nor Jesse's family, but David personally. That calling was by grace, and in personal response to the spiritual heart which David had at that time. But David now repositions all that, because he is leading up to arguing that therefore Solomon has likewise been "chosen" in a sovereign way by God. But that too was really a forcing of God to fit the narrative which David had decided upon. David here misrepresented God as having chosen David on the basis of lineal descent, when that wasn't at all the case. But David does so because he wants to thereby justify Solomon as the chosen son on the basis of lineal descent.</p>


text:
<p>Of all my sons (for Yahweh has given me many sons), He has chosen Solomon my son to sit on the throne of Yahweh’s kingdom over Israel- </p><p>David had many sons, but clearly Solomon was the favourite, the love child, effectively, of David’s relationship with Bathsheba, the married woman he had become besotted with. It was this favouritism which no doubt provoked Absalom and his other sons to make the rebellions they did, no doubt deeply irked by prophecies like this in Psalms 72, which served the same function as Jacob's giving the priestly coat to Joseph. And it led Solomon to ultimate spiritual failure, because he came to assume that he would automatically fulfil the promises to David about a Messianic son. And so he came to consider himself spiritually inviolate, and came to live a life of debauchery rather than spirituality. David of course claimed that God had chosen Solomon out of all his sons (<a href='B:130 28:5'>1Ch 28:5</a>), but there is no record of that happening; rather do we suspect that David came to imagine that his own choice was in fact God’s. Psalms 72 was David’s declaration that he believed Solomon would be the Messianic ruler; but that was proven wrong, because Solomon did not reign with justice and turned away from Yahweh. The words will come true in the person of the Lord Jesus, but David was wrong to insist they must apply to Solomon.</p><p>So it was David who chose Solomon, but he is trying to make God be the one who preferred Solomon. As discussed on :4, David had misrepresented God as having chosen David on the basis of lineal descent, when that wasn't at all the case. But David does so because he wants to thereby justify Solomon as the chosen son on the basis of lineal descent. When Adonijah briefly seized power, David was forced to make a statement in support of Solomon; but beyond the reference to a personal comment to Bathsheba that he wanted Solomon to succeed him, David had never made his position on Solomon clear before that time. And there was no recorded word from Yahweh saying that Solomon was to succeed him.</p>


text:
<p>He said to me, ‘Solomon, your son, shall build My house and My courts; for I have chosen him to be My son, and I will be his father- </p><p>David specifically claims God has stated the promise of having a son would be fulfilled in Solomon. But the promise itself said this would happen after David slept with his fathers. And the NT specifically applies these words to Jesus and not Solomon.</p><p>There can be no doubt that David was proud about his sons; his soppy obsession with Absalom indicates that he cast both spirituality and rationality to the winds when it came to them. The words of <a href='B:130 28:5-6'>1Ch 28:5-6</a> indicate this: "Of all my sons (for the Lord hath given me many sons,) he hath chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the Kingdom of the Lord over Israel. And he said unto me, Solomon thy son, he shall build my house and my courts&nbsp; : for I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father". We have to ask: Is this what God actually said? The records of the promises to David in 2 Samuel 7 and 1 Chronicles 17 contain no specific reference to Solomon, nor do they speak of him building physical courts for God. The Davidic promise is fundamentally concerning David’s greater household, rather than a physical house. So it seems that David became obsessed with the idea of Solomon being the Messiah, building a physical house for God, and being king over the eternal Messianic Kingdom. The words of <a href='B:230 110:1'>Psa 110:1</a> are applied by the NT to Jesus, but there is no reason to think that they were not primarily spoke by David with his eye on Solomon, whom he addresses as his Lord, such was his obsession: “The Lord saith unto my Lord…” (RV), and the rest of the Psalm goes on in the language of Psalms 72 to describe David’s hopes for Solomon’s Kingdom. ‘Solomon’ was actually called ‘Jedidiah’ by God through Nathan (<a href='B:100 12:25'>2Sa 12:25</a>). The ‘beloved of God’ was surely prophetic of God’s beloved Son. When God said “This is my beloved Son”, He was surely saying ‘Now this is the Jedidiah, whom I wanted Solomon to typify’. But David calls him Solomon, the man who would bring peace. I suggest that David was so eager to see in Solomon the actual Messiah, that he chose not to use the name which God wanted- which made Solomon a type of a future Son of God / Messiah. And this led to Solomon himself being obsessed with being a Messiah figure and losing sight of the future Messiah.</p>


text:
<p>I will establish his kingdom forever, if he continues to do My commandments and My ordinances as he does at this time’- </p><p>It is clear from :8 that David didn’t understand "forever" as meaning 'eternal life' but rather passing on an inheritance down generations without end. But in his earlier Psalms, David had indeed understood the idea of life eternal at the resurrection of the body. He seems to have slipped from that in his old age. David recognizes the conditional nature of the promises to him about his seed, but then he seems to say that the condition of the seed's obedience will be met if the leaders are obedient (:8). All the time, David is wriggling out of the clear statements of God. He had told David not to build a temple for reasons quite other than David’s personal history.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore, in the sight of all Israel, the assembly of Yahweh, and in the audience of our God, observe and seek out all the commandments of Yahweh your God; that you may possess this good land, and leave it for an inheritance to your children after you forever-</p><p>The phrase for "inherit good" is used by Solomon in <a href='B:240 28:10'>Pro 28:10</a>, as the reward for the "blameless". But to describe the wise as "blameless" is an example of his over simplistic worldview. All have sinned, none are blameless (<a href='B:520 3:23'>Rom 3:23</a>), as David reflected in his Bathsheba Psalms. But Solomon had whitewashed his parents' sin, and knew nothing of the grace David had discovered at that time. The Lord's parables of the lost in Luke 15 may be seeking to deconstruct Solomon's attitude. The self righteous older son, who considered himself blameless, connects with the 99 sheep who "need no repentance". But "all we like sheep have gone astray", those 99 only thought they needed no repentance, and being so snug in their sheepfold actually only enhanced their sense of self righteousness, and that they were not in fact the lost. The phrase "inherit good" is only found again here in <a href='B:130 28:8'>1Ch 28:8</a>, where David says that this is to be the outcome for those who "seek" for obedience to God’s ways. But 'seeking' is not being "blameless". None are blameless, but the spiritually minded seek for God’s ways and will therefore "inherit good". Solomon totally lacked this humility and spiritual reality of David.</p>


text:
<p>You, Solomon my son, know the God of your father, and serve Him with a perfect heart and with a willing mind; </p><p>To know God is to serve Him, and eternal life will be about knowing God, as it is now (<a href='B:500 17:3'>Joh 17:3</a>). Despite evidence for a spiritual slip in his old age, David quite rightly emphasizes the place of a willing and united heart in serving God. Although we wonder whether he had in mind the idea that Solomon would be literally "perfect". Solomon seems to have assumed that, as he clearly had no conscience of personal sin or possibility of spiritual failure. And this pride led to his undoing.</p>&nbsp;<p>For Yahweh searches all hearts, and understands all the imaginations of the thoughts. If you seek Him, He will be found by you; but if you forsake Him, He will cast you off forever- </p><p>In :8, Solomon has directed the elders of Israel to seek God. And perhaps he is directing this sentence to them rather than Solomon, whom he liked to think would be "perfect" before God.</p>


text:
<p>Take heed now; for Yahweh has chosen you to build a house for the sanctuary-</p><p>God had clearly stated that the ark was where He wanted it- in a tent, behind curtains. And He did not want a brick house around it. And yet David urges people to enable the very opposite- to build a sanctuary in terms of a physical building, and to place the ark within it (<a href='B:130 22:19'>1Ch 22:19</a>). The whole land was seen by God as a sanctuary / holy place s:w. <a href='B:20 15:17'>Exo 15:17</a>). "Let them make Me a sanctuary" (<a href='B:20 25:8'>Exo 25:8</a>) uses a very general word for making / doing, whereas&nbsp; David is trying to localize and define the sanctuary / holy place and is implying God had no such holy place- until it had been built according to his plans. The Kohathites are described as carrying "the sanctuary" (s:w:, <a href='B:40 10:21'>Num 10:21</a>); it was the ark which was the essential sanctuary or holy place. But David speaks about the building he proposed around that ark as being the sanctuary. And so form had replaced content, the external the internal, as so often happens when the pole of religion overtakes that of spirituality.</p><p>Be strong, and do it-</p><p>This is quoted in <a href='B:150 10:4'>Ezr 10:4</a> about the work of the restoration of the temple.</p>


text:
<p>Then David gave to Solomon his son the pattern of the porch of the temple, and of its houses, and of its treasuries, and of the upper rooms of it, and of the inner rooms of it, and of the place of the mercy seat- </p><p>This sounds as if David handed over to Solomon some architectural plans at this formal gathering, before all Israel (:1). The emphasis upon the porch must be noted. There was no such equivalent to this in the plan of the tabernacle; this was purely of David’s grandiose device. Nor were there any "upper rooms" in the tabernacle. "The inner rooms" presumably refer to the holy and most holy places. Yet God had stressed that the ark, upon which was "the mercy seat", the lid of the ark where the cherubim were, was to dwell in "tents". This was His desire, but David speaks of "rooms" for it. If these plans were indeed from God, we would expect to read about the point when a prophet declared them by a "word of the Lord". But instead we have David presenting his plans and visions for the divisions of the Levites, and only then claiming that this was from God’s revelation to him (:19).</p>


text:
<p>and the pattern of all that he had in mind for the courts of the house of Yahweh, and for all the surrounding rooms, for the treasuries of God’s house, and for the treasuries of the dedicated things- </p><p>See on 1 Chron. 24:1. The key phrase is that this was all that David "had in mind". He will later claim in :19 that God made him understand this. But that would require God to have totally reversed His reasons for not wanting a temple, which He clearly stated when David first had the idea. I suggest David wriggled around those reasons by assuming it was because he personally had shed much blood and Israel was not peaceful enough. He became obsessed with his plans, and assumed that these were in fact from God. When they were of his own device.</p><p>David seems to have become obsessed with preparing for the physical building of the temple in his old age. He truly commented: "The zeal of Your house has eaten me up" (<a href='B:230 69:9'>Psa 69:9</a>). The RV margin of <a href='B:130 28:12'>1Ch 28:12</a> makes us wonder whether the dimensions of the temple were in fact made up within David’s own mind: “David gave to Solomon his son the pattern… the pattern that he had in his spirit&nbsp; [AV “by the spirit”] for the… house of the Lord”. There are several other examples of David wildly over-interpreting. See on <a href='B:140 3:1'>2Ch 3:1</a>; <a href='B:100 16:10'>2Sa 16:10</a>.</p><p>The "surrounding rooms" were chambers around the temple court where the holy vessels and tithes were&nbsp; to be stored (<a href='B:130 28:12'>1Ch 28:12</a>; <a href='B:140 31:5'>2Ch 31:5</a>; <a href='B:140 31:11-12'>2Ch 31:11-12</a>; <a href='B:160 13:4-9'>Neh 13:4-9</a>). It could be to these rooms which the Lord Jesus alludes when He says that in God’s house / temple, there are many such rooms and He will go to die on the cross to prepare them for our use (<a href='B:500 14:1-3'>Joh 14:1-3</a>). He clearly has in view the temple as a spiritual house, comprised of people not bricks. The idea is that His death achieved for us not only salvation, but eternal service as priests within God’s "house", being about God’s work and business for the sake of others' salvation and implementing their relationship with God. This is what eternity will be about. And it is in this life which we develop our desire to do these things, so that the Kingdom will be a time when all the frustrations and barriers to such service are removed.</p>


text:
<p>also for the divisions of the priests and the Levites, and for all the work of the service of the house of Yahweh, and for all the vessels of service in the house of Yahweh- </p><p>We have been reading of these divisions in the previous chapters, and David is going to claim in :19 that all this was from God’s direct revelation. Yet throughout those chapters we noted David’s preference for appointing leaders not from all Israel, but mainly from Judah and his own inner circle. And some of the people mentioned, such as Asahel and David’s uncle, had already died. So the schema needed revision. Yet David claims this whole packet of documentation was all directly inspired and revealed by God (:19), when instead, as noted on :12, it was all from David’s mind and spirit.</p>


text:
<p>of gold by weight for the gold, for all vessels of every kind of service; for all the vessels of silver by weight, for all vessels of every kind of service- </p><p>This was indeed a measure of David’s obsession, calculating the exact weight of gold for each vessel. Even though this was not specified in the commands for building the tabernacle. <a href='B:110 7:47'>1Ki 7:47</a> implies Solomon tried to calculate the total weight of all the vessels once they had been made, but the inventory was so huge that he left off. Yet so many vessels were not required by the tabernacle service. This was a completely different, grandiose religious system of David’s own device; and in the end, all these vessels of mere religion were taken off into captivity (<a href='B:120 25:14-16'>2Ki 25:14-16</a> emphasizes this).</p>


text:
<p>by weight also for the lampstands of gold, and for its lamps, of gold, by weight for every lampstand and for its lamps; and for the lampstands of silver, by weight for every lampstand and for its lamps, according to the use of every lampstand-</p><p>See on :14. "The candlestick" or menorah is only ever spoken of in the law of Moses in the singular, but here David has decided there were to be multiple such candlesticks. By doing so, he ignored the symbolism of the one candlestick, such was his obsession with mere religion.</p>


text:
<p>and the gold by weight for the tables of show bread, for every table; and silver for the tables of silver- </p><p>The table of show bread was to be made of acacia wood (<a href='B:20 25:23'>Exo 25:23</a>), but David planned to make it of pure gold, and even worked out the weight of gold required for it (<a href='B:130 28:16'>1Ch 28:16</a>). And Solomon indeed made it of gold (<a href='B:110 7:48'>1Ki 7:48</a>), leading to it being known as "the pure table" (<a href='B:140 13:11'>2Ch 13:11</a>). Religion had overtaken spirituality, form had eclipsed content. Likewise the "tables of silver" David ordered to be made (<a href='B:130 28:16'>1Ch 28:16</a>) do not feature in the tabernacle. He was missing the point- that God wanted His holiest symbols made of common, weak things like acacia wood. For His strength and glory is made perfect in weakness. David claims these plans were from God (<a href='B:130 28:19'>1Ch 28:19</a>), although as discussed on <a href='B:130 28:12'>1Ch 28:12</a>, they were in fact from his own mind. The way these things were taken into captivity, with no record of this golden table ever being returned, surely reflects God’s judgment upon this kind of religious show. He prefers a humble house church in an inner city room, rather than a gold plated cathedral. The way some exclusive churches speak of 'maintaining a pure table' suggests they have made the same essential mistake as David did.</p>


text:
<p>and the forks, and the basins, and the cups, of pure gold; and for the golden bowls by weight for every bowl; and for the silver bowls by weight for every bowl- </p><p>There was little point in making forks and basins of pure gold, a soft metal. This was all for religious show, and not at all stipulated in the Divine design for the tabernacle.</p>


text:
<p>and for the altar of incense refined gold by weight; and gold for the pattern of the chariot, the cherubim, that spread out, and covered the ark of the covenant of Yahweh- </p><p>Here we have a clear association between the cherubim and the idea of a chariot. The idea of the cherubim is that this is God in motion. And so we behold the contradiction. David wants this cherubim chariot fixed in one place; whereas God had told David that He didn’t want a temple, because He was a God on the move. His ark and the associated cherubim had always been moving and therefore the ark was to be portable. But David was seeking to tie down the ever moving God in one place. This is what religion ever seeks to do to spirituality.</p>


text:
<p>All this, said David, I have been made to understand in writing from the hand of Yahweh, even all the works of this pattern- </p><p>In the previous chapters, we have David presenting his plans and visions for the divisions of the Levites, and only now claiming that this was from God’s revelation to him. See on :11,12. If these plans were indeed from God, we would expect to read about the point when a prophet declared them by a "word of the Lord". The "said David" is highly significant. Here we see the difference between inspiration and revelation. The record of the words is inspired, but this is not Divine revelation. LXX "David gave all to Solomon in the Lord's handwriting". This was David's claim, trying to make his plans equivalent to Yahweh's writing the ten commandments in His handwriting. But there is no record of this at all. David is desperate to make his narrative God's and even reasons that his handwriting is God's. And so all expanded narratives end up a playing God.  </p>


text:
<p>David said to Solomon his son, Be strong and courageous, and do it. Don’t be afraid, nor be dismayed; for Yahweh God, even my God, is with you. He will not fail you, nor forsake you, until all the work for the service of the house of Yahweh is finished- </p><p>The "service" of Yahweh is never finished, and yet David speaks as if it will finish when the temple is built. This reflects his obsession with the project. But maybe the words of David to Solomon here came to the Lord’s mind in <a href='B:470 27:46'>Mat 27:46</a>: "My God (cp. "My God, My God") is with you... He will not... forsake you". Recognizing He had now been forsaken, the Lord Jesus agreed "It is finished". Indeed, from the moment He left the Upper Room&nbsp;the work&nbsp;was&nbsp;finished and therefore the presence of the Angel departed (<a href='B:500 17:4'>Joh 17:4</a> "I have finished the work...").</p><p>Being "dismayed and terrified" is the term used of how Israel generally were terrified of Goliath, whereas David by faith wasn't (<a href='B:90 17:11'>1Sa 17:11</a>). David in turn uses to his son Solomon (<a href='B:130 22:13'>1Ch 22:13</a>; <a href='B:130 28:20'>1Ch 28:20</a>). He was thereby urging Solomon not to worry if he was out of step with all Israel; if they were dismayed and terrified, he was still to walk in faith as David had done at the time of the Goliath crisis. It is also used to urge the people toward the spirit of David rather than that of Israel in <a href='B:140 20:15'>2Ch 20:15</a>; <a href='B:140 20:17'>2Ch 20:17</a>. The same phrase is also used in urging the people of Judah in Hezekiah's time to consider the Assyrians to be as a Goliath which they like David could vanquish (<a href='B:140 32:7'>2Ch 32:7</a>). The exiles likewise were urged not to be dismayed and terrified at the reproach of men (<a href='B:290 51:7'>Isa 51:7</a>; <a href='B:300 30:10'>Jer 30:10</a>), very clearly making the history with Goliath relevant to their times.</p>


text:
<p>Behold, there are the divisions of the priests and the Levites, for all the service of God’s house. There shall be with you in all kinds of work every willing man who has skill, for any kind of service. Also the captains and all the people will be entirely at your command- </p><p>The language of willing men with skill recalls that of the building of the tabernacle by skilled workmen (<a href='B:20 35:35'>Exo 35:35</a>), using materials supplied by willing hearts (<a href='B:20 35:5'>Exo 35:5</a>; <a href='B:20 35:21'>Exo 35:21</a>). But David was wrong to imply that this temple he had conceived was some kind of tabernacle. For on point after point, he goes against both the letter and spirit of the directions regarding the tabernacle. But he is shrouding his whole project in the language of the tabernacle.</p>


text:
<p>David the king said to all the assembly, Solomon my son, whom alone God has chosen, is yet young and tender- </p><p>"Whom alone..." is a political statement. David of course claimed that God had chosen Solomon out of all his sons (<a href='B:130 28:5'>1Ch 28:5</a>), but there is no record of that happening; rather do we suspect that David came to imagine that his own choice was in fact God’s. Psalms 72 was David’s declaration that he believed Solomon would be the Messianic ruler; but that was proven wrong, because Solomon did not reign with justice and turned away from Yahweh. The words will come true in the person of the Lord Jesus, but David was wrong to insist they must apply to Solomon.</p><p>So it was David who chose Solomon, but he is trying to make God be the one who preferred Solomon. As discussed on <a href='B:130 28:4'>1Ch 28:4</a>, David had misrepresented God as having chosen David on the basis of lineal descent, when that wasn't at all the case. But David does so because he wants to thereby justify Solomon as the chosen son on the basis of lineal descent. When Adonijah briefly seized power, David was forced to make a statement in support of Solomon; but beyond the reference to a personal comment to Bathsheba that he wanted Solomon to succeed him, David had never made his position on Solomon clear before that time. And there was no recorded word from Yahweh saying that Solomon was to succeed him.</p><p>And the work is great; for the palace is not for man, but for Yahweh God- </p><p>This is true on one level, but not on another. The greatness of God is not necessarily responded to by lavish decoration of buildings, as we see in the Orthodox churches. God dwells in the hearts of men and not in such buildings</p>


text:
<p>Now I have prepared with all my might for the house of my God the gold for the things of gold, the silver for the things of silver, the brass for the things of brass, the iron for the things of iron and wood for the things of wood; onyx stones and stones to be set, stones for inlaid work and of various colours, all kinds of precious stones, and marble stones in abundance- </p><p>The reference to precious stones would suggest that David was seeking to make new robes for the high priest, including a new breastplate. But the scale of the materials suggests David was going far beyond that, and instituting a new religious system with opulence everywhere, with "inlaid work" on fixtures which was not stipulated in the tabernacle plans. This was quite contrary to God’s desire to live in the hearts of people; those hearts were precious stones to Him. And He specifically stated He wanted the ark to dwell in a tent. LXX "Parian marble"; the word is only used of the decadent palace of <a href='B:190 1:6'>Est 1:6</a>. The spiritually minded amongst the exiles would have observed the parallels.</p>


text:
<p>In addition, because I have set my affection on the house of my God- </p><p>"Affection" here is s:w. :17 of God’s "pleasure" in righteousness. David assumes that God has pleasure / affection towards him because he has this obsession with building a temple- which God had said He didn’t want. The whole story here is a parade example of where religion overtakes spirituality, and form eclipses content. This is the same word David used in saying that God doesn't "delight" or set His affection upon sacrifices, but rather upon broken, contrite hearts of repentant sinners (Ps. 51:16 "You do not delight in / have affection to burnt offering, or I would give it"). But now David's delight is in burnt offerings and rituals, and a temple where they could be offered in larger number than in the tabernacle. He has slipped back from spirituality to religion at the very end of his journey; and yet still will be saved.
</p><p>Since I have a treasure of my own of gold and silver, I give it to the house of my God, over and above all that I have prepared for the holy house- </p><p>What we have is not ours because we worked for it- although that, I know, is how it feels. It is ours on loan. Surely this of itself ought to mean that each of us leaves our property, if we own any, to the Lord's work, after the pattern of how David left all his personal wealth to the work of the temple, rather than to Solomon personally.</p><p>But as with Haman offering huge amounts of money, we wonder where exactly David acquired all this personal wealth from. David had his own extensive personal wealth, including vineyards (<a href='B:130 27:27'>1Ch 27:27</a>), servants who worked the ground (<a href='B:130 27:26'>1Ch 27:26</a>). This was exactly what Samuel had warned Israel about; a human king would take Israel's men to till their ground, and would take their vineyards from them (<a href='B:90 8:12'>1Sa 8:12</a>; <a href='B:90 8:14'>1Sa 8:14</a>). That all suggests that David slipped spiritually at the end of his life. For he came from a poor family, and to have all these things meant he had taken them for himself, and had ignored these warnings of his one time mentor Samuel. See on :12.</p>


text:
<p>even three thousand talents of gold, of the gold of Ophir, and seven thousand talents of refined silver, with which to overlay the walls of the house- </p><p>This is a huge amount of wealth to now additionally offer, for the sake of rendering the temple with gold. This kind of opulence is quite opposed to the humble spirit of the tabernacle construction. The amount may be less if we recall that Chronicles was rewritten under Divine inspiration for the exiles, and "talents" may refer to Persian talents which were considerably less than Hebrew talents. But it may well be that David is wildly exaggerating, in order to elicit yet more such donations from other wealthy people. David boasts in <a href='B:130 29:4'>1Ch 29:4</a> that his gold is "of Ophir", whereas in reality Solomon covered the house with gold "of Parvaim" (<a href='B:140 3:6'>2Ch 3:6</a>). This suggests that David may not in fact have had in hand all the fantastic personal wealth he boasted of donating for the rendering of the house with gold.</p><p>The figures also contradict David's claim in 1 Chron. 22:14 "I have made a great effort in preparing for the house of Yahweh one hundred thousand talents of gold, one million talents of silver, and brass and iron without weight; for it is in abundance. I have also prepared timber and stone". The amount of gold and silver David claims to have donated to the temple is beyond credibility. At the height of Solomon's power he only received 666 talents / year. He is in fantasy about himself and the temple. In the same way he refers to Solomon as young and tender (29:1) when he was at least 30 years old. As always, this was the narrative David wanted to present and believe. Likewise his claim that God had chosen only Solomon out of all David's sons. Earlier, David clearly had ambitions for his sons Ammon and Absalom to be the Messianic son of David. But they messed up and we're dead. So the claim God had only chosen Solomon is false. All this confirms my suggestion that 2 Sam. 23 was indeed the last prophetic, Divinely inspired words of David. All the rest was said by him not by revelation, although the record of what he said is Divinely inspired. He is again caught up in his own narrative, about his own wealth and power, and how the temple will be so opulent. He has totally ignored God's words about preferring to dwell in a tent. Again we see the consequence of getting lost in a false narrative; it always expands. The David who has never previously presented as materialistic, now presents as obsessed with his own wealth and trumpeting his generosity to the narrative he has created- of the temple God never wanted.      </p>


text:
<p>of gold for the things of gold, and of silver for the things of silver, and for all kinds of work to be made by the hands of artisans. Who then offers willingly to consecrate himself this day to Yahweh?- </p><p>David was almost covetous for the donations of others, and therefore appears to overstate his own voluntary donation (see on :5). This is all an example of how he was obsessed with the project. What God required was willingly consecrated hearts, not consecration to God through impressive material donations towards a project God didn’t want anyway.</p><p>To "consecrate" is literally to fill one's hand to the Lord, meaning to provide oneself with something which one brings to the Lord, as in Ex. 32:29. We note the paradox. To give something to God means your hand is full with it, you retain it in the spiritual sphere but not in the literal, material world. And yet whatever we thought was in our own hand was in fact in God's hand and is anyway in His hand: "From You came the riches and the glory ... and in Your hand it is" (:12,14,16).</p>


text:
<p>Then the princes of the fathers’ households, and the princes of the tribes of Israel, and the captains of thousands and of hundreds, with the rulers over the king’s work, offered willingly- </p><p>As in :3, we wonder from where the leaders of Israel had such huge wealth. I noted on 1 Chronicles 27 and elsewhere that David had appointed leaders who were largely from his own tribe and personal circle. The impression we get now is that they had all enriched themselves at others' expense. See on :3.</p>


text:
<p>and they gave for the service of God’s house five thousand talents and ten thousand darics of gold, and of silver ten thousand talents, of brass eighteen thousand talents and of iron a hundred thousand talents- </p><p>The mention of darics, a Persian measurement, suggests this record was rewritten [under inspiration] in exile. See on :4. This would mean that "talents" may refer to Persian talents, which were considerably less than Hebrew talents. "Darics" certainly shows Chronicles was written or rewritten in exile, encouraging the Jews to prepare for a Davidic Messiah to arise and to rebuild the temple. This is one reason why David is sanitized in the Chronicles record- to present him as a type of the Messiah they could potentially have had at the restoration. </p><p>
But the sum of 5000 talents is still barely credible. (5000 talents equals about 150 tonnes, i.e. 150000 kilograms of gold). This is in addition to the 3000 talents which David supposedly gave. It is doubtful whether there was that amount of gold in one place anywhere in the ancient world. Again we get the impression that David is eagerly counting every penny, and more than that, exaggerating grossly. He ends his days totally failing to learn from the sin of numbering Israel and trying to establish God's Kingdom immediately by his human strength. And also he has an eye for material wealth and strength rather than the trust in Yahweh which had characterized his earlier, younger life. Yet he will still be saved. 
</p>


text:
<p>They with whom precious stones were found gave them to the treasure of the house of Yahweh, under the hand of Jehiel the Gershonite- </p><p>The only precious stones required were those for the breastplate and garments of the high priest. These were given by the rulers of the people (<a href='B:20 35:9'>Exo 35:9</a>; <a href='B:20 35:27'>Exo 35:27</a>). But we have the impression that a huge amount of precious stones was gathered from the leaders. Far more than the 12 stones of the breastplate. Again, the simple, humble nature of the tabernacle was being subverted by a mistaken idea that God is honoured by opulence- a lesson Pentecostalism has failed to learn.</p><p>The language in this chapter clearly reflects that of Israel giving the required materials for building the tabernacle. The precious stones sound like those used in the High Priest's garments. David was not only wanting to build a temple but had expanded his narrative to create an entire worship system. None of us this was asked for by God. Once we begin down a path of our own creation, our narrative expands. None of this would have happened had David taken God at His word when God explained why He didn't want a temple and preferred a tent and to dwell on the hearts of the seed of His future Son. No lie remains alone, it expands, false narratives likewise expand. We are to love truth and hate untruth. Otherwise we will believe an ever expanding lie.</p>


text:
<p>Then the people rejoiced, because they offered willingly, because with a complete heart they offered willingly to Yahweh: and David the king also rejoiced with great joy-</p><p>It is true that even if all this opulence was a case of misplaced idealism, genuine giving to God rather than retaining for ourselves is a source of personal joy. We will note on :14,18 that this attitude of heart was also given by God. But we wonder whether the record here, although inspired by God in its recording, was really the summary of the narrative David wished to believe. Because the language of the people rejoicing for their willing giving recalls the descriptions of the people willingly offering for the building of the tabernacle (<a href='B:20 25:2'>Exo 25:2</a>; <a href='B:20 35:21-22'>Exo 35:21-22</a>; <a href='B:20 35:29'>Exo 35:29</a>). But David was not building or rebuilding the tabernacle; he was building a grandiose religious system which in letter and spirit was out of step with the tabernacle specifications. And although the people in the wilderness offered so willingly, they were far from God in their hearts and turned back to Egypt. They were not justified by their apparent generosity.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore David blessed Yahweh before all the assembly; and David said, You are blessed, Yahweh, the God of Israel our father, forever and ever- </p><p>This public praise of God "before all" appears out of step with the real spirit of praise and worship. This prayer ends with the people prostrating themselves before David, which all seems so spiritually inappropriate for the man who was initially loved as the shepherd boy with a humble heart. See on :20:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Yours, Yahweh, is the greatness, the power, the glory, the victory and the majesty! For all that is in the heavens and in the earth is Yours. Yours is the kingdom, Yahweh, and You are exalted as head above all- </p><p>The common rubric found in the histories of the kings is that the "might" of a king was recorded at his death (<a href='B:110 15:23'>1Ki 15:23</a>; <a href='B:110 16:5'>1Ki 16:5</a>; <a href='B:110 16:27'>1Ki 16:27</a>; <a href='B:110 22:45'>1Ki 22:45</a>; <a href='B:120 10:34'>2Ki 10:34</a>; <a href='B:120 13:8'>2Ki 13:8</a>; <a href='B:120 13:12'>2Ki 13:12</a>; <a href='B:120 14:15'>2Ki 14:15</a>; <a href='B:120 14:28'>2Ki 14:28</a>; <a href='B:120 20:20'>2Ki 20:20</a>). "His might that he showed" uses a word for "might" which has the sense of victory / achievement. But the contrast is marked with the way that David so often uses this word for "might / victory / achievement" in the context of God’s "might"; notably in <a href='B:130 29:11'>1Ch 29:11</a>, which the Lord Jesus places in our mouths as part of His model prayer: "Yours is the power [s:w. "might"], and the glory and the majesty". The kings about whom the phrase is used were those who trusted in their own works. It therefore reads as a rather pathetic memorial; that this man's might / achievement was noted down. But the unspoken further comment is elicited in our own minds, if we are in tune with the spirit of David: "But the only real achievement is the Lord's and not man's". All human victory and achievement must be seen in this context. The same word is used in <a href='B:300 9:23-24'>Jer 9:23-24</a>: "Don’t let the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might [s:w:]... but let him who glories glory in this, that he has understanding, and knows Me, that I am Yahweh who exercises loving kindness, justice, and righteousness, in the earth". The glorification of human "might" is often condemned. "Their might [s:w:] is not right" (<a href='B:300 23:10'>Jer 23:10</a>; also s:w. <a href='B:300 51:30'>Jer 51:30</a>; <a href='B:330 32:29'>Eze 32:29</a>; <a href='B:400 7:16'>Mic 7:16</a> and often).</p><p>David prayed "Yours is the Kingdom" when madly going about to build up his own kingdom with his son as the head of it. But this is the same easily made error that we can all make when praying the Lord's prayer. </p>


text:
<p>Both riches and honour come from You, and You rule over all; in Your hand is power and might; it is in Your hand to make great, and to give strength to all- </p><p>David appears to have himself in view, the one from a poor family who had been "made great" by God’s gentleness and grace (<a href='B:230 18:35'>Psa 18:35</a>). Yet I suggested on :3 that David had really made himself great by taking wealth not intended for him. And we hear the same today, people praising God for having blessed them with what in fact they blessed themselves with, often by unethical means.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore, our God, we thank You and praise Your glorious name- </p><p>David has used the same phrase in <a href='B:230 66:2'>Psa 66:2</a>; but the following context of the Psalm is of his praise of God’s grace in redeeming and saving His unspiritual people. But now, David appears to be praising God for the works which he himself is able to do. This is the inverse image of how God had told David that He didn’t want a temple built, but rather wanted to build David a house of people whom He had redeemed by grace.</p>


text:
<p>But who am I- </p><p>This was David’s response when God first told him that He didn’t want a temple, but rather would build a house for David from his descendants. David has totally misrepresented God’s response as saying that He did in fact welcome the idea of a grandiose physical temple, and so by repeating his response at the time, he is surely guilty of a false humility.</p><p>And what is my people, that we should be able to offer so willingly as this?- </p><p>The idea is&nbsp; that even the desire to offer willingly was given by God, as well as the actual materials given. As will be noted on :18, God can give desires and motives to people, working directly on the human heart. And He can do so today, in the hearts of those open to the working of the Holy Spirit.</p><p>For all things come from You, and of Your own have we given You- </p><p>God insisted through Malachi (3:8-12), you are robbing me if you don't give back, or even if you don't give your heart to Him in faith. And will a man rob God? Will a man…? We must give God what has His image stamped on it: and we, our bodies, are made in His image (<a href='B:470 22:21'>Mat 22:21</a>); therefore we have a duty to give ourselves to Him. We are not our own: how much less is 'our' money or time our own! Like David, we need to realize now, in this life, before the judgment, that all our giving is only a giving back to God of what we have been given by Him. The danger of materialism is the assumption that we are ultimate owners of what we 'have'. When Eli and his sons kept part of God’s sacrifices for themselves, he was condemned: "You trample upon My sacrifice and My offering" (<a href='B:90 2:29'>1Sa 2:29</a> RVmg:). This is what we are doing by considering that anything that is God’s is in fact ours- we are trampling upon that which is His.</p>


text:
<p>For we are strangers before You, and foreigners, as all our fathers were. Our days on the earth are as a shadow, and there is no remaining- </p><p>Foreigners were sometimes allowed to reside in the capital city of another nation under the immediate protection of the king or of the heads of the state (cp. 1 Sam. 22:3,4; 27:3; 15:19). David appeals to God on the ground that Israel is likewise living in His city and therefore under God’s protection (Cp. Ps. 39:12). The idea anyway is of usufruct, not owning the land, but allowed to eat what grows upon it. And that should be the spirit of our living on this earth at this time.</p><p>David uses the language of Gentiles, appreciating that their Hebrew roots, in ethnic terms, were of no real value in achieving their salvation. Their inherent mortality as men, of whatever ethnic background, meant that they were saved by grace and not because of their ethnicity. Because we brought nothing into the world and can carry nothing out, i:e. because of our very nature, we shouldn't be materialistic and should be content (<a href='B:610 6:7-8'>1Ti 6:7-8</a>). In saying this, Paul is alluding to how Job faced up to the reality of our condition by saying that we entered this world naked and return naked (<a href='B:220 1:21'>Job 1:21</a>). Paul is saying that we are all in Job's position, facing up to the loss of all things, and should count it a blessing to have even clothing. David said that just because "our days on the earth are as a shadow, and there is none abiding" , therefore he wanted to be as generous as possible in providing for the work of God’s house (<a href='B:130 29:14-16'>1Ch 29:14-16</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh our God, all this store that we have prepared to build You a house for Your holy name comes from Your hand, and is all Your own- </p><p>David sees the wealth which he and the leaders of Israel had offered as having come from God. But I explained on :3 that in fact they appear to have acquired that huge wealth by unGodly means. This kind of thing goes on often. Men build up wealth in their own strength, often by unGodly means; and then piously claim it is all God’s blessing, and they are giving it back to God. This is far from just the tendency of the very wealthy; it applies to people on all levels of wealth.</p>


text:
<p>I know also, my God, that You try the heart, and have pleasure in uprightness. As for me, in the uprightness of my heart I have willingly offered all these things. Now have I seen with joy Your people, that are present here, offer willingly to You- </p><p>But David clearly advertised his own huge giving in order to elicit such donations from other wealthy people. So to then praise God for their willing hearts is somewhat less than truthful.</p><p>"Willingly offered" is LXX "with a single eye". Speaking in the context of serving either God or mammon, the Lord uttered some difficult words: "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth…the light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness…how great is that darkness!" (<a href='B:470 6:19-22'>Mat 6:19-22</a>). All this is in the context of not being materialistic. The Lord is drawing on the OT usage of "an evil eye"- and consistently, this idiom means someone who is selfishly materialistic (<a href='B:240 22:9'>Pro 22:9</a>; <a href='B:240 23:7'>Pro 23:7</a>; <a href='B:240 28:22'>Pro 28:22</a>; <a href='B:50 15:9'>Deu 15:9</a>). The NIV renders some of these idioms as "stingy" or "mean". A single eye refers to a generous spirit (<a href='B:130 29:17'>1Ch 29:17</a> LXX), and a related Greek word occurs in <a href='B:540 8:2'>2Co 8:2</a>; <a href='B:540 9:11'>2Co 9:11</a>; <a href='B:540 9:13'>2Co 9:13</a> with the sense of "generous". So surely the Lord is saying that our attitude to wealth controls our whole spirituality. Whether we have a mean or generous spirit will affect our whole life- an evil [stingy] eye means our whole body is full of darkness.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh, the God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Israel our fathers, keep this forever in the imagination of the thoughts of the heart of Your people, and prepare their heart for You- </p><p>NET: "Maintain the motives of your people and keep them devoted to you". This is a clear example of how God through His Spirit can work directly on the human heart, giving motivations and preparing minds. And this is really what we so earnestly need in our spiritual lives:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Give to Solomon my son a perfect heart, to keep Your commandments, Your testimonies and Your statutes, and to do all these things, and to build the palace, for which I have made provision- </p><p>As in 1 Chron. 28:9 we marvel that David has so little insight into the state of the human heart. David's heart was on balance with God, but as with every man apart from the Lord, his human heart was very corrupt as well. But David refuses to see this, preferring a simplistic binary division of men into being either sinners or having perfect hearts. Whilst we can argue that perfect reflects the Hebrew sense of complete, David imagines his son will be God's Son and therefore perfect morally. </p><p>As noted on :18, David understood God to have the ability to work directly upon the human heart, and to make people obedient. This is the function of the Holy Spirit today. But as with Solomon, God will never force a person to be obedient if this is not in fact what they themselves truly want.</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. It seems David assumed his prayer was answered, and Solomon was somehow made righteous and even perfect. This would account for Solomon's lack of personal conscience of sin and possible failure, which was to be his spiritual undoing. 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>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 that Solomon was given great wisdom, and his Kingdom was one of the greatest&nbsp; types of Christ's 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>David said to all the assembly, Now bless Yahweh your God! All the assembly blessed Yahweh, the God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads and prostrated themselves before Yahweh and the king- </p><p>Such prostration before David was surely inappropriate. David was really playing God, and the whole scene, although it includes many spiritual words and ideas, smacks of pride and inappropriate opulence.</p>


text:
<p>They sacrificed sacrifices to Yahweh, and offered burnt offerings to Yahweh, on the next day after that day, even one thousand bulls, one thousand rams and one thousand lambs, with their drink offerings, and sacrifices in abundance for all Israel-&nbsp; </p><p>This was clearly out of step with what David had earlier been taught after his sin with Bathsheba; that God did not want thousands of sacrifices, but rather broken, contrite hearts (<a href='B:230 40:6-8'>Psa 40:6-8</a>). And Solomon repeats David’s failure in this, by again offering such huge numbers of sacrifices. Which, like the temple, God didn’t want.</p>


text:
<p>and ate and drink before Yahweh on that day with great gladness. They made Solomon the son of David king the second time, and anointed him to Yahweh to be prince, and Zadok to be priest- </p><p>It seems that this was "that day" when David had made his public prayer. So Solomon was made king shortly before David actually died. "The second time" refers to how the first time, David had hurriedly pronounced Solomon king at the time of Adonijah's rebellion. We note that they anointed him to be king, whereas Saul and David were anointed by God to be king. Zadok was made high priest because the other high priest Abiathar had supported Adonijah's rebellion and had been demoted.</p>


text:
<p>Then Solomon sat on the throne of Yahweh as king instead of David his father, and prospered; and all Israel obeyed him- </p><p>Solomon would only prosper if he was obedient to the Divine commandments (s:w. <a href='B:130 22:13'>1Ch 22:13</a>). But he didn’t do so, and so his prospering was in appearance.</p>


text:
<p>All the princes, the mighty men, and also all the sons of king David submitted themselves to Solomon the king- </p><p>Again the record appears to be reflecting the narrative which David and Solomon wanted to believe. For Solomon slew his brother Adonijah and any other potential competitors for his throne. Those who remained presumably only submitted themselves out of fear.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh magnified Solomon exceedingly in the sight of all Israel, and bestowed on him such royal majesty as had not been on any king before him in Israel-</p><p>Despite all the unspirituality of this situation, God was willing to work with what He had. He likewise worked through a human kingship system, although it was a rejection of Him; and He was to inhabit the temple, although He never wanted it built in the first place. Solomon, like Saul, was set up with the potential for being the Messianic seed / king; but he failed to use the huge potential given him:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Now David the son of Jesse had reigned over all Israel- </p><p>"All Israel" is stressed. The exiles for whom Chronicles was rewritten were commanded to participate in a renewed Davidic kingdom, which was intended to comprise the repentant remnants of both Judah and the ten tribes.</p>


text:
<p>The time that he reigned over Israel was forty years; he reigned seven years in Hebron, and he reigned thirty-three years in Jerusalem- </p><p>Solomon, David and Saul are all stated to have reigned 40 years, and it may be a non literal number. If Saul reigned 40 years (<a href='B:510 13:21'>Act 13:21</a>), this creates various chronological problems. Paul's argument in <a href='B:510 13:21'>Act 13:21</a> seems to be seeking to draw a parallel between Israel's 40 years in the desert and Saul's reign. Numbers are simply not used in Semitic literature in the literalistic way that they are in the writings of other cultures. To this day an Arab may describe a hot day as being 100 degrees C, when it is not that literally. But the Arab is not lying nor deceiving; it's a case of using numbers within a different context of language usage. David beginning his reign at 30 may be intended to recall how the Levites began serving at 30 (<a href='B:40 4:3'>Num 4:3</a>), because David was set up to be the priest-king who would replace the high priesthood according to Hannah's song. And at times he clearly did act like this, although his failures meant that the potential was reapplied and reframed to fulfilment in the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>He died in a good old age, full of days, riches and honour; and Solomon his son reigned in his place- </p><p>This again presents David from a very idealistic viewpoint, part of the narrative which David and Solomon wished to believe. For I discussed on :3 how his wealth was perhaps wrongly acquired. And he hardly died with universal honour, for the last years of his life, right up to Adonijah's rebellion when he was on his death bed, were characterized by discontent with him. The record of the words is inspired, but that is not to say that we are not reading a history written by someone who wished to justify the David-Solomon narrative.</p>


text:
<p>Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold, they are written in the history of Samuel the seer, in the history of Nathan the prophet and in the history of Gad the seer- </p><p>"The history" is literally 'the words':&nbsp; The reference may not be to the books of Samuel; the Hebrew title for The Books of Chronicles is "The words (or the acts) of the days". And that book may well be a compilation of the three sources listed here.</p>


text:
<p>with accounts of all his reign and his might, and the circumstances which he and all Israel experienced, and those of all the kingdoms of the surrounding countries- </p><p>"Circumstances" is "the times". But this history or "times" needs to be interpreted, as it was by those of <a href='B:130 12:32'>1Ch 12:32</a>. It seems from this that the histories of :29 included histories of the nations surrounding Israel, and it would appear that these are being referenced as if they existed somewhere. It seems that when Chronicles was rewritten under inspiration in exile, there developed a body of such literature, although the texts of :29 are not all preserved.</p>


text:
<e>2 Chronicles: New European Christadelphian Commentary</e><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>Carelinks</p><p>PO Bo 152, Menai NSW 2234</p><p>AUSTRALIA</p><p>www:carelinks:net</p><p>Copyright © 2018 by Duncan Heaster.</p><p>All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review or scholarly journal.</p><p>First Printing: 2018</p><p>ISBN 978-0-244-72629-4</p><e>PREFACE</e><p>This commentary is based around the New European Version of the Bible, which is generally printed with brief commentary on each chapter. Charities such as Carelinks Ministries and the Christadelphian Advancement Trust endeavour to provide totally free copies worldwide according to resources and donations available to them. But there is a desire by many to go beyond those brief comments on each chapter, and delve deeper into the text. The New European Christadelphian commentary seeks to meet that need. As with all Divine things, beauty becomes the more apparent the closer we analyze. We can zoom in the scale of investigation to literally every letter of the words used by His Spirit. But that would require endless volumes. And academic analysis is no more nor less than that; we are to live by His word. This commentary seeks to achieve a balance between practical teaching on one hand, and a reasonable level of thorough consideration of the original text. On that side of things, you will observe in the commentary a common abbreviation: “s:w.". This stands for “same word”; the same original Greek or Hebrew word translated [A] is used when translated [B]. This helps to slightly remove the mask of translation through which most Bible readers have to relate to the original text.</p><p>Are there errors of thought and intellectual process in these volumes? Surely there are. Let me know about them. But finally- don’t fail to see the wood for the trees. Never let the wonder of the simple, basic Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Kingdom become obscured by all the angst over correctly interpreting this or that Bible verse. Believe it, respond to it, be baptized into Him, and let the word become flesh in you as it was so supremely in Him.</p><p>If you would like to enable the NEV Bible and associated material to remain freely available, do consider making a donation to Carelinks Ministries or The Christadelphian Advancement Trust. And please pray that our sending forth of God’s word will bring back glory to His Name and that of His dear Son whom we serve.</p><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>dh@heaster:org</p>


text:
<p>Solomon the son of David was strengthened in his kingdom, and Yahweh his God was with him, and magnified him exceedingly- </p><p>Despite all the unspirituality of this situation, God was willing to work with what He had. He likewise worked through a human kingship system, although it was a rejection of Him; and He was to inhabit the temple, although He never wanted it built in the first place. Solomon, like Saul, was set up with the potential for being the Messianic seed / king; but he failed to use the huge potential given him:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Solomon spoke to all Israel, to the captains of thousands and of hundreds, and to the judges, and to every prince in all Israel, the heads of the fathers’ households- </p><p>Solomon sought to establish himself as king, so he invited all the leaders of the nation to come to a special sacrifice in Gibeon, a kind of inauguration ceremony. It seems they came to Jerusalem, and then travelled with him to Gibeon (:3) and then returned with him from there to Jerusalem (:13).</p>


text:
<p>So Solomon, and all the assembly with him, went to the high place that was at Gibeon; for there was the Tent of Meeting of God, which Moses the servant of Yahweh had made in the wilderness- </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>); 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>Zadok cared for the tabernacle at Gibeon, which was "the great high place" (<a href='B:130 16:39'>1Ch 16:39</a>; <a href='B:110 3:4'>1Ki 3:4</a>), and so it is another example of correlation within the inspired records that he had access to that horn and the oil with which to anoint Solomon (<a href='B:110 1:39'>1Ki 1:39</a>). Solomon had replaced Abiathar with Zadok as chief priest, so perhaps his worship to Gibeon rather than Jerusalem [where Abiathar had officiated] was a nod towards Zadok.</p>


text:
<p>But David had brought the ark of God up from Kiriath Jearim to the place that David had prepared for it; for he had pitched a tent for it at Jerusalem- </p><p>The point is that the ark was not in the tabernacle at Gibeon (:3). The force of "But..." could be an implied criticism of this. I suggest on :5 that this was for political reasons, but the reality was that the sanctuary at Gibeon was without God’s presence, for the ark was not there. It was spiritually hollow.</p>


text:
<p>Moreover the bronze altar, that Bezalel the son of Uri the son of Hur had made, was there before the tabernacle of Yahweh; and Solomon and the assembly were seeking counsel there- </p><p>AV reads differently: "Moreover the brazen altar, that Bezaleel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, had made, he put before the tabernacle of the LORD: and Solomon and the congregation sought unto it". This may be read as an aside; at this point, Solomon went to Gibeon and sacrificed at the altar there, but this is as it were in brackets, telling us that in fact later, Solomon was to move the brazen altar from Gibeon to Jerusalem. We note that at this point, the ark is in Zion, but the altar of burnt offering is still at Gibeon (<a href='B:130 16:39-42'>1Ch 16:39-42</a>). This seems rather typical of how David perceived the spirit of the law to such an extent that he apparently broke the letter of the law by allowing this situation to continue. For surely he ought to have united the sanctuaries of Gibeon and Zion. Perhaps he allowed it to continue because of the political difficult in deciding which of the two high priests to appoint as singular high priest (Zadok or Ahimelech). And so he allowed the two sanctuaries to continue, although this was contrary to the law's insistence upon one sanctuary. Hence Solomon sacrificed both at Gibeon and before the ark at Jerusalem. It was only when Ahimelech was deposed by Solomon that he brought the brazen altar from Gibeon to Jerusalem (<a href='B:140 1:5'>2Ch 1:5</a> AV). This suggests that David’s operation of two sanctuaries was politically motivated.</p>


text:
<p>Solomon went up there to the bronze altar before Yahweh which was at the Tent of Meeting and offered one thousand burnt offerings on it-</p><p>Solomon offered a thousand burnt offerings on that altar- </p><p>This was clearly out of step with what David had earlier been taught after his sin with Bathsheba; that God did not want thousands of sacrifices, but rather broken, contrite hearts (<a href='B:230 40:6-8'>Psa 40:6-8</a>). And Solomon repeats David’s failure in this, by again offering such huge numbers of sacrifices. Which, like the temple, God didn’t want.</p>


text:
<p>In that night God appeared to Solomon and said to him, Ask what I shall give you- </p><p>Godly men usually asked or enquired of God on their initiative, as David did (s:w. <a href='B:90 22:10'>1Sa 22:10</a>; <a href='B:90 23:4'>1Sa 23:4</a>; <a href='B:100 5:19'>2Sa 5:19</a>). But Solomon had apparently merely offered ritual sacrifices, and had not engaged with God in personal relationship. Now he is encouraged to do so.</p><p>I have argued that Ecclesiastes is Solomon's self reflection, a kind of autobiography. It is also a rejection and renunciation of his faith, because he wrote it at the end of his life, when his heart had been turned aside from God (<a href='B:110 11:3'>1Ki 11:3</a>). I suggest it is this dream which is the reference of <a href='B:250 5:3'>Ecc 5:3</a>: "For as a dream comes with a multitude of cares, so a fool’s speech with a multitude of words". If we enquire what reference a "dream" may have to Solomon's historical life, we naturally think of this dream at the start of his life when he was offered whatever he wanted, and he chose wisdom. Several times in Ecclesiastes he appears to regret that choice, as he considers there to be no ultimate advantage to wisdom or going God’s way because death ends it all, and God, Solomon thinks, cannot resurrect the dead to judgment (<a href='B:250 3:22'>Ecc 3:22</a>). And so in <a href='B:250 5:3'>Ecc 5:3</a> Solomon seems to be saying that that dream was simply self induced, an outcome of his "multitude of cares", and the "multitude of words" of wisdom he had written in response to it was but "a fool's speech". Like many who have had the direct involvement of God in their lives in youth, he came to rationalize it as nothing at all Divine, considering his dream had just been some Freudian reflection of his own internal "cares". And this kind of rationalizing of the Divine over time is absolutely true to observed experience in those who turn away from God.</p>


text:
<p>Solomon said to God, You have shown great grace to David my father, and have made me king in his place- </p><p>Solomon has it all the wrong way around in saying that Yahweh had showed grace to David because he had walked before Yahweh in truth (<a href='B:110 3:6'>1Ki 3:6</a>), and therefore Solomon had been made king. Solomon totally misunderstood grace. It is a pure gift from God, and not at all granted in response to our righteous walk.</p><p>These&nbsp; words&nbsp; are&nbsp; doubtless an allusion to the grace God showed David&nbsp; in his relationship with Solomon's mother, Bathsheba. But Solomon&nbsp; makes no mention of David’s great faith in God’s grace, and&nbsp; his&nbsp; subsequent&nbsp; appreciation&nbsp; that&nbsp; animal sacrifices were meaningless:&nbsp; These were David’s real strong points, but Solomon is obsessed with David’s public life of obedience ("according as he&nbsp;walked", <a href='B:110 3:6'>1Ki 3:6</a>). He&nbsp; evidently saw his father as the epitome of spiritual&nbsp; good,&nbsp; faultless&nbsp; in God’s sight. "Mercy" and "truth" both&nbsp; occur&nbsp; in&nbsp; <a href='B:110 3:6'>1Ki 3:6</a>,&nbsp; and&nbsp; they&nbsp; often&nbsp; refer to the promises:&nbsp; Solomon seems to have seen the promises to David as a reward for David’s good life, rather than an expression of God’s unwarranted&nbsp; grace:&nbsp; David’s&nbsp; reaction&nbsp; was&nbsp; "Who&nbsp; am&nbsp; I…?" to receive&nbsp; such&nbsp; an&nbsp; honour:&nbsp; Solomon's&nbsp; feeling&nbsp; was&nbsp; that&nbsp; David deserved them because of his righteousness. So here is a feature of&nbsp; many&nbsp; parent : child&nbsp; relationships in the Lord. The children love&nbsp; and&nbsp; respect&nbsp; their parents spiritually, but often for the wrong&nbsp; reasons;&nbsp; they&nbsp; actually&nbsp; misunderstand their forefathers' spirituality:&nbsp; This&nbsp; is&nbsp; why their understanding of parental and community expectation is often wrong in the first place.</p>


text:
<p>Now, Yahweh God, let your promise to David my father be established- </p><p>So&nbsp;very&nbsp;often&nbsp; does Solomon speak of "David my father",&nbsp; and&nbsp; that&nbsp; God&nbsp; had made him king "instead of David my father" (e.g. 1&nbsp; Kings&nbsp; 3:7). Thus he asks Hiram to deal with him just as he had done with David his father (<a href='B:110 5:2-7'>1Ki 5:2-7</a>; and cp. <a href='B:110 5:1'>1Ki 5:1</a> with <a href='B:100 5:11'>2Sa 5:11</a>). The number of times these phrases occur&nbsp; in&nbsp; the&nbsp; records&nbsp; is&nbsp; so&nbsp; large&nbsp; that&nbsp; we&nbsp; simply have to recognize&nbsp; that&nbsp; God&nbsp; is&nbsp; pointing something out to us about the relationship&nbsp; between Solomon and David (<a href='B:110 2:24'>1Ki 2:24</a>; <a href='B:110 2:26'>1Ki 2:26</a>; <a href='B:110 2:32'>1Ki 2:32</a>; <a href='B:110 2:44'>1Ki 2:44</a>; <a href='B:110 3:6-7'>1Ki 3:6-7</a>; <a href='B:110 3:14'>1Ki 3:14</a>; <a href='B:110 5:3'>1Ki 5:3</a>; <a href='B:110 5:5'>1Ki 5:5</a>; <a href='B:110 6:12'>1Ki 6:12</a>; <a href='B:110 8:15'>1Ki 8:15</a>; <a href='B:110 8:17-18'>1Ki 8:17-18</a>; <a href='B:110 8:20'>1Ki 8:20</a>; <a href='B:110 8:24-26'>1Ki 8:24-26</a>; <a href='B:110 9:4'>1Ki 9:4</a>; <a href='B:110 11:33'>1Ki 11:33</a>; <a href='B:140 1:8-9'>2Ch 1:8-9</a>; <a href='B:140 2:3'>2Ch 2:3</a>; <a href='B:140 2:7'>2Ch 2:7</a>; <a href='B:140 2:14'>2Ch 2:14</a>; <a href='B:140 6:4'>2Ch 6:4</a>; <a href='B:140 6:7-8'>2Ch 6:7-8</a>; <a href='B:140 6:10'>2Ch 6:10</a>; <a href='B:140 6:15-16'>2Ch 6:15-16</a>; <a href='B:140 7:17'>2Ch 7:17</a>). Solomon was raised a believer, and he lived out parental expectation; but in later life, he himself was revealed as having no real faith at all, and he turned away from Yahweh to idolatry. So often in his prayers to&nbsp; God does Solomon make reference to David; for example: "Thou hast&nbsp; showed&nbsp; unto&nbsp; thy&nbsp; servant&nbsp; David&nbsp; my&nbsp; father great mercy, according&nbsp;&nbsp; as&nbsp;&nbsp; he&nbsp;&nbsp; walked&nbsp;&nbsp; before&nbsp; thee&nbsp; in&nbsp; truth,&nbsp; and&nbsp; in righteousness,&nbsp; and&nbsp; in uprightness of heart with thee; and thou hast&nbsp; kept for him this great kindness, that thou hast given him a son to sit upon his throne" (<a href='B:110 3:6'>1Ki 3:6</a>).</p><p>For you have made me king- </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><p>Over a people like the dust of the earth in multitude- </p><p>Solomon assumes that the promises to Abraham of an innumerable seed had been fulfilled in his kingdom, just as he assumes the promises to David of the seed were fulfilled in him. He has no perspective of the future Kingdom of God, nor does he factor in the conditional nature of those promises.</p><p>And so Solomon 'had&nbsp; the truth', he knew so deeply the true principles of&nbsp; Yahweh&nbsp; worship and the promises which formed the basis of the covenant. But like us, he scarcely considered the enormity of the gap between the theory he knew and the practice of it in his own heart and living. We too have a tendency to build up masses of Biblical and spiritual knowledge, and to let the mere acquisition of it stop us from practicing it. He flouted the explicit commandments&nbsp; not to get horses from Egypt, not to marry Gentile women,&nbsp; and&nbsp; not&nbsp; to multiply silver and gold (<a href='B:50 17:17-18'>Deu 17:17-18</a> cp. <a href='B:110 10:21-29'>1Ki 10:21-29</a>):&nbsp; At&nbsp; the&nbsp; end&nbsp; of his days, he recognized that although&nbsp; he&nbsp; had&nbsp; loved&nbsp; the&nbsp; theory&nbsp; of wisdom, the image of a spiritual&nbsp; life, the wisdom of God had never really impacted his soul: "I said, I will be wise (referring back to his request for wisdom in 1 Kings 3); but it was far from me" (<a href='B:250 7:23'>Ecc 7:23</a>). His request for wisdom had only been so that he could do the job of leading&nbsp; Israel, living out the parental expectation of his father, whom he admits in Proverbs 4 had taught him to ask for wisdom. In <a href='B:240 19:12'>Pro 19:12</a> he speaks as if his own wisdom was like the dew coming down- as if he felt that the mere possession of wisdom made him the Messiah figure which his father had so hoped for him to be in <a href='B:230 72:6'>Psa 72:6</a>). And he says as much in <a href='B:240 29:3'>Pro 29:3</a>: “Whoso loveth wisdom [exactly what Solomon was commended for doing] rejoiceth his father”. He saw his wisdom and knowledge as some sort of a reward in themselves: “the prudent are crowned with knowledge” (<a href='B:240 14:18'>Pro 14:18</a>). This is of course true in a sense, as all the Proverbs are. But Solomon surely had the idea that he, who was so renowned for his knowledge, was somehow thereby rewarded by having it. This assumption by Solomon was likely behind each of the many references he makes to the value of wisdom and the blessedness of the man who has it. It is rather like feeling that ‘we have the truth’ because somehow our correct understanding of doctrines is a reward for our righteousness, and mere possession of doctrinal truth means that we are acceptable to God.</p>


text:
<p>Now give me wisdom and knowledge, that I may go out and come in before this people; for who can judge this your people, that is so great?-</p><p>I suggest on <a href='B:230 119:169'>Psa 119:169</a> that David asked for the word of promise that he would become king to be fulfilled; and in that context he asked for "wisdom / understanding" in how to rule Israel. And this was likewise the prayer of Solomon when he became king; but his motives were less than pure because he was consciously seeking to imitate his father in this request.</p><p>Solomon in Proverbs presents wisdom as of great personal benefit, indeed it is "for yourself"; and folly likewise is to your loss. But this presents a somewhat selfish view of wisdom. Solomon had been granted wisdom not for himself, but because he wanted to know how best to rule God’s great people. But once he has the wisdom, he becomes exalted by it, and concludes that wisdom is essentially for the personal benefit of those who have it, "you are wise for yourself" (<a href='B:240 9:12'>Pro 9:12</a>). Whatever truths are revealed to us are so that we might use them to the glory of God with others, and not to merely keep them for our own personal benefit.</p>


text:
<p>God said to Solomon, Because this was in your heart- </p><p>Prayer is largely carried out in the mind – how we ‘speak in the heart’ is effectively read as our prayer to God. We find the phrase used about how Abraham’s servant prayed, ‘speaking in his heart’ (<a href='B:10 24:45'>Gen 24:45</a>). Thus our self-talk merges into prayer; Hannah’s “prayer” appears to have been the same (<a href='B:90 2:1'>1Sa 2:1</a>). Solomon’s prayer for wisdom is described by God as “in your heart” (<a href='B:140 1:11'>2Ch 1:11</a>). This close link between thought and prayer is developed in the Lord’s teaching in <a href='B:480 11:23-24'>Mar 11:23-24</a>: “Truly I say unto you, Whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be taken up and cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that what he says comes to pass; he shall have it. Therefore I say unto you, All things you pray and ask for, believe that you receive them, and you shall have them”. Our self-talk is to be fantasy about the fulfillment of our prayers. Yet how often do we hit ‘send’ on our requests to God, like scribbling off a postcard, and hardly think again about them?</p><p>And you have not asked riches, wealth, or honour, nor the life of those who hate you- </p><p>This was in contrast to David, whose imprecatory Psalms certainly ask for that. And he asked for it at the end of his life, and Solomon operationalized it for David. So God is being very gracious here in commending Solomon for not asking for the lives of those who hate him. And He appears to be indirectly critical of David’s desire for just this.</p><p>God may be alluding to how David had asked long life and been given it (<a href='B:230 21:8'>Psa 21:8</a>). This allusion was seeking to show Solomon that he was not to merely live out the image of his father David, but to think independently and forge his own relationship with God. Likewise Solomon had not taken literally the invitation of <a href='B:230 2:8'>Psa 2:8</a> to Messiah to "ask of Me (s:w. :5) and I will give you the Gentiles". Instead he had asked for wisdom.</p><p>Neither yet have asked long life; but have asked wisdom and knowledge for yourself, that you may judge my people, over whom I have made you king- </p><p>Prayer is largely carried out in the mind – how we ‘speak in the heart’ is effectively read as our prayer to God. We find the phrase used about how Abraham’s servant prayed, ‘speaking in his heart’ (<a href='B:10 24:45'>Gen 24:45</a>). Thus our self-talk merges into prayer; Hannah’s “prayer” appears to have been the same (<a href='B:90 2:1'>1Sa 2:1</a>). Solomon’s prayer for wisdom is described by God as “in your heart”. This close link between thought and prayer is developed in the Lord’s teaching in <a href='B:480 11:23-24'>Mar 11:23-24</a>: “Truly I say unto you, Whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be taken up and cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that what he says comes to pass; he shall have it. Therefore I say unto you, All things you pray and ask for, believe that you receive them, and you shall have them”. Our self-talk is to be fantasy about the fulfillment of our prayers. Yet how often do we hit ‘send’ on our requests to God, like scribbling off a postcard, and hardly think again about them?</p>


text:
<p>wisdom and knowledge is granted to you-</p><p><a href='B:110 3:12'>1Ki 3:12</a> "Behold, I have already given you a wise and an understanding heart; so that there has been none like you before you, neither after you shall any arise like you". Solomon asked God for a wise heart- but he was told that God had already given him this. The process of educating Solomon in wisdom would have started long before; but it was released, as it were, by Solomon’s specific prayer. We likewise are to ask in faith believing that we already have the things we ask for. <a href='B:110 3:13'>1Ki 3:13</a>: "I have also given you that which you have not asked". We are not merely reading history here. God’s word is living and engages with us in all generations. We too are given exceeding abundantly above all we ask (<a href='B:560 3:20'>Eph 3:20</a> alludes here)- if we put first the wisdom of achieving God’s glory.</p><p>&nbsp;I will give you riches, wealth, and honour, such as none of the kings have had who have been before you; neither shall there any after you have the like-</p><p>"Riches" is s:w. <a href='B:240 14:24'>Pro 14:24</a> "The crown of the wise is their riches, but the folly of fools crowns them with folly". &nbsp;</p><p>It was Solomon who was the king and wore the ultimate crown in his society. And he implies that his fantastic riches were a result of his wisdom, and that his pattern should be followed by others. But he fails to remember that his desire for wisdom was recognized by God in that He gave Solomon riches. Those riches were a gift from God, by grace, and not acquired or generated by his own application of wisdom. He therefore misused his possession of wisdom and experience of grace to justify himself, and present himself as a self made man; when he was not that at all.</p><p>Solomon knew and warned that a little folly can destroy the man who is in reputation for wisdom and honour (<a href='B:250 10:1'>Ecc 10:1</a>). Solomon had “honour” [s:w:] to an unprecedented extent (<a href='B:110 3:13'>1Ki 3:13</a>). But in the same book he admits that he, the man famed world-wide for wisdom, gave himself to folly (<a href='B:250 2:3'>Ecc 2:3</a>). He knew so well the error and folly of his ways, but he could only preach the lesson but not heed it. He “saw that wisdom exceedeth folly” (<a href='B:250 2:13'>Ecc 2:13</a>)- but so what...</p>


text:
<p>So Solomon came from the high place that was at Gibeon, from before the Tent of Meeting, to Jerusalem; and he reigned over Israel-</p><p>It seems the elders of Israel (:1,2) came to Jerusalem, and then travelled with Solomon to Gibeon (:3) and then returned with him from there to Jerusalem (:13).</p>


text:
<p>Solomon gathered chariots and horsemen: and he had one thousand four hundred chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen, that he placed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem- </p><p><a href='B:110 4:26'>1Ki 4:26</a> "Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen". </p><p>Solomon's enthusiasm for Egyptian horses is clearly chronicled (<a href='B:110 4:26-28'>1Ki 4:26-28</a>), although this was studied disobedience to <a href='B:50 17:16'>Deu 17:16</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>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>).</p>


text:
<p>The king made silver and gold to be in Jerusalem as stones- </p><p>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>And cedars made he to be as abundant as the sycamore trees that are in the lowland-</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 from Kue; the king’s merchants purchased them from Kue- </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>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.</p>


text:
<p>They brought out of Egypt a chariot for six hundred pieces of silver, and a horse for one hundred and fifty. They also brought them out for all the kings of the Hittites, and the kings of Syria- </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 (<a href='B:110 10:29'>1Ki 10:29</a>). 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 Solomon purposed to build a house for the name of Yahweh, and a house for his kingdom- </p><p>"The royal house" of <a href='B:190 1:9'>Est 1:9</a> is literally "the house of the kingdom", the term used for the temple in <a href='B:140 2:1'>2Ch 2:1</a>; <a href='B:140 2:12'>2Ch 2:12</a>. This extends the&nbsp; impression discussed on <a href='B:190 1:7'>Est 1:7</a> that we have here a fake, imitation temple of Yahweh. Remember that Chronicles is history written up for the encouragement of the exiles. The perceptive amongst the exiles would have seen the similarity between Solomon's buildings and those of their captors.</p><p>Solomon states these words as his own in <a href='B:110 5:5'>1Ki 5:5</a>. Again this is a spin; because it was David who had purposed to build the temple, and had prepared for it. And again we see Solomon assuming that the promises of 2 Samuel 7 were totally fulfilled in him; whereas being the Messianic son of David was conditional. And the house to be built was more essentially the house of God’s family which God was to build for David rather than any physical temple. But Solomon totally missed all this.</p>


text:
<p>Solomon counted out seventy thousand men to bear burdens, and eighty thousand men who were stone cutters in the mountains, and three thousand six hundred to oversee them- </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>Solomon sent to Huram the king of Tyre saying, As you dealt with David my father, and sent him cedars to build him a house in which to dwell, so deal with me- </p><p>Solomon was obsessed with living out the image of his father. As Hiram had sent messengers to David (<a href='B:100 5:11'>2Sa 5:11</a>), so Solomon sends to Hiram.</p>


text:
<p>Behold, I am about to build a house for the name of Yahweh my God, to dedicate it to Him, and to burn before Him incense of sweet spices, and for the continual showbread, and for the burnt offerings morning and evening, on the Sabbaths, and on the new moons, and on the set feasts of Yahweh our God. This is an ordinance forever to Israel- </p><p>Solomon reasons as if all these Mosaic rituals required a temple in which to perform them. But the Mosaic laws about the tabernacle required just a tent, and not at all the grandiose religious system which David had become so obsessed with designing. It could be that Hiram was some kind of proselyte, and therefore all the information about the Mosaic rituals was meaningful to him.</p><p>Solomon is alluding [as always] to the words of his father David, in Ps. 135:5: "For I am certain that Yahweh is great and great is our Lord beyond all gods". It is Yahweh who is great. But Solomon turns this into a statement that therefore the temple he builds must be "great" and greater than any temple built to other gods. This explains why the style of the temple is so similar to that of other temples from the time- it's just bigger and more lavish. Solomon reduces the greatness of Yahweh, and His infinite superiority over the other gods, to the simple term of having a greater temple than the other gods. Any purely religious approach to God diminishes His true greatness, which is in His grace. Solomon reduces the unique greatness of Yahweh to the uniqueness of the temple he is going to build Him. A temple Yahweh never wanted anyway. He fails to see Yahweh's greatness as being in terms of His grace and eternal salvation, which He had demonstrated for all time in His salvation of David regarding his affair with Solomon's mother Bathsheba. David made the same mistake in confusing the greatness of his projected temple with the greatness of Yahweh Himself. He says in 1 Chron. 29:11 "To you, Yahweh, belong the utmost greatness, might, distinction, eminence, and splendor- yes all that is in heaven and on earth" but then in 1 Chron. 22:5 "The temple I am about to build for Yahweh must become utterly great, for fame and distinction throughout all lands". </p>


text:
<p>The house which I build is great; for our God is great above all gods- </p><p>The deeper our realization of God’s greatness, the higher our response. "My utmost for His highest". Thus Solomon built a "great" house for Yahweh, "for great is our God above all gods" (<a href='B:140 2:5'>2Ch 2:5</a> AV). Israel prayed to God but without meaning, "though they called them to the most High, none at all would exalt him" (<a href='B:350 11:7'>Hos 11:7</a>). They theoretically knew Him as "the most High" but in their hearts they failed to exalt Him. And so their prayers remained as empty words. And Solomon missed entirely the response of God to David’s original desire to build this temple. God didn’t want human works, but rather faith in His gracious desire to build David a house, through the work of His Spirit in human hearts.</p>


text:
<p>But who is able to build Him a house, since heaven and the heaven of heavens can’t contain Him? Who am I then, that I should build Him a house, except just to burn incense before Him?- </p><p>"Who am I?" is a quotation of David’s words about the temple in <a href='B:130 29:14'>1Ch 29:14</a>: "But who am I::?". But this in turn had been David’s response when God first told him that He didn’t want a temple, but rather would build a house for David from his descendants. David totally misrepresented God’s response as saying that He did in fact welcome the idea of a grandiose physical temple, and so by repeating his response at the time, he is surely guilty of a false humility. Solomon quotes these words of apparent humility and applies them to himself. But just as we cannot sing words of humility in a Christian song or hymn and thereby be humble, Solomon failed to realize that humility is not a bought or inherited position. It has to come from the heart. And he had no sense of personal sin or possibility of failure, and therefore no humility. Solomon claims that he solely wanted to build a temple in order to offer incense and sacrifice. But the obvious counter to that is that God only asked for an altar roughly made of earth or at best, unhewn stones, in order for man to offer sacrifice. A grandiose temple wasn't required for sacrifice. </p>


text:
<p>Now therefore send me a man talented to work in gold, silver, brass, iron, purple, crimson and blue, and who knows how to produce engravings, to be with the talented men who are with me in Judah and in Jerusalem, whom David my father provided- </p><p>The impression David had given in his closing speech to Israel was that he had provided absolutely every resource, human and material, required to realize his temple plans. But this was evidently not the case, as Solomon has to order more materials and skilled labour to complete it. I noted on 1 Chronicles 28, 29 the hollowness and exaggeration in David’s words at that point. </p>


text:
<p>Send me also cedar trees, fir trees, and algum trees, out of Lebanon; for I know that your servants know how to cut timber in Lebanon. My servants shall be with your servants- </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>). "Fir" is LXX "pine", which would have created a pleasant smell in the temple.</p>


text:
<p>even to prepare me timber in abundance; for the house which I am about to build shall be great and wonderful- </p><p>The greatness and wonder of the house was a big theme with David and Solomon. But God’s response to David’s initial suggestion of a temple was that He is a humble God, and doesn't like grandiose structures; rather does He wish above all for men to allow Him to work according to His grace in building a house for His glory made out of contrite, responsive hearts. Form eclipsed content for Solomon, religion overtook spirituality, as has happened constantly in the history of God’s people. "Great and wonderful" is a Hebrew phrase consistently used about what God does for men by His grace; and not what man can do for God (<a href='B:220 5:9'>Job 5:9</a>; <a href='B:220 9:10'>Job 9:10</a>; <a href='B:220 37:5'>Job 37:5</a>; <a href='B:230 86:10'>Psa 86:10</a>; <a href='B:230 136:4'>Psa 136:4</a>; <a href='B:300 32:17'>Jer 32:17</a>). In a time of greater humility, David had vowed not to exercise himself in this great and wonderful (s:w. <a href='B:230 131:1'>Psa 131:1</a>). But now, Solomon is seeking to build a great and wonderful place for God, rather than allowing God to build that great and wonderful house of humbled human hearts.</p>


text:
<p>Behold, I will give to your servants, the cutters who cut timber, twenty thousand measures of beaten wheat, and twenty thousand measures of barley, and twenty thousand baths of wine, and twenty thousand baths of oil- </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 (<a href='B:110 5:11'>1Ki 5:11</a>) 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>Then Huram the king of Tyre answered in a writing which he sent to Solomon, Because Yahweh loves His people, therefore He has made you king over them- </p><p>These are identical words as in <a href='B:110 10:9'>1Ki 10:9</a>, of the queen of Sheba'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>


text:
<p>Huram continued, Blessed be Yahweh, the God of Israel that made heaven and earth, Who has given to David the king a wise son, endowed with discretion and understanding, that should build a house for Yahweh, and a house for His kingdom- </p><p>This statement of faith that Yahweh was creator of heaven and earth would imply Hiram truly was a proselyte. For all the other nations had their various theories as to how their gods created heaven and earth. Hiram is repeating what Solomon had told him, in saying that this temple was a "house for Yahweh, and... His Kingdom". God had made it clear that He could not be contained in a house, and His Kingdom "rules over all" and was not so geographically and spatially limited. The temple obsession was really bringing God down to a very human, limited level.</p>


text:
<p>Now I have sent a talented man endowed with understanding, of Huram my fathers- </p><p>This shows that there was more than one Hiram; it was likely a generic kingly name, like Pharaoh. However, we must compare this with <a href='B:110 7:13'>1Ki 7:13</a>: "King Solomon sent and fetched Hiram out of Tyre". 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>the son of a woman of the daughters of Dan; and his father was a man of Tyre, talented to work in gold, silver, brass, iron, stone, timber, purple, blue, fine linen and crimson, also to engrave any kind of engraving, and to devise any device. Let there be a place appointed to him with your talented men, and with the talented men of my lord David your father- </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>


text:
<p>Now therefore the wheat and the barley, the oil and the wine, which my lord has spoken of, let him send to his servants- </p><p>Tyre as a small island state had a major problem in obtaining enough food for their affluent population, so these basic food supplies were valuable to them.</p>


text:
<p>and we will cut wood out of Lebanon, as much as you shall need. We will bring it to you in floats by sea to Joppa; and you shall carry it up to Jerusalem- </p><p>1 Kings 5 says it was "fir", or LXX "pine", which would have created a pleasant smell throughout the temple.</p>


text:
<p>Solomon numbered all the foreigners who were in the land of Israel, after the numbering with which David his father had numbered them; and they were found one hundred and fifty-three thousand six hundred- </p><p>This may connect with the 153 fishes which were caught in <a href='B:500 21:11'>Joh 21:11</a>, representing the ingathering of the Gentiles to the people of God (see note there). But despite the typical significance, Solomon was clearly abusing Gentile labour in order to satisfy his own obsession for architecture and building work. He admits in Ecclesiastes 2 that he had such an obsession, and indulged it in his search for meaning in his own life. But it was at a terrible cost to those thousands of individuals made to serve it. Instead of Israel being a blessing to the Gentiles, Solomon made them a huge disadvertisment for Israel's God. See on :18. David claimed to have already prepared all the resources necessary for the building of the temple. So this massive number of men involved in quarrying (:18) was an outcome of Solomon's obsession with architecture and building, rather than a genuine desire to glorify God.</p>


text:
<p>He set seventy thousand of them to bear burdens, and eighty thousand to be stone cutters in the mountains, and three thousand six hundred overseers to set the people to work- </p><p><a href='B:110 5:16'>1Ki 5:16</a> has "three thousand and three hundred". The word for three in Hebrew, 'sls', can easily be confused with that for "six" ['ss']. The same confusion is found in <a href='B:140 8:10'>2Ch 8:10</a> cp. <a href='B:110 9:23'>1Ki 9:23</a>. This would appear to be one of the copying errors in these Divinely inspired records.</p><p>This levy of labour 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&nbsp; the Hebrew word translated 'oversee' here, or '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>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 <a href='B:140 8:2'>2Ch 8:2</a>), 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 (<a href='B:140 8:2'>2Ch 8:2</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Then Solomon began to build the house of Yahweh at Jerusalem on Mount Moriah, where Yahweh appeared to David his father, which he prepared in the place that David had appointed, in the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite- </p><p>This implies David assumed that the spot where the Angel appeared to him in <a href='B:100 24:17-18'>2Sa 24:17-18</a> was where he should build the temple. It is another example of David’s tendency to wildly over interpret, which led him to a mistaken obsession about building the temple and assuming Solomon to be his Messianic seed. It seems reasonable to conclude that Isaac was offered on or near the hill of Calvary, one of the hills (Heb:) near Jerusalem, in the ancient “land of Moriah” (cp. <a href='B:140 3:1'>2Ch 3:1</a>). The name given to the place, Yahweh-Yireh, means ‘in this mount I have seen Yahweh’. The events of the death and resurrection of the Lord which Isaac’s experience pointed forward to were therefore the prophesied ‘seeing’ of Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>He began to build in the second day of the second month, in the fourth year of his reign- </p><p>1 Kings says it was in the 480th year after the exodus. If it took Solomon four years to prepare all the materials, the claims of David to have prepared all the materials in advance are surely exaggeration. This is indicative of the obsession he had with the project in his mind; and it was zeal for an image of his own creation, rather than doing God’s will. For God was clear that He didn’t want the temple built.</p>


text:
<p>Now these are the foundations which Solomon laid for the building of God’s house- </p><p>Or, "these are the things wherein Solomon was instructed".</p><p>The length by cubits after the first measure- </p><p>This alludes to the way there were two measurements of a cubit; that of about 17½ inches is called in <a href='B:50 3:11'>Deu 3:11</a> “the cubit of a man”; and then later the cubit was a measure of about 21½ inches, a handbreadth longer than "the first measure" (<a href='B:330 40:5'>Eze 40:5</a>).</p><p>Was sixty cubits and the breadth twenty cubits- </p><p>This was twice the size of the tabernacle. 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>


text:
<p>The porch that was in front, its length, according to the breadth of the house, was twenty cubits, and the height one hundred and twenty; and he overlaid it within with pure gold- </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. 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. See on :11. It's hard to know which kind of cubit is in view. If that of 18 inches, this would be&nbsp; a height of 180 feet; if 21 inches, then 210 feet. This would make the porch a kind of tower, probably in the form of a pyramid. The porch functioned as a kind of gateway to the temple. Layard's excavations of the palace of Khorsabad unearthed a gateway of very similar size and proportion. It's hard to know who copied who, but it could well be that far from these being Divinely given specifications, David and Solomon were imitating the architecture of the surrounding nations.</p>


text:
<p>The greater house he made with a ceiling of fir wood which he overlaid with fine gold, and ornamented it with palm trees and chains- </p><p>"Fir" is LXX "pine", which along with the huge amount of cedar would all have been brought from Hiram. 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. 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:&nbsp; 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.</p>


text:
<p>He garnished the house with precious stones for beauty: and the gold was gold of Parvaim- </p><p>David boasts in <a href='B:130 29:4'>1Ch 29:4</a> that his gold is "of Ophir", whereas in reality Solomon covered the house with gold "of Parvaim" (<a href='B:140 3:6'>2Ch 3:6</a>). This suggests that David may not in fact have had in hand all the fantastic personal wealth he boasted of donating for the rendering of the house with gold.</p>


text:
<p>He overlaid also the house, the beams, the thresholds and its walls and its doors, with gold; and engraved cherubim on the walls- </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. And yet I suggested on :5 that Solomon was influenced by the architecture of the surrounding nations. In this connection, we can note that there appears a connection with the winged bull of the Assyrian sculptures, called kirubu in Akkadian. And perhaps the precursors of this were known in the surrounding nations, and Solomon was imitating them, rather than solely giving glory to Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>He made the most holy place: its length, according to the breadth of the house, was twenty cubits, and its breadth twenty cubits; and he overlaid it with fine gold, amounting to six hundred talents- </p><p>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>The weight of the nails was fifty shekels of gold. He overlaid the upper rooms with gold- </p><p>Gold is hardly the best material for nails or "pegs" (Heb:). This is an example of practical function being overlooked in favour of external image and opulence. That same basic tension is there in all God’s people and their organizations. It is the tension between spirituality and religion, form and content. David had prepared iron nails (<a href='B:130 22:3'>1Ch 22:3</a> s:w:), but Solomon replaced them with golden nails, in a bid to excel his father in religious opulence.</p>


text:
<p>In the most holy place he made two cherubim of wood; and they overlaid them with gold- </p><p><a href='B:110 6:23'>1Ki 6:23</a>: "Of olive wood, each ten cubits high". "Olive" is s:w. "pine", and may also have been brought from Gentile Hiram- to be worked into God’s glory.</p>


text:
<p>The wings of the cherubim were twenty cubits long. The wing of the one was five cubits, reaching to the wall of the house; and the other wing was five cubits, reaching to the wing of the other cherub- </p><p>This style of recording dimensions is to be found in :4. 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>The wing of the other cherub was five cubits, reaching to the wall of the house; and the other wing was five cubits, joining to the wing of the other cherub- </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.</p>


text:
<p>The wings of these cherubim spread themselves forth twenty cubits. They stood on their feet, and their faces were toward the house- </p><p>See on :11. 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><p>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 (<a href='B:110 6:26'>1Ki 6:26</a>). 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 made the veil of blue, purple, crimson and fine linen, and decorated it with cherubim- </p><p>It could be argued that <a href='B:130 6:31-32'>1Ch 6:31-32</a> implies there were door of olive wood, engraved with cherubim, which divided the holy place and most holy. In this case we wonder whether the veil was draped over that structure, which would have been contrary to the spirit of the tabernacle. The veil represented the flesh of the Lord Jesus (<a href='B:650 10:20'>Heb 10:20</a>), and also the fact that the way into the most holy place, representing God Himself in Heaven, was somehow barred. But when the Lord died, the veil was torn from top [by God] to bottom (<a href='B:470 27:51'>Mat 27:51</a>), and thus the way into direct personal fellowship with God was opened (<a href='B:650 9:8'>Heb 9:8</a>; <a href='B:650 9:24'>Heb 9:24</a>; <a href='B:650 10:19'>Heb 10:19</a>). This understanding was so radical for Jewish minds. For the high priest could only nervously enter the most holy place briefly, once every year on the day of atonement. But now the believer in Christ can enter into full and permanent fellowship with God Himself. This was all achieved through the Lord's flesh being torn. The fine linen speaks of His righteousness (<a href='B:730 19:8'>Rev 19:8</a>), the blue of His association with God in Heaven, the crimson of His blood, and the purple of His Kingship (<a href='B:500 19:2'>Joh 19:2</a>). All this was worked into the veil, and the overall product of it was glory to God, represented by the image of cherubim superimposed upon all this.</p>


text:
<p>Also he made before the house two pillars of thirty-five cubits high- </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><p>They were "fashioned" (<a href='B:110 7:15'>1Ki 7:15</a>), or as AV "cast", and reflects Egyptian influence. 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>And the capital that was on the top of each of them was five cubits- </p><p>The capitals were placed on the tops of the pillars, as in <a href='B:110 7:16'>1Ki 7:16</a>. "Tops" is "heads", and the Hebrew for "capitals" suggests "crown". The height of the capitals is given as three cubits in <a href='B:120 25:17'>2Ki 25:17</a>, but five cubits in <a href='B:140 3:15'>2Ch 3:15</a>. The difference would be whether the crowns ["capitals"] were measured to the peak of the highest spike of the crown, or the top of the rim of the crown. But 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.</p>


text:
<p>He made chains in the oracle, and put them on the tops of the pillars; and he made one hundred pomegranates, and put them on the chains- </p><p>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>He set up the pillars before the temple, one on the right hand, and the other on the left- </p><p>Comparing with 1 Kings, I suggest there were two sets of pillars, one before Solomon's house and another 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.</p><p>And called the name of that on the right hand Jachin, and the name of that on the left 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>


text:
<p>Then he made an altar of brass, twenty cubits in length, and twenty cubits in breadth, and ten cubits in height- </p><p>An altar of 15 feet high and 30 feet square was impractical for use, just as the molten sea / laver was too huge to ever be used. Again we have the impression Solomon was simply into religious showmanship rather than encouraging spirituality. This was far larger than the altar of the tabernacle, which was 5 x 5 x 3. Clearly the idea was that far more animals were going to be offered. And yet David and Solomon were forgetting the lesson taught through the sin with Bathsheba, Solomon's mother; God doesn't want sacrifice, but rather broken, contrite hearts (<a href='B:230 40:6-8'>Psa 40:6-8</a>). Just as God didn’t want a physical house built to Him, but rather wanted to build a house of people with humble hearts open to the working of His Spirit. The altar was of brass, whereas that of the tabernacle was of common, weak acacia wood (<a href='B:20 27:1-2'>Exo 27:1-2</a>). This taught that the basis of acceptable sacrifice and approach to God is the recognition of our common weak humanity, and sacrifice is offered to God upon that basis. But Solomon had no recognition of his own moral frailty and humanity, and was convinced that as David’s son and the Messianic seed [as he imagined], he was therefore perfect. And it seems David too somehow rationalized his sin with Bathsheba by the end of his life, and lacked grace and humility:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Also 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 it was the likeness of oxen which encircled it for ten cubits, encircling the sea. The oxen were in two rows, cast when it was cast- </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>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. The sea was set on them above, and all their back 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 received and held three thousand baths- </p><p>"Shushan" is the Hebrew word for "lily", which was iconicly associated with the Jerusalem temple (s:w. <a href='B:110 7:19'>1Ki 7:19</a>; <a href='B:110 7:22'>1Ki 7:22</a>; <a href='B:110 7:26'>1Ki 7:26</a>). Shushan was where the palace of Persia was (<a href='B:190 1:2'>Est 1:2</a>), and&nbsp; sets the scene for the impression discussed on <a href='B:190 1:7'>Est 1:7</a> that we have there a fake, imitation kingdom and temple of Yahweh. Remember that Chronicles was history written up especially for the exiles. But the spiritually minded exiles would have perceived that Solomon's temple had been designed as a secular architectural masterpiece, similar to the palace of their captors. 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>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. Beneath the rim it has "buds", or AV "knops" (<a href='B:110 7:24'>1Ki 7:24</a>). "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><p><a href='B:110 7:26'>1Ki 7:26</a> says it held 2000 baths, perhaps describing the quantity of water actually used, although it had the capacity to hold 3000.</p>


text:
<p>He made also ten basins, and put five on the right hand and five on the left, to wash in them. Such things as related to the burnt offering they washed in them; but the sea was for the priests to wash in- </p><p>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. But even they were far more than the single laver of the original tabernacle. This was because David and Solomon envisaged offering huge numbers of animals for offerings, requiring far more priests than did the tabernacle system of worship. David and Solomon were forgetting the lesson taught through the sin with Bathsheba, Solomon's mother; God doesn't want sacrifice, but rather broken, contrite hearts (<a href='B:230 40:6-8'>Psa 40:6-8</a>).</p>


text:
<p>He made the ten lampstands of gold according to the command concerning them; and he set them in the temple, five on the right hand and five on the left- </p><p>"The candlestick" or menorah is only ever spoken of in the law of Moses in the singular, but in <a href='B:130 28:15'>1Ch 28:15</a> David had decided there were to be multiple such candlesticks. By doing so, he ignored the symbolism of the one candlestick, such was his obsession with mere religion. "According to the command" may therefore refer to David’s command rather than God’s. Or perhaps Solomon carefully made each of the ten lampstands according to the specification for the one lampstand.</p>


text:
<p>He made also ten tables, and placed them in the temple, five on the right side and five on the left. He made one hundred basins of gold- </p><p>The table of show bread was to be made of acacia wood (<a href='B:20 25:23'>Exo 25:23</a>), but David planned to make it of pure gold, and even worked out the weight of gold required for it (<a href='B:130 28:16'>1Ch 28:16</a>). And Solomon indeed made it of gold (<a href='B:110 7:48'>1Ki 7:48</a>), leading to it being known as "the pure table" (<a href='B:140 13:11'>2Ch 13:11</a>). And he made "tables" plural, as he made candlesticks (:7), although the law only required one candlestick. See on :19. Religion had overtaken spirituality, form had eclipsed content. Likewise the "tables of silver" David ordered to be made (<a href='B:130 28:16'>1Ch 28:16</a>) do not feature in the tabernacle. He was missing the point- that God wanted His holiest symbols made of common, weak things like acacia wood. For His strength and glory is made perfect in weakness. David claims these plans were from God (<a href='B:130 28:19'>1Ch 28:19</a>), although as discussed on <a href='B:130 28:12'>1Ch 28:12</a>, they were in fact from his own mind. The way these things were taken into captivity, with no record of this golden table ever being returned, surely reflects God’s judgment upon this kind of religious show. He prefers a humble house church in an inner city room, rather than a gold plated cathedral. The way some exclusive churches speak of 'maintaining a pure table' suggests they have made the same essential mistake as David did.</p><p>So many vessels were not required by the tabernacle service. This was a completely different, grandiose religious system of David’s own device; and in the end, all these vessels of mere religion were taken off into captivity (<a href='B:120 25:14-16'>2Ki 25:14-16</a> emphasizes this).</p>


text:
<p>Furthermore he made the court of the priests, and the great court, and doors for the court, and overlaid their doors with brass- </p><p>The "court of the priests" is that of <a href='B:110 6:36'>1Ki 6:36</a>; <a href='B:110 7:12'>1Ki 7:12</a>: "He built the inner court with three courses of cut stone, and a course of cedar beams". This would be 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:&nbsp;We wonder however what exactly was the “middle court” (<a href='B:120 20:4'>2Ki 20:4</a>). The brass doors contrast with the "hangings for the court of fine twined linen" (<a href='B:20 27:9'>Exo 27:9</a>), representing righteousness (<a href='B:730 19:8'>Rev 19:8</a>). Yet brass can represent the flesh. The desire to make the temple solid and permanent meant that the fine symbolism of the tabernacle was crudely overlooked.</p>


text:
<p>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>Huram made the pots, the shovels and the basins. So Huram made an end of doing the work that he did for king Solomon in God’s house- </p><p>This gives the lie to David’s confident statements that he had all the human and material resources prepared for the temple. He was in the grip of obsession, and convinced he had empowered and resourced the temple to go ahead. But in reality, Solomon needed more materials and the workmen provided by David, or those he had in mind, were in fact apparently not used in making the finer work for the temple.</p>


text:
<p>the two pillars, and the bowls, and the two capitals which 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>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 :14.</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>There were 100 in each row (<a href='B:110 7:20'>1Ki 7:20</a>), 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><p>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>He made also the bases, and the basins he made on the bases- </p><p>There is much stress upon all the 'making' of things and the "work" done (<a href='B:110 7:40'>1Ki 7:40</a>; <a href='B:110 7:51'>1Ki 7:51</a>). 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. He wanted to build a house of people, rather than have a house built for Him.</p>


text:
<p>one sea, and the twelve oxen under it-</p><p>We wonder whether David and Solomon saw in this huge laver some kind of representation of their power, with all twelve tribes of Israel subservient to them. There was no equivalent of this huge laver in the tabernacle, and in practical terms, the ten smaller lavers would have been used. In 18 out of 21 occurrences, the Hebrew word translated "scaffold" in <a href='B:140 6:13'>2Ch 6:13</a> is translated "laver". The huge podium or "laver" from which Solomon proudly addressed Israel was perhaps basin shaped. This confirms the suggestion here that the laver with the 12 oxen beneath it was really a statement of Solomon's power over the 12 tribes of Israel, with them serving him and being his power base. Spiritual functionality was therefore replaced by a political, religious agenda- as happens so often in the history of God’s people.</p>


text:
<p>Huram his father also made the pots, the shovels, the forks, and all its vessels for king Solomon for the house of Yahweh of bright 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 Zeredah- </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>Thus Solomon made all these vessels in great abundance; for the weight of the brass could not be estimated- </p><p>As noted on :12, Solomon itemized his 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.</p>


text:
<p>Solomon made all the vessels that were in God’s house, the golden altar also, and the tables with the showbread on them- </p><p>This confirms that there was no longer one table for the showbread but in fact ten tables. There were therefore presumably also more loaves of showbread used than stipulated under the Mosaic law for the tabernacle. See on :8. Religion had overtaken spirituality, form had eclipsed content.</p>


text:
<p>and the lampstands with their lamps, to burn before the oracle according to the commandment, of pure gold- </p><p>"The candlestick" or menorah is only ever spoken of in the law of Moses in the singular, but in <a href='B:130 28:15'>1Ch 28:15</a> David had decided there were to be multiple such candlesticks. By doing so, he ignored the symbolism of the one candlestick, such was his obsession with mere religion. "According to the command" may therefore refer to David’s command rather than God’s. Or perhaps Solomon carefully made each of the ten lampstands according to the specification for the one lampstand.</p>


text:
<p>and the flowers, and the lamps, and the tongs, of gold (perfect gold)- </p><p>Pure gold as a soft metal was not the right metal for tongs, but the concern was clearly religious show and opulence, rather than functionality in the true service of God. The "flowers" may refer to the "knops" of <a href='B:110 7:24'>1Ki 7:24</a> and elsewhere, called "buds" in the NEV. "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>and the snuffers, basins, spoons and fire pans, of pure gold. As for the entry of the house, the inner doors of it for the most holy place, and the doors of the main hall of the temple were 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.</p>


text:
<p>Thus all the work that Solomon did for the house of Yahweh was finished. Solomon brought in the things that David his father had dedicated, even the silver and the gold, and all the vessels, and put them in the treasuries of the house of God-</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>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>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: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><p><a href='B:20 40:33'>Exo 40:33</a> is perhaps the clearest basis for the words of <a href='B:500 17:4'>Joh 17:4</a>. This describes how Moses "reared up" the tabernacle, representing us (<a href='B:540 6:16'>2Co 6:16</a>); "So Moses finished the work" God had given him to do. <a href='B:50 31:24'>Deu 31:24</a> likewise speaks of Moses finishing the work. The Hebrew for "reared up" is also used in the context of resurrection and glorification / exaltation. As our Lord sensed His final, ultimate achievement of the Father's glory in His own character, He could look ahead to our resurrection and glorification. He adopted God’s timeless perspective, and died with the vision of our certain glorification in the Kingdom. This fits in with the way Psalms 22, 69 (which evidently portray the thoughts of our dying Lord) conclude with visions of Christ's "seed" being glorified in the Kingdom. There are a number of passages which also speak of the temple (also representative of the ecclesia) being a work which was finished (e.g. <a href='B:140 5:1'>2Ch 5:1</a>). In His moment of agonized triumph as He died, the Lord Jesus saw us as if we were perfect.</p>


text:
<p>Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel, and all the heads of the tribes, the princes of the fathers’ households of the children of Israel, to 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>). 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. "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>And all the men of Israel assembled themselves to the king at the feast, which was in 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. 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.
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. The Levites 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>and they brought up the ark, and the Tent of Meeting, and all the holy vessels that were in the Tent; these the priests the Levites brought up- </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 :4.  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.</p>


text:
<p>King Solomon and all the congregation of Israel, that were assembled to him, were 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>). 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.</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 oracle of the house, to the most holy place, even under the wings of the cherubim- </p><p>See on :5,8.</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- </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 ark before the oracle; 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>It is there 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 which Moses put in it at Horeb, when Yahweh made a covenant with the children of Israel when they came out 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>The priests came out of the holy place, (for all the priests who were present had sanctified themselves, and didn’t keep their divisions- </p><p>These divisions are the courses of the priests (1 Chronicles 24). but the work was so great, as there were so many sacrifices, that the division on duty that day or week couldn't cope, so all the priestly divisions sanctified themselves and did the work. This may be a hint that David’s careful plans had some design faults within them, as noted on :9. Because they were all of man and not God.</p>


text:
<p>also the Levites who were the singers, all of them, even Asaph, Heman, Jeduthun, and their sons and their brothers, arrayed in fine linen, with cymbals and stringed instruments and harps, stood at the east end of the altar, and with them one hundred twenty priests sounding with trumpets)- </p><p>Clearly in imitation of David’s praise when the ark was brought to Zion in <a href='B:100 6:5'>2Sa 6:5</a>. As noted on :2, Solomon 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. For personal faith is not the same as living out parental expectation.</p><p>It could be argued that standing "at" the east end may mean facing toward the east. In this case they were looking toward Solomon to impress him, and turning their backs on the sanctuary, which is the huge sin of <a href='B:330 8:16'>Eze 8:16</a>.</p>


text:
<p>The trumpeters and singers were as one, to make one sound to be heard in praising and thanking Yahweh; and they lifted up their voice with the trumpets and cymbals and instruments of music, and praised Yahweh, saying, For He is good; for His loving kindness endures forever! Then the house was filled with a cloud, even 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. Later the Chronicles record states 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 by reason of the cloud; for the glory of Yahweh filled God’s house-</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>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. 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.</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>But I have built You a house of habitation, and 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><p>Psalms 127 is "For Solomon" (v:2 "beloved" = Heb. Jedidah), and warns him that his labour for the temple will be in vain unless God&nbsp; builds it. The Psalm basically says that God will build Solomon a house in the sense of a family centred in the beloved seed who would die [“sleep”] to enable it; and therefore Solomon should not be so sweating himself day and night to build God a house / temple. This is the very message which God had given David earlier. David and Solomon evidently shelved their knowledge of the fact that Heaven is God’s dwelling place. It would seem that Solomon particularly was guilty of a false humility; there is a gross contradiction within his words of <a href='B:140 6:2'>2Ch 6:2</a>; <a href='B:140 6:18'>2Ch 6:18</a>: "I have built an house of habitation for thee, and a place for thy dwelling for ever... But will God in very deed dwell with men on the earth? behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house which I have built?". This is one of several hints that Solomon felt that the full fulfilment of the Davidic promises was to be found in him (cp. <a href='B:140 6:10'>2Ch 6:10</a>). He failed to look forward to the spirit of Christ, instead becoming obsessed with the achievement of his own works. He was largely encouraged in this by David, who seems to have felt that Solomon was the Messiah figure the promises spoke about. Thus Psalms 72 is dedicated to Solomon, and yet it speaks clearly of the messianic Kingdom. In the same way as David came to misquote and misapply the promises God made to him, Solomon did likewise. God told David that He did not want a physical house, because He had never commanded this to be done at any time in the past. Solomon misquotes this in <a href='B:140 6:5-6'>2Ch 6:5-6</a> to mean that God had never asked for a physical house in the past, but now he had asked David’s son to build such a house in Jerusalem.</p>


text:
<p>The king turned his face- </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 be Yahweh the God of Israel, Who spoke with His mouth to David my father and has with His hands fulfilled it saying- </p><p>As discussed above, 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</p><p>As we will see on :5,6, 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 forth My people out of the land of Egypt, I chose no city out of all the tribes of Israel to build a house in, that My name might be there; neither chose I any man to be prince 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.</p>


text:
<p>But I have chosen Jerusalem, that My name might be there; and have chosen David to be over My people Israel- </p><p>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. And so he kept thinking that 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><p> Solomon frequently references the exodus from Egypt with the implication that the completion of the temple meant that their journeys were over (1 Kings 8:16,21,51,53). 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. 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 in 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. But he misses the point of God’s response, that His Name, His personality and character, dwells in persons and not buildings. The house God promised to build David 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>


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><p><a href='B:140 6:9'>2Ch 6:9</a> 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 above, 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 performed His word that He spoke; for I have risen up in the place of David my father, and 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>Therein I have set the ark, in which is the covenant of Yahweh, which He made with the children of Israel-</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. “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><p>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>


text:
<p>He stood before the altar of Yahweh in the presence of all the assembly of Israel, and spread forth his hands-</p><p>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>(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)- </p><p>18 out of 21 occurrences, the Hebrew word translated "scaffold" is translated "laver". The huge podium was perhaps basin shaped. This confirms the suggestion on <a href='B:140 4:15'>2Ch 4:15</a> that the laver with the 12 oxen beneath it was really a statement of Solomon's power over the 12 tribes of Israel, with them serving him and being his power base.</p>


text:
<p>He said, Yahweh, the God of Israel, there is no God like You, in heaven or on earth; You Who keep covenant and loving kindness 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.</p><p>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, Yahweh the God of Israel, keep with Your servant David my father that which You 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 in My law as you have walked before Me- </p><p>This is a twist on what God actually promised David. He spoke of a singular seed, to be born after David "slept with [his] fathers". The phrase "man to be ruler in Israel" is applied to Messiah individually in Mic. 5:2 ("But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, being small among the clans of Judah, out of you one will come forth to Me the man that is to be the ruler in Israel"). But Solomon has expanded this into "your children". </p><p>He overlooks the condition as being that he personally must be obedient. But he just slightly twists this, to make the conditionality dependent upon Israel's obedience rather than his personal obedience. The promises to David originally focused upon one individual, whom the New Testament interprets as the Lord Jesus. But David in <a href='B:230 89:30'>Psa 89:30</a>; <a href='B:230 132:12'>Psa 132:12</a> and Solomon here and 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>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, Yahweh the God of Israel, let Your word be verified which You spoke to Your servant David- </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 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;concept&nbsp;of&nbsp;praying&nbsp;for&nbsp;others:&nbsp;But&nbsp;of course&nbsp; each individual&nbsp;has&nbsp;an&nbsp;element&nbsp; of&nbsp;spiritual&nbsp;freewill; we can't force others&nbsp;to&nbsp;be&nbsp;spiritual by our prayers;&nbsp;yet&nbsp;on the other&nbsp; hand,&nbsp;our prayers can influence their spirituality. David’s&nbsp; prayers for&nbsp;Solomon is&nbsp;the classic example of this. Those&nbsp; prayers&nbsp;were&nbsp;heard&nbsp;most definitely, in that God helped Solomon 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 indeed dwell with men on the earth? Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens can’t contain You; how much less this house which 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.</p><p> 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 to his supplication, Yahweh my God, to listen to the cry and to the prayer which Your servant prays before You- </p><p>I noted on :3 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 day and night, even toward the place where you have said that You would put Your name; 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>
"The place" of God's Name was never intended to be a physical building. Solomon  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.
</p>


text:
<p>Listen to the petitions of Your servant and of Your people Israel when they shall pray toward this place. Yes, hear from Your dwelling place, even from heaven; 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.</p><p>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 Jonah and Daniel 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 sin 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>The following verses 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. </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. 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><p> 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 was not somehow from then on conditional upon the temple.</p>


text:
<p>then hear from heaven, and do, and judge your servants, bringing retribution to the wicked, to bring his way on 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. </p><p>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>If Your people Israel be struck down before the enemy because they have sinned against You, and shall turn again and confess Your name, and pray and make supplication before 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 :25. 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><p>Who God is, as expressed in His Name, is an imperative to prepare ourselves to meet Him in judgment. The confession of the Name is paralleled with repentance here. If Israel sin and repent ''and confess Your Name", they will be forgiven. But instead of ''confess thy name'' we expect ''confess their sins: the point being that to confess the name is effectively to confess sins. The name is the characteristics of Yahweh. The more we meditate upon them, the more we will naturally be lead to a confession of our sins, the deeper we will sense the gap between those principles and our own character. Likewise in <a href='B:140 12:6'>2Ch 12:6</a> the statement that ''the Lord is righteous'' is effectively a confession of sin. And thus we are not to bear or take the Name of Yahweh called upon us at baptism in vain- the realty of the implications of the name are not to be lost upon us.</p>


text:
<p>then hear from heaven, and forgive the sin of your people Israel, and bring them again to the land which You gave to them and to their fathers- </p><p>See on :24. The restoration to their land was to be because they, or those who remained in the land, would pray to God in the temple (:24). 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 <a href='B:140 5:3'>2Ch 5:3</a>, Solomon was speaking in the seventh 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 plague, blight or mildew, locust or caterpillar; if their enemies besiege them in the land of their cities; whatever plague or 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 be made by any man, or by all Your people Israel who shall know every man his own plague and his own sorrow of heart, and shall 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; but he is confusing prayer towards God with prayer towards the temple. He is drawing an inappropriate parallel between God and the temple.</p><p>Solomon, the man with every available pleasure, laments that his days are full of sorrow and grief and he can't sleep peacefully at night (<a href='B:250 2:23'>Ecc 2:23</a>). Yet Solomon had prayed that when God’s people were in grief and sorrow because of their sins, they could pray to God using his temple, and be forgiven and have their grief assuaged. Yet in <a href='B:250 2:23'>Ecc 2:23</a>, Solomon laments that all his days are spent in grief and sorrows (s:w:). The way out of the depression with which he ended his days was repentance and acceptance of God’s free grace and forgiveness. But he refused to do this, and turned his heart away from Yahweh.</p><p>We are forgiven on account of the fact we truly sorrow for our sins, knowing them as our own sore and our own grief (<a href='B:140 6:29-30'>2Ch 6:29-30</a>). The Lord carried our sorrows, i:e. our sins. It is only these sins, for which we have sorrowed, that He carried. This is why we need to&nbsp; appreciate that sin is serious.</p>


text:
<p>then hear from heaven Your dwelling place and forgive, and render to each man according to all his ways, whose heart You know; (for You, even You only, know the hearts of 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>Rabshakeh confirmed the threatened destruction of Jerusalem with a letter which Hezekiah took “before the Lord”. His first response was not to turn to Egypt; he’d learnt the wrongness of that. He went to the house of the Lord. Whilst we are always in God’s presence, there is surely a sense in which coming into His presence through prayer is drawing yet closer to Him. And so it was with the special presence of YHWH in the temple at that time. Hezekiah was aware that YHWH ‘dwells between the cherubim” (<a href='B:120 19:15'>2Ki 19:15</a>). Presumably standing before the ark, Hezekiah “spread out” the letter (<a href='B:120 19:14'>2Ki 19:14</a>). The Hebrew word translated ‘spread out’ is the same as that usually used about how the wings of the cherubim were ‘spread out’ over the ark (<a href='B:20 25:20'>Exo 25:20</a>; <a href='B:20 37:9'>Exo 37:9</a>). It’s also the word used in Solomon’s prophecy of how repentant people would spread out their hands in the temple at the time of the punishment for their sins, and receive forgiveness and help: “Whatever prayer, whatever plea is made by any man or by all your people Israel, each knowing his own affliction and his own sorrow and stretching out his hands in this house, then hear from heaven your dwelling place and forgive” (<a href='B:140 6:29-30'>2Ch 6:29-30</a>). And Hezekiah would also have been only too aware of Isaiah’s judgment against Judah of a few years earlier: “When you spread out your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen” (<a href='B:290 1:15'>Isa 1:15</a>). But Hezekiah summoned his faith in God’s forgiveness, and spread out his hands as he spread out the letter. He showed his deep repentance, and his faith in forgiveness to such an extent that he was bold enough to ask God for deliverance. Faith in forgiveness of our sins is perhaps one of the hardest things to believe in- strangely enough, seeing that God delights in forgiveness.</p>


text:
<p>that they may fear You, to walk in Your ways, so long as 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 mayest 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 from a far country for Your great name’s sake and because of Your mighty hand and Your outstretched arm; when they shall come and pray toward this house- </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. 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>then hear from heaven, even from 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 and fear You, as does 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 :32, 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><p>His prayer 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. 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><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>If Your people go out to battle against their enemies, by whatever way You shall send them, and they pray to You toward this city which You have chosen, and 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><p>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><p>
Literally, if they pray with their face toward... the house. 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>


text:
<p>then hear from heaven their prayer and their supplication, and uphold their case-</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.</p>


text:
<p>If they sin against You (for there is no man who sins not) and You are angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captive to a land 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 themselves in the land where they are carried captive, and turn again, and make supplication to You in the land of their captivity saying, We have sinned, we have done perversely, and 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 captivity to where they have carried them captive, and pray toward their land which You gave to their fathers and to the city which You have chosen, and toward 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><p>Daniel understood that after 70 years Jerusalem must be restored; but he earnestly prayed for their forgiveness so that this would happen (<a href='B:340 9:2'>Dan 9:2</a> cp. 19). Perhaps he opened his window and prayed towards Jerusalem exactly because he wanted to fulfil <a href='B:140 6:37-38'>2Ch 6:37-38</a>: “If they shall bethink themselves in the land whither they are carried captive, and turn, and pray unto thee… toward their land… and toward the city which thou hast chosen”. He knew that repentance was a precondition for the promised restoration to occur.</p>


text:
<p>then hear from heaven, even from Your dwelling place, their prayer and their petitions, and uphold their case and forgive Your people who have sinned against You-</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><p>1 Kings 8:50 adds: "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". God's giving of compassion to His people depended upon their holiness before Him (s.w. Dt. 13:17). 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>Now, my God, let, I beg You, Your eyes be open, and let Your ears be attentive, to the prayer that is made in this place- </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>):&nbsp;"Attentive" is the word used by Nehemiah in <a href='B:160 1:11'>Neh 1:11</a> "Lord, I beg You, let Your ear be attentive now to the prayer of Your servant". "Attentive" is s:w. <a href='B:140 6:40'>2Ch 6:40</a>; <a href='B:140 7:15'>2Ch 7:15</a>, where we read of God being "attentive" to prayers offered in the temple. But Nehemiah was praying in exile, not in the temple. The desperation of the situation made him learn a lesson- that God wasn't only accessible in the temple. This may sound obvious to us, but it wasn't for those used to the temple cult. The lesson is that God uses punishments for sin, hard situations, to break our paradigms and lead us to a greater spirituality- if we will follow. S:w. also <a href='B:160 9:34'>Neh 9:34</a> - Israel weren't "attentive" to God’s word, but in their time of need they hoped He would be "attentive" to their word of prayer. And He was. His grace isn't 'measure for measure'; He treats us out of proportion to our attentiveness to Him. We must show the same grace.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore arise, Yahweh God, into Your resting place, You and the ark of Your strength- </p><p>The same root word for "Noah" is found here, where the ark of God 'rested' or 'Noah-ed' in the tabernacle. When the ark 'rested' on Ararat ['holy hill'] the same word is used (<a href='B:10 8:4'>Gen 8:4</a>). A case can be made that Ararat was in fact Mount Zion, where the ark was later to 'rest' in the temple. The 'resting' of the ark was therefore the fulfilment of God’s intention in Noah- God’s salvation is described as a "promised rest" (<a href='B:650 4:10-11'>Heb 4:10-11</a>), and it was prefigured in the final resting of the ark. Thus the final salvation of God is to be understood in terms of God 'resting' with us, in us, within His ark. He labours and struggles too... for us. And those struggles will only be at rest when we are saved in the last day; a Father's eternal struggle for His children. The 'rest' spoken of in Noah's name was thus a rest for God. Noah's going out of the ark into a cleansed, pristine world was therefore symbolic of our going forth into the Kingdom at Christ's return.</p><p>Solomon liked to think that the building of the temple meant that this was the promised time of "rest" for Israel. But the whole point made of the response made to David's temple project 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.</p><p>
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). </p><p>
Solomon likes to think that he has given rest to Israel, and this is reflected in the ark entering a resting place. But 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><p>Let Your priests, Yahweh God, be clothed with salvation, and let Your saints rejoice in goodness- </p><p>Solomon prayed to God in the terms and language of his father (<a href='B:140 6:41-42'>2Ch 6:41-42</a> cp. <a href='B:230 132:1'>Psa 132:1</a>; <a href='B:230 132:8-9'>Psa 132:8-9</a>). He was familiar with his father’s Psalms- after all, all Israel sung them. It must have been like being the son of a world-famous singer. The words were even in Solomon’s subconscious it seems, for when he tells his son “Give not sleep to thine eyes nor slumber to thine eyelids” (<a href='B:240 6:4'>Pro 6:4</a>) he is alluding unconsciously, it seems (in that it is out of context) to David’s promise not to give sleep to his eyes until he had found a resting place for the ark (<a href='B:230 132:4'>Psa 132:4</a>). Verses 41 and 42 are quoting from Ps. 132. But there is a slight change. Ps. 132:9 has "Let Your priests be clothed with righteousness / justice". This is replaced with "salvation". One of the marvels of salvation by grace, as Paul brings out in Romans, is that it is achieved with justice and integrity on God's part. He upends all human views of justice, whereby there has to be measure for measure and sin must be punished with death. Or we could argue that Solomon likes to imagine that instead of the appeal for the priests to be just, rather does he imagine them as now 'saved' and immortalized. When they weren't.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh God, don’t turn away the face of Your anointed. Remember Your graces to David Your servant-</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>Ps. 132:10,11 makes a play on the phrase "turn away": "For Your servant David’s sake, don’t turn away the face of Your anointed one. Yahweh has sworn to David in truth, He will not turn away from it: I will set the fruit of your body on your throne", literally "from the fruit of your womb". Solomon is asking God not to turn away from him because God had promised never to turn from His promise that from David's body / womb would come an eternal king. But that promise was to be fulfilled through a descendant born after David slept with his fathers, who would also be God's begotten son- through a woman in David's line. Hence the otherwise strange term "from the fruit of your womb". Solomon was twisting God's words yet again, and then on that basis pleading for God to never turn from Him because he was David's son. And it was this wrong assumption that resulted in Solomon himself turning away from Yahweh to idols; for the Divine comment is that his foreign wives turned his heart away from Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>Now when Solomon had made an end of praying, the fire came down from heaven and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices; and the glory of Yahweh filled the house-</p><p>Fire coming down from Heaven (e.g. <a href='B:140 7:1'>2Ch 7:1</a>) to consume acceptable sacrifices probably refers to the Angels being made a flame of fire (<a href='B:230 104:4'>Psa 104:4</a>) to consume the sacrifice. In <a href='B:140 7:1'>2Ch 7:1</a> this would be by&nbsp;the Angel&nbsp;dwelling in the temple. The same scenario was probably seen in Eden, when the Angel cherubim consumed the sacrifices. God accepted the temple. Even though this wasn't His ideal path with man, just as He accepted a human kingship. He works with man on a sub optimal level, just as the Lord Jesus would have accepted the one talant man putting his talant into a bank to get interest which was forbidden under the law. There are different levels of service, resulting in one star differing from another in glory; for different people make different amounts from God's truth, the seed on the good ground brings forth different levels of fruit. The Lord's sacrifice achieved salvation "to the uttermost", "that great salvation". And we likewise should naturally seek the highest level and not be minimalists.  </p>


text:
<p>The priests could not enter into the house of Yahweh, because the glory of Yahweh filled Yahweh’s house-</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.</p>


text:
<p>All the children of Israel looked on, when the fire came down, and the glory of Yahweh was on the house; and they bowed themselves with their faces to the ground on the pavement and worshipped and gave thanks to Yahweh saying, For He is good; for His grace endures for ever-</p><p>Comparing with 1 Kings 8, it seems that the cloud of glory had already come down, and now fire came down to consume the sacrifices.  The grace of it was that God was counting them righteous, sanctifying them, and coming to live amongst an unclean people. They sacrificed in response to that grace (:4). And this is to be our response, as the temple in which He now dwells by His Spirit.</p>


text:
<p>Then the king and all the people 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 <a href='B:110 8:61'>1Ki 8:61</a>.  Kings says that these were peace offerings. 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.</p>


text:
<p>King Solomon offered a sacrifice of twenty-two thousand head of cattle, and a hundred and twenty thousand sheep. So the king and all the people dedicated God’s house- </p><p>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, 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><p>22,000 oxen are 16.5 million pounds of steak, worth about 90 million US dollars in 2024.  And 12 million pounds of mutton. Slaying these animals would have created a literal river of blood.</p>


text:
<p>The priests stood, according to their positions, the Levites also with instruments of music of Yahweh, which David the king had made to give thanks to Yahweh, when David praised by their ministry saying, For His grace endures forever. The priests sounded trumpets before them; and all Israel stood- </p><p>Compare <a href='B:160 12:9'>Neh 12:9</a> "Also Bakbukiah and Unno, their brothers, were over against them". This is the same Hebrew in <a href='B:140 7:6'>2Ch 7:6</a>, "The priests sounded trumpets before them", the idea perhaps being that they answered the Levites in choral praise (see <a href='B:160 12:24'>Neh 12:24</a>).</p><p>There is a link between the name Yahweh, and praise- because the Name epitomizes the characteristics of God. Halle-lu-YAH is saying that for the sake of the Name Yah, therefore praise Him. David sat down and designed musical instruments because of the Name (<a href='B:140 7:6'>2Ch 7:6</a>). The Psalms often make the link explicit, e.g. "…give thanks unto Your holy name, and to triumph in Your praise" (<a href='B:230 106:47'>Psa 106:47</a>). The Name and praise are paralleled.</p><p>Solomon's zealous&nbsp;organization of the temple worship was an exact 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 personal&nbsp;enthusiasm for service to God became subsumed by the huge psychological spiritual dominance of his 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 name&nbsp;of&nbsp;the Lord".</p>


text:
<p>Moreover Solomon made the middle of the court holy that was before the house of Yahweh; for there he offered the burnt offerings, and the fat of the peace offerings, because the bronze altar which Solomon had made was not able to receive the burnt offering, and the meal offering, and the fat- </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 seven days, and all Israel with him, a very great assembly, from the entrance of Hamath to the brook of Egypt- </p><p>The dedication coincided with the seven day feast of tabernacles (see on <a href='B:140 5:3'>2Ch 5:3</a>), and to that was added this seven day feast of dedication (:9). God's law is not a chain, a leash, for man is not a dog. Legalism teaches minimalism. But God's law is rather a springboard to deeper dedication. Rather like Boaz redeeming Ruth and allowing gleaners to glean not at the edge of the fields but in the middle of them, among the ears of grain. 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.</p>


text:
<p>On the eighth day they held a solemn assembly; for they kept the dedication of the altar seven days, and the feast seven days- </p><p>As explained on <a href='B:140 5:3'>2Ch 5:3</a>, the dedication of the temple had been made to coincide with the feast of tabernacles. The dedication of the temple is called here "the dedication of the altar". As discussed on 1 Kings 9:3, God was willing to accept the temple as a "house of sacrifice", as an altar; but didn't necessarily go along with all the other projections Solomon placed upon the temple. There is reason to think that some kind of altar remained operative on the temple site after the temple was destroyed. Perhaps this is why Chronicles, written for the exiles, calls the temple "the altar".</p><p>
The dedication coincided with the seven day feast of tabernacles (see on 1 Kings 8:1), 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 twenty-third day of the seventh month he sent the people away to their tents, joyful and glad of heart for the grace that Yahweh had shown to David, and to Solomon, and to Israel His people-</p><p>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>). <a href='B:110 8:66'>1Ki 8:66</a>: "For all the goodness that Yahweh had shown to David His servant, and to Israel His people". 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>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-</p><p>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. 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. 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. 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>):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. They are listed on <a href='B:140 9:11'>2Ch 9:11</a>.</p><p>His building of the temple was "all that came into his heart", or "all Solomon's desire which he was pleased to do" (<a href='B:110 9:1'>1Ki 9:1</a>).  He later admits in Ecc. 2 that he did these building projects from a desire to indulge his fantasies about architecture and building. At this point, he served God in ways that were convenient to him and reinforced his own natural interests. 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>Yahweh appeared to Solomon by night and said to him, I have heard your prayer, and have chosen this place to Myself for a house of sacrifice- </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><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. See on :14.</p><p>Chronicles is clear that the temple was not God's original intention. But He went along with David and Solomon's insistence on building it, just as He does with so many misplaced ideals. "Shall you build me a house for me to live in?" (2 Sam. 7:5) is turned by Chronicles into the indicative, "You shall not build me the house to live in," (1 Chron. 17:4). "I declare to you YHWH shall build a house for you" (1 Chron. 17:1O). This grace was as it were unwanted by David and Solomon; they insisted upon doing the works, and glorying in them. And God in the end gives man what he really wants, as in the Father giving so much to the prodigal son, surely knowing what he would do. And if our heart desire is for the Kingdom, He will grant it.</p>


text:
<p>If I shut up the sky so that there is no rain, or if I command the locust to devour the land, or if I send plague among My people- </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. This is now made clear by God in :14.</p>


text:
<p>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, and will heal their land- </p><p> 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> 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. See on :12 for another example of God now correcting Solomon's assumptions.</p><p>Solomon had asked that God forgive His people for their sins if they prayed in or toward the temple: "If Your people Israel be struck down before the enemy because they have sinned against You, and shall turn again and confess Your name, and pray and make supplication before You in this house; then hear from heaven, and forgive the sin of your people Israel... 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; then hear in heaven, and forgive the sin of Your servants...  [hear]  prayer from this place" (2 Chron. 6:24-27,40). But 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. 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.  </p><p>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>


text:
<p>Now My eyes shall be open and My ears sensitive to the prayer that is made in this place- </p><p> "Now" may have the idea of 'For now'. For now, at that time, God would hear the prayers made in the temple- if Solomon remained obedient, and until He destroyed the temple. </p><p> "Sensitive / attentive" is the word used by Nehemiah in <a href='B:160 1:11'>Neh 1:11</a> "Lord, I beg You, let Your ear be attentive now to the prayer of Your servant". "Attentive" is s:w. <a href='B:140 6:40'>2Ch 6:40</a>; <a href='B:140 7:15'>2Ch 7:15</a>, where we read of God being "attentive" to prayers offered in the temple. But Nehemiah was praying in exile, not in the temple. The desperation of the situation made him learn a lesson- that God wasn't only accessible in the temple. This may sound obvious to us, but it wasn't for those used to the temple cult. The lesson is that God uses punishments for sin, hard situations, to break our paradigms and lead us to a greater spirituality- if we will follow. S:w. also <a href='B:160 9:34'>Neh 9:34</a> - Israel weren't "attentive" to God’s word, but in their time of need they hoped He would be "attentive" to their word of prayer. And He was. His grace isn't 'measure for measure'; He treats us out of proportion to our attentiveness to Him. We must show the same grace.</p>


text:
<p>For now have I chosen and made this house holy, that My name may be there forever; and My eyes and My heart shall be there perpetually- </p><p> I would translate and paraphrase 1 Kings 9:3-6 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. </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 <a href='B:110 9:4-7'>1Ki 9:4-7</a>, 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>God's Name, eyes and heart were not for ever focused upon the physical temple. In :20 He states that He can cast the temple out of His sight and special awareness. The temple was destroyed, and the possibility of that is mentioned in :21. But He also says here that His intense presence and sensitivity will always be there. One resolution of this is to recall that God's response to the desire to build the house / temple was to say that He would build a house / temple for David. And that temple was His Son and all in Him. For both the Lord Jesus and all in Him are described as God's temple. The Divine promise here remains true- through His definition of the temple. His special awareness and sensitivity is not now focused upon a small plot of land in Jerusalem, but upon us. Whoever touches us, touches the apple of His eye. His presence and involvement in the temple could only be because He had chosen and "made this house holy", He had sanctified it, counted it as holy / righteous. And this is exactly what Paul says He has done to us His people- elected / chosen us, unto sanctification by Him. The ideas of choosing and sanctification run together in Paul's thought. We are the temple. "God has from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess. 2:13). "According as He has chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy/ sanctified" (Eph. 1:4). Peter likewise: "Elect [chosen] according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit" (1 Pet. 1:2). And the Lord Himself: "You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained / sanctified you" (Jn. 15:16).</p>


text:
<p>As for you, if you will walk before Me as David your father walked, and 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. 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><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>


text:
<p>then I will establish the throne of your kingdom, according as I covenanted with David your father saying, There shall not fail you a man to be ruler in 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 claims 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. He could potentially have been the Messiah, just as various individuals could have been. Indeed the Old Testament is littered with failed Messiahs- all building up to the wonderful climax of the one true Messiah. </p><p>David and Solomon had twisted what God actually promised David. He spoke of a singular seed, to be born after David "slept with [his] fathers". The phrase "man to be ruler in Israel" is applied to Messiah individually in Mic. 5:2 ("But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, being small among the clans of Judah, out of you one will come forth to Me the man that is to be the ruler in Israel"). But Solomon has expanded this into "your children" (2 Chron. 6:16), in line with how David had wanted to interpret God's words as not referring to Messiah, God's begotten Son, but to an unbroken line of kings ruling on his throne. God now seems to agree, reluctantly, to this desire. He says that if Solomon is perfectly obedient (:17), and if the subsequent kings are, then He can also interpret His words of promise as meaning that "There shall not fail you a man to be ruler in Israel". But of course they were not perfectly obedient, the Davidic line of kings ended, and God Himself overthrew Zion. God by all means tried to go along with their desired path of fulfilment, and this is repeated later in 2 Chron. 23:3 ["Let him reign, as the Lord spoke concerning the sons of David"] and 2 Chron. 21:7: "Yet the Lord would not destroy the house of David, because of the covenant which he had made with David, and since he had promised to give a lamp to him and to his sons for ever". That promise was however conditional upon their following His ways perfectly. The eternal lamp for David was to be fulfilled in the Messianic King, God's begotten Son. We see in all this how God will go along with human misunderstanding, in a desperate if reluctant bid to retain relationship with man. This is not to be taken as a minimizing of His requirements nor of His word. But we do marvel at the extent to which He is willing to compromise with man. And so we see Christian people with all manner of stubborn, even intentional misunderstandings, still being used by God and God retaining relationship with them. Just as He sent the shekinah into the temple- when so much in the temple was not of His will and indeed He had stated that He did not want a temple. Despite God's reasoning in 2 Samuel 7 as to why He didn't want a temple, He still gave the exiles the plans for a temple in Ez. 40-48, again amending and adjusting the terms of His encounter with man according to what He knew man wanted. Although still man refused to obey those plans in that the exiles didn't build that temple. Just as He worked through a kingship, which He made clear through Samuel He did not want. He gave them a king in His anger and took him away in His wrath; He was angry with the temple from the day it was built until the day He destroyed it. This 'going along' with the idea of an unbroken line of kings and His physical presence in Zion was what led to the huge disillusionment of Lamentations and other passages- when God Himself ended the line of kings and furiously ripped Zion apart. He was thereby seeking to revert His people to His promise of a future Kingdom and Messiah as the fulfilment of the covenant with David. Which was in essence the same as His covenant with Abraham and the fathers.</p>


text:
<p>But if you turn away and forsake My statutes and My commandments which I have set before you, and 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 :22. But there is silence; see on :22:&nbsp; This verse is addressed to Solomon personally. If he fell away, then Israel would suffer and the temple would be destroyed (:20). This is the nature of sin- that it affects others. Men can to some degree be saved by third parties (Mk. 2:5) but they can also suffer and lose relationship with God because of third party behaviour. This highlights the huge importance and significance of how we live life. For no man is an island, no man lives or dies unto himself. Despite the claims of the individualistic, postmodern culture in which we live. </p>


text:
<p>then I will pluck them up by the roots out of My land which I have given them; and this house, which I have made holy for My name, I will cast out of My sight, and I will make it a proverb and a byword among all peoples- </p><p>Solomon had wrongly reasoned in 2 Chronicles 6 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>).</p>


text:
<p>This house, which is so high, everyone who passes by it shall be astonished, and shall say, ‘Why has Yahweh done thus to this land, and to this house?’- </p><p>God parallels 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>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. 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.</p>


text:
<p>They shall answer, ‘Because they abandoned Yahweh, the God of their fathers, who brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, and took other gods, worshipped them, and served them. Therefore He 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 house of Yahweh and his own house- </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. 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>):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. They are listed on <a href='B:140 9:11'>2Ch 9:11</a>.</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>that the cities which Huram had given to Solomon, Solomon built them, and caused the children of Israel to dwell there- </p><p>The record of this is explained in <a href='B:110 9:14'>1Ki 9:14</a> as being in the context of how "Hiram sent to the king one hundred and twenty talents of gold". 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. Solomon had given Hiram these 20 cities in Galilee (<a href='B:110 9:11'>1Ki 9:11</a>), but Hiram had returned them to Solomon. 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. 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. He called them "Cabul" (<a href='B:110 9:13'>1Ki 9:13</a>). "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, with all the damage in relationship that goes with returning a rejected gift. Hence we read here that after this Solomon colonized the cities and sent Israelites to live there. But 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 (see on <a href='B:110 9:21'>1Ki 9:21</a>). .</p>


text:
<p>Solomon went to Hamath Zobah, and prevailed against it- </p><p><a href='B:110 11:4'>1Ki 11:4</a>; <a href='B:110 11:6'>1Ki 11:6</a> clearly states God’s opinion that Solomon was not like David: "his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, as was the&nbsp;heart&nbsp; of David his father... (he) went not fully after the&nbsp;Lord, as did David his father". This double stress, bearing in&nbsp; mind inspiration's economic use of words, is really making a point. Yet the records of Solomon seem to be framed to show that externally,&nbsp; Solomon&nbsp; was indeed following David; he was obsessed with living out parental expectation, and perhaps the expectation of his society, rather than forging his own relationship with God. 2 Chronicles 8 is a passage&nbsp; which especially makes this point, in that it describes the actions of&nbsp;Solomon&nbsp;in the very&nbsp;language which is used earlier about David.</p><p><a href='B:140 8:3'>2Ch 8:3</a> “Solomon went to Hamath Zobah” = <a href='B:100 8:3'>2Sa 8:3</a> “David smote also Hadadezer the son of Rehob king of Zobah”; <a href='B:140 8:3'>2Ch 8:3</a>&nbsp; "and prevailed" = Same&nbsp; word <a href='B:90 17:30'>1Sa 17:30</a>; <a href='B:140 8:8'>2Ch 8:8</a> Those “whom the children of Israel consumed not, did Solomon make to pay tribute” = <a href='B:100 8:6'>2Sa 8:6</a>&nbsp; “David put garrisons in Syria of Damascus, and the Syrians became servants to David, and brought gifts”; <a href='B:140 8:14'>2Ch 8:14</a> “He appointed according to the ordinance of David his father, the courses of the priests to their service, and the Levites to their charges… for so had David commanded” = <a href='B:130 24:1'>1Ch 24:1</a>; <a href='B:140 9:15-16'>2Ch 9:15-16</a> = <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”.</p><p>Yet notice too how both David and Solomon dealt with the matter of chariots and horses. Solomon’s weakness for horses was perhaps traceable to David’s. Solomon unashamedly amassed horses and chariots, in direct disobedience to Divine command (<a href='B:50 17:16'>Deu 17:16</a>). When David his father had captured 1000 chariots and horses, he hamstrung 900 of them and retained 100 of them (<a href='B:100 8:4'>2Sa 8:4</a>). He had a conscience about the matter, but thought that 90% obedience wasn’t bad. And the hamstrung horses were likely used for agricultural work and especially for breeding- breeding yet more chariot horses. David’s 90% obedience lead to his son’s 100% disobedience in this matter of chariot horses.</p>


text:
<p>He built Tadmor in the wilderness, and all the storage cities which he built in Hamath- </p><p>Israel was at its largest extent in Solomon's Kingdom; lost land was restored, and the borders re-established (<a href='B:140 9:26'>2Ch 9:26</a>; <a href='B:140 8:4'>2Ch 8:4</a>&nbsp; cp. <a href='B:60 16:3'>Jos 16:3</a>; <a href='B:60 16:5'>Jos 16:5</a>); it was also at its political strongest; nations submitted to Solomon (<a href='B:110 4:20'>1Ki 4:20</a>); Israel was the chief of the nations (<a href='B:110 4:21'>1Ki 4:21</a>). 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>Also he built Beth Horon the upper, and Beth Horon the lower, fortified cities, with walls, gates, and bars- </p><p>Solomon loved building and architecture (<a href='B:250 2:4-6'>Ecc 2:4-6</a>; <a href='B:140 8:4-6'>2Ch 8:4-6</a>), therefore his building of God’s temple was something he revelled in. But when it came to obeying the clear commands concerning not multiplying horses or wives, Solomon simply disregarded them. Likewise Israel were so sad to lose the temple because “Our holy and our beautiful house... is burned... and all our pleasant things are laid waste” (<a href='B:290 64:11'>Isa 64:11</a>). It was God’s house, not theirs. They only mourned for the loss of it insofar as it was a reflection of what they revelled in anyway, as an expression of themselves, rather than a means of worshipping God. By contrast, Paul says that the proof that he had been given a command to preach the Gospel was in the fact that he preached against his own will; he says that if he did it willingly, i:e. because it coincided with his own will, then he had his reward in this life (this is a paraphrase of <a href='B:530 9:17'>1Co 9:17</a> and context).</p>


text:
<p>and Baalath, and all the storage cities that Solomon had, and all the cities for his chariots, and the cities for his horsemen, and all that Solomon desired to build for his pleasure in Jerusalem, and in Lebanon, and in all the land of his dominion- </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>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><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 (<a href='B:110 9:1'>1Ki 9:1</a>), 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 Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, who were not 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' (:9).</p>


text:
<p>of their children who were left after them in the land, whom the children of Israel didn’t consume, of them Solomon conscripted forced labour 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 :2), 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 :2, 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 servants for his work; but they were men of war, and chief of 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 (:2,8), 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 of king Solomon, even two-hundred and fifty, who ruled over the people- </p><p>The difference with <a href='B:110 9:23'>1Ki 9:23</a> may be because the word for "three" in Hebrew, 'sls', can easily be confused with that for "six" ['ss']. The same confusion is found in <a href='B:140 2:18'>2Ch 2:18</a> cp. <a href='B:110 5:16'>1Ki 5:16</a>. This would appear to be one of the copying errors in these Divinely inspired records.</p><p>But another approach is possible. 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>Solomon brought up the daughter of Pharaoh out of the city of David to the house that he had built for her; for he said, My wife shall not dwell in the house of David king of Israel, because the places where the ark of Yahweh has come are holy- </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><p>Solomon's 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>


text:
<p>Then Solomon offered burnt offerings to Yahweh on the altar of Yahweh, which he had built before the porch- </p><p>"Three times a year" in :13 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>even as the duty of every day required, offering according to the commandment of Moses, on the Sabbaths, and on the new moons, and on the set feasts, three times in the year, in the feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tents- </p><p>The idea is "sacrificing at the daily rate, according to the direction of Moses". And yet the scale of the arrangements for the priests, the altar, multiples tables, lavers etc. all implied that the whole structure was built to facilitate sacrifice on a far larger scale than in the tabernacle. If indeed they offered the number of sacrifices stipulated in the law of Moses, then all the grand scale was mere opulence and religious show.</p>


text:
<p>He appointed, according to the ordinance of David his father, the divisions of the priests to their service, and the Levites to their offices, to praise, and to minister before the priests, as the duty of every day required; the doorkeepers also by their divisions at every gate; for so had David the man of God commanded- </p><p>The language here reflects how Solomon had effectively replaced God’s word through Moses with the obsessive fantasy of his father David. Things were appointed not according to ordinance of Moses, but of David.</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>


text:
<p>They didn’t depart from the commandment of the king to the priests and Levites concerning any matter, or concerning the treasures- </p><p>As noted on :14, the obedience was to David and his vision, rather than to the word of God through Moses.</p>


text:
<p>Now all the work of Solomon was prepared to the day of the foundation of the house of Yahweh, and until it was finished. So the house of Yahweh was completed- </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>Then went Solomon to Ezion Geber, and to Eloth, on the seashore in the land of Edom-</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" (:18) in the form of wooden structures which were then assembled at the port.</p>


text:
<p>Huram sent him ships and servants who had knowledge of the sea by the hands of his servants; and they came with the servants of Solomon to Ophir, and fetched from there four hundred and fifty talents of gold, and brought them to king Solomon- </p><p><a href='B:110 9:28'>1Ki 9:28</a> says 420, but perhaps the 30 talents difference were paid to Hiram for his transport services, as the navy&nbsp; appears to have either been owned by Hiram or at least included his ships. "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:140 9:1'>2Ch 9:1</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, she came to Jerusalem to prove Solomon with hard questions, with a very great train, and camels that bore spices, and gold in abundance and precious stones. When she had come to Solomon, she talked with him of all that was in her heart- </p><p>As explained on <a href='B:140 8:18'>2Ch 8:18</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. The Hebrew idea seems to be of trick questions. She came to "prove" him- what we read of in this chapter is the conversion of a sceptic, but she ws converted not so much by the ideas, the intellectual gymnastics, but what she saw with her own eyes of the effect of that wisdom. "No more spirit in her" (:4) could imply a giving up in a mental fight against Solomon. She initially didn’t believe the words about Solomon (:6).</p>


text:
<p>Solomon told her all her questions; and there was not anything hidden from Solomon which he didn’t tell her- </p><p>"Questions" is a poor translation. Literally, her 'words', s:w. "communed" in :1. He told her the words she had in her mind before she said them. This is the way good conversation goes, this is how people are won for Christ- when you tell them things which they were about to say. Paul uses this method when he foresees and answers questions which he foresees, e.g. "Some man will say, How are the dead raised up?" (<a href='B:530 15:35'>1Co 15:35</a>). "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>).</p>


text:
<p>When the queen of Sheba had seen 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><p>"Seen the wisdom" shows how wisdom and truth are seen in practice, not just heard with the ear. Only as the word becomes flesh in us will our witness of that word be ultimately persuasive to our audience.</p>


text:
<p>and the food of his table, and the sitting of his servants, and the attendance of his ministers and their clothing, his cup bearers also and their clothing, and his ascent by which he went up to the house of Yahweh; there was no more spirit in her- </p><p>See on :1. Clearly 'spirit' here means something other than the life force, it refers to something mental and emotional. 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. 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. See on :11.</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>"Report" is s:w. 'word', see note on :3. Hearing reports, wisdom in mere words, is not persuasive of itself until it is seen in practice. 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" (:6) 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 their words until I came, and my eyes had seen it; and behold, the half of the greatness of your wisdom wasn’t told me: you exceed the fame that I heard-</p><p>As explained on :5, 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. By seeing the theory turned into practice, the word made flesh, she was converted.</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.</p><p>And happy are these your servants who stand continually before you, and hear your wisdom- </p><p>Joy / happiness is a proof of wisdom in practice. Acts records constant joy amongst those who accepted Christ, and <a href='B:650 3:6'>Heb 3:6</a> implies that to stop rejoicing in the hope means we have lost the spiritual plot completely. Joy is therefore a necessary hallmark of those who are truly secured in Christ. 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 be Yahweh your God, who delighted in you to set you on His throne, to be king for Yahweh your God: because your God loved Israel to establish them forever, therefore He made you king over them, to do justice and righteousness- </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- 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><p>Although Israel's desire for a human king was a rejection of God as king, yet God worked through that situation rather than reject them as they had rejected Him. He accepted the human kingdom of Israel as His Kingdom on earth. It was God’s wish that Israel would not have a human king; hence His sorrow when they did (<a href='B:90 10:19-21'>1Sa 10:19-21</a>). Yet in the Law, God foresaw that they would want a human king, and so He gave commandments concerning how he should behave (<a href='B:50 17:14-15'>Deu 17:14-15</a>). These passages speak of how Israel would choose to set a King over themselves, and would do so. Yet God worked through this system of human kings; hence the Queen of Sheba speaks of how God had set Solomon over Israel as King, and how he was king on God’s behalf (<a href='B:140 9:8'>2Ch 9:8</a>). Israel set a king over themselves; but God worked with this, so that in a sense He&nbsp;set the King over them.</p><p>"To establish them forever" shows that she perceived that God’s intention was that Solomon's kingdom should be eternal, that he should be the full fulfilment of the Messianic Kingdom and King promised to David. But Israel later complained of how Solomon abused them, and his happy servants of :7 turned against his son, complaining of how harshly Solomon abused them. The great potential wasn't achieved, and so God’s prophetic word was delayed and fulfilled a different way in Jesus.</p>


