# commentaries

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.</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>


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>


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.</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>


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>


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>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 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:
<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>


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.</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>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.</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.</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.</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.</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.</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.</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.</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>


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>


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.</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:
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 &quot;in him&quot; 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>


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>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>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>


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>


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>


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>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>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.</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>


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>


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>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>).</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>


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.</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.</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>.</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>


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. 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.</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 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>). 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>


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>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>


text:
<p>Now My eyes shall be open and My ears sensitive to the prayer that is made in this place- </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>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>


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.</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;</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>


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>


text:
<p>She gave the king one hundred and twenty talents of gold, and spices in great abundance, and precious stones. Neither was there any such spice as the queen of Sheba gave to king Solomon- </p><p>This was about one third of his annual income (:13), which could imply she was more wealthy than he was. This note seems to imply that spices were never again imported into Israel, the implication being as Josephus states (Antiquities, 8:6:6), "that the cultivation of the balsam in Palestine dates from this visit; the plant having been one of the queen’s gifts".</p>


text:
<p>The servants also of Huram, and the servants of Solomon, who brought gold from Ophir, brought algum trees and precious stones- </p><p>"Almug" appears to refer to sandalwood, "the Hebraized form of the Deccan word for sandal". This points to "Ophir" as being in the east, possibly as far as the Indian coast where these trees grow.</p>


text:
<p>The king made of the algum trees terraces for the house of Yahweh and for the king’s house, and harps and stringed instruments for the singers. There were none like these seen before in the land of Judah- </p><p>The idea is of a magnificent staircase with elaborate banisters. This appears to be the king's "ascent" into the temple which so amazed the queen of Sheba (:4). This verse is referring back before her visit, because the almug trees were brought for the temple and for the king's house, which were already built by the time she visited.</p><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. The following comparisons put the temple first, and then Solomon's house.</p><p>Length: 60 cubits, breadth 20, height 30 (<a href='B:110 6:2'>1Ki 6:2</a>)cp:Length: 100 cubits, breadth 50, height 30 (<a href='B:110 7:2'>1Ki 7:2</a>)</p><p>Used cedar pillars and beams (<a href='B:110 6:9-10'>1Ki 6:9-10</a>) cp. <a href='B:110 7:2'>1Ki 7:2</a></p><p>Inner court built with three rows of hewn stone and a row of cedar beams (<a href='B:110 6:36'>1Ki 6:36</a> RV) cp. “The great court round about had three rows of hewn stones, and a row of cedar beams, like as the inner court of the house of the Lord” (<a href='B:110 7:12'>1Ki 7:12</a>)</p><p>Hiram called in to build it (<a href='B:110 5:1-5'>1Ki 5:1-5</a>)cp. <a href='B:110 7:13'>1Ki 7:13</a></p><p>The Most Holy within God's house (<a href='B:110 7:8'>1Ki 7:8</a>)cp:The "another court within the porch" in his house seems to have been a replica of the Most Holy within God's house. Here Solomon’s wives worshipped their idols.</p><p>Built on large foundation stones cp. The record of the foundation stones (7:10) is similar to that of the temple foundations.</p><p>The temple had a “porch” (<a href='B:330 8:7'>Eze 8:7</a>; <a href='B:330 8:16'>Eze 8:16</a>) cp. The porch of Solomon's house matches that of the temple (<a href='B:330 8:7'>Eze 8:7</a>; <a href='B:330 8:16'>Eze 8:16</a>), which in Ezekiel's time was a place of apostacy.</p><p>Open flowers design of the temple&nbsp;cp. The two pillars with their pomegranates and lily-work seem to have matched the open flowers of the temple, and they have ominous connections with Absalom's pillar of self-glorification (<a href='B:100 18:18'>2Sa 18:18</a>).</p>


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


text:
<p>Now the weight of gold that came to Solomon in one year was six hundred and sixty-six talents of gold- </p><p>This number occurs in the description of the number and mark of the beast in <a href='B:730 13:18'>Rev 13:18</a>. It is one of the biggest hints that in fact Solomon's kingdom was the kingdom of the flesh, and not at all God's Kingdom as had been promised to David. The apostate religious system called "Babylon" in Revelation is evidently presented in the language of Solomon - at the time his kingdom was apparently flourishing, due to his righteousness. <a href='B:110 10:14'>1Ki 10:14</a> = <a href='B:730 13:17-18'>Rev 13:17-18</a>; <a href='B:110 10:23'>1Ki 10:23</a> = <a href='B:730 18:11-12'>Rev 18:11-12</a>; <a href='B:730 18:15'>Rev 18:15</a>; <a href='B:110 11:1-2'>1Ki 11:1-2</a> = <a href='B:730 17:1-2'>Rev 17:1-2</a>; <a href='B:110 10:22'>1Ki 10:22</a> = <a href='B:730 18:17'>Rev 18:17</a>; <a href='B:730 18:19'>Rev 18:19</a>; <a href='B:110 10:23'>1Ki 10:23</a> = <a href='B:730 18:3'>Rev 18:3</a>; <a href='B:730 18:17'>Rev 18:17</a>; <a href='B:110 10:21-22'>1Ki 10:21-22</a> = <a href='B:730 18:12'>Rev 18:12</a>; <a href='B:110 10:11'>1Ki 10:11</a> = <a href='B:730 18:12'>Rev 18:12</a>; <a href='B:110 10:22'>1Ki 10:22</a> = <a href='B:730 18:12'>Rev 18:12</a>; <a href='B:110 10:10'>1Ki 10:10</a>; <a href='B:110 10:25'>1Ki 10:25</a> = <a href='B:730 18:13'>Rev 18:13</a>; <a href='B:110 10:23'>1Ki 10:23</a> = <a href='B:730 18:3'>Rev 18:3</a>; <a href='B:730 18:9'>Rev 18:9</a>; <a href='B:110 10:28'>1Ki 10:28</a> = <a href='B:730 18:12'>Rev 18:12</a>; <a href='B:110 9:22'>1Ki 9:22</a> = <a href='B:730 18:13'>Rev 18:13</a>. These allusions of themselves suggest Solomon's spirituality was a mere appearance. The latter day system which his kingdom looked ahead to may therefore be Jewish or Jerusalem based, with elements of apparent obedience to God.</p><p><a href='B:140 3:8'>2Ch 3:8</a> says that Solomon used 600 talents of gold on the temple. Seeing he received 666 talents / year, plus the large income from :16, this means that it was not particularly generous. One talent is 26 kilograms (57 pounds). 1 kilogram of gold is currently worth about 40,000 US$ [2020].</p>


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


text:
<p>King Solomon made two hundred large shields of beaten gold; six hundred shekels of beaten gold went to one large shield- </p><p>The apostate religious system called "Babylon" in Revelation is evidently presented in the language of Solomon - at the time his kingdom was apparently flourishing, due to his righteousness. <a href='B:110 10:14'>1Ki 10:14</a> = <a href='B:730 13:17-18'>Rev 13:17-18</a>; <a href='B:110 10:23'>1Ki 10:23</a> = <a href='B:730 18:11-12'>Rev 18:11-12</a>; <a href='B:730 18:15'>Rev 18:15</a>; <a href='B:110 11:1-2'>1Ki 11:1-2</a> = <a href='B:730 17:1-2'>Rev 17:1-2</a>; <a href='B:110 10:22'>1Ki 10:22</a> = <a href='B:730 18:17'>Rev 18:17</a>; <a href='B:730 18:19'>Rev 18:19</a>; <a href='B:110 10:23'>1Ki 10:23</a> = <a href='B:730 18:3'>Rev 18:3</a>; <a href='B:730 18:17'>Rev 18:17</a>; <a href='B:110 10:21-22'>1Ki 10:21-22</a> = <a href='B:730 18:12'>Rev 18:12</a>; <a href='B:110 10:11'>1Ki 10:11</a> = <a href='B:730 18:12'>Rev 18:12</a>; <a href='B:110 10:22'>1Ki 10:22</a> = <a href='B:730 18:12'>Rev 18:12</a>; <a href='B:110 10:10'>1Ki 10:10</a>; <a href='B:110 10:25'>1Ki 10:25</a> = <a href='B:730 18:13'>Rev 18:13</a>; <a href='B:110 10:23'>1Ki 10:23</a> = <a href='B:730 18:3'>Rev 18:3</a>; <a href='B:730 18:9'>Rev 18:9</a>; <a href='B:110 10:28'>1Ki 10:28</a> = <a href='B:730 18:12'>Rev 18:12</a>; <a href='B:110 9:22'>1Ki 9:22</a> = <a href='B:730 18:13'>Rev 18:13</a>; <a href='B:140 9:15'>2Ch 9:15</a> (666) = <a href='B:730 13:18'>Rev 13:18</a>. These allusions of themselves suggest Solomon was fairly wrotten from the start, and his spirituality a mere appearance.</p>


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


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


text:
<p>And there were six steps to the throne, with a footstool of gold, which were fastened to the throne, and stays on either side by the place of the seat, and two lions standing beside the stays- </p><p>The six steps stressed the elevation of the throne. It is God's throne which alone is exalted (<a href='B:290 6:1'>Isa 6:1</a>). But Solomon justified his self exaltation on the basis that he had been exalted by God, and his throne was God's throne. He repeatedly refused to accept the conditionality of what had been promised to him. The two lions were surely part of the 12 lions of :20. Clearly two of the 12 lions [tribes of Israel] were seen as more exalted. This implies the supremacy of Judah over the ten tribes- and yet this kind of human point scoring was built in to what was supposed to be a replica of God's throne. Solomon was quite unawed by God's glory. For if he had been, he would have realized that before Him, all the tribes were equal.</p><p>Here Solomon starts to play God, because the idea of having a throne over the 12 tribes of Israel with a footstool is the language of God's throne. The porch of Solomon's house matches that of the temple (<a href='B:330 8:7'>Eze 8:7</a>; <a href='B:330 8:16'>Eze 8:16</a>), which in Ezekiel's time was a place of apostacy. Solomon's own house was undeniably larger than God's, although built with the same layout (e.g. <a href='B:110 6:2'>1Ki 6:2</a> cp. 7:2;&nbsp; 6:36 cp. 7:12;&nbsp; 5:1-5 cp. 7:13). The "another court within the porch" in his house seems to have been a replica of the Most Holy within God's house (<a href='B:110 7:8'>1Ki 7:8</a>), yet it was here that Solomon's wives worshipped their idols. Likewise the record of the foundation stones (7:10) is similar to that of the temple foundations:&nbsp;&nbsp; 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>). 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. The temple steps are mentioned in the context of the steps to Solomon's throne (<a href='B:140 9:4'>2Ch 9:4</a>; <a href='B:140 9:18'>2Ch 9:18</a>).<strong></strong></p>


text:
<p>Twelve lions stood there on both sides of the six steps: there was nothing like it made in any kingdom- </p><p>This extraordinary throne received so much attention from Solomon because he was convinced that the promises about David's throne being eternal were fulfilled in him. And so he effectively portrayed it as God's throne, with the 12 lions representing the tribes of Israel ruled over by him. After the division of the kingdom, the throne would have been a sad piece of furniture. But the 12 lions were found on each side of the steps, making 24. This is a number associated with the throne room of God, with 24 elders or division of Angels before it (<a href='B:730 4:4'>Rev 4:4</a>; <a href='B:730 5:8'>Rev 5:8</a>; <a href='B:730 11:16'>Rev 11:16</a>; <a href='B:730 19:4'>Rev 19:4</a>). Perhaps Solomon was aware of this, and so he was making his throne an imitation of God's. The lion was specifically the symbol of Judah (<a href='B:10 49:9'>Gen 49:9</a>); again, Solomon was inserting a subtext of Judah's domination of the rest of Israel. All Israel were to fall under the overall characterization of Judah.</p><p>If there were 12 lions on each side of the throne on each of the six steps then we have a total of 144 lions. The 144,000 before God's throne was an allusion to how royalty considered 144 a significant number. Solomon was acting as God, assuming his kingdom was the Kingdom of God, that he was the promised Messiah son of David, yet without the spirituality required for that. When have we played God?</p><p>The way Solomon built a huge physical throne, defended by impressive lions of his own creation (<a href='B:110 10:19-20'>1Ki 10:19-20</a>), rather indicates how he missed the entire point- of ruling on God's throne, over a dynasty or 'throne' which God would perpetuate by grace; rather than establishing or creating the throne himself.</p>


text:
<p>All king Solomon’s drinking vessels were of gold, and all the vessels of the house of the forest of Lebanon were of pure gold. Silver was nothing accounted of in the days of Solomon- </p><p>However, Solomon only received 666 talents of gold / year (:13); and Alexander’s pillage of Ectabana was estimated at 120,000 talents of gold. So Solomon's wealth was not so great, relatively speaking. But it appeared like that, relative to the earlier poverty of a subsistence farming economy like Israel had been before Solomon.</p><p>“He that loves silver (as Solomon did, <a href='B:250 2:8'>Ecc 2:8</a>; <a href='B:110 10:21-29'>1Ki 10:21-29</a>) shall not be satisfied with silver (as he wasn’t- see Ecclesiastes 2); nor he that loves abundance (s:w. used about the abundance of Solomon’s wives, <a href='B:140 11:23'>2Ch 11:23</a>) with increase. When goods increase, they are increased that eat them (cp. the large numbers at his table, <a href='B:110 4:27'>1Ki 4:27</a>)” (<a href='B:250 5:10-11'>Ecc 5:10-11</a>). The Hebrew word translated “not be satisfied” occurs around 25 times in the Proverbs, with Solomon warning of how the way of the flesh couldn’t satisfy. Solomon said all this with an eye on himself. He preached it to others, he felt deeply the truth of it, but he saw no personal way out of it. All he had was the accurate knowledge of his situation, but no real motivation to change- like the alcoholic or drug abuser who knows every aspect of the harm of his habit.</p>


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


text:
<p>So king Solomon exceeded all the kings of the earth in riches and wisdom- </p><p>These are the kings of the earth / land promised to Abraham, which is the same reference of :23. These are the kings of :25 LXX "and he ruled over all the kings from the river to the land of the Philistines, and to the borders of Egypt". The river Euphrates and the borders of Egypt were the eretz promised to Abraham.</p>


text:
<p>All the kings of the earth sought the presence of Solomon, to hear his wisdom, which God had put in his heart- </p><p>This refers to the earth / land promised to Abraham, the eretz of :22. As with the queen of Sheba, we note that they wanted to hear his wisdom from his actual mouth, in his presence; rather than just hear the ideas, which could easily enough have been relayed by word of mouth or even in writing. But for most people, the word has to become flesh to be persuasive. And so it is that God speaks to us in His Son, having earlier spoken solely through His written word. And our preaching of the word is likewise so far more effective through it being made flesh in us, as it was in the Lord, rather than being solely communicated through the written medium.</p>


text:
<p>They brought each man his tribute, vessels of silver, and vessels of gold, and clothing, armour, and spices, horses, and mules, a rate year by year- </p><p>The nations traded their material wealth for spiritual instruction, coming annually to Jerusalem for instruction (<a href='B:140 9:23-24'>2Ch 9:23-24</a>). "A rate" would suggest Solomon began to charge for his wisdom- when it was God's wisdom. Even if it is argued that the gifts were totally voluntary, we recall how Daniel and others despised the gifts of kings offered in return for their having shared God's wisdom with them. Should wisdom ever really be paid for?</p><p>The first mention of mules in the Bible is associated with Absalom's murder of Amnon his brother (<a href='B:100 13:29'>2Sa 13:29</a>). They were cross bred in disobedience to <a href='B:30 19:19'>Lev 19:19</a>. We get the impression that a generally slack attitude to what might have been considered minor matters of the law was associated with the major sin of murder. This is the problem when we start to think that some parts of God's laws can just be ignored. David was fond of them, having his own mule (<a href='B:110 1:33'>1Ki 1:33</a>), and Solomon was willing to receive them as tribute (<a href='B:110 10:25'>1Ki 10:25</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen that he stationed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem- </p><p>All in total disobedience to <a href='B:50 17:16-20'>Deu 17:16-20</a>. When have we been blind to clear commandments, whilst preaching God's wisdom so well to others? 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>He ruled over all the kings from the River even to the land of the Philistines, and to the border of Egypt- </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>).</p>


text:
<p>The king made silver to be in Jerusalem as stones, and he made cedars to be as the sycamore trees that are in the lowland, for abundance- </p><p>All typical of the future Kingdom of God. 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>They brought horses for Solomon out of Egypt, and out of all lands-</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>Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, aren’t they written in the history of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer concerning Jeroboam the son of Nebat?_</p><p>We can imagine that all of these prophets would have been critical of Solomon. He was therefore mentioned in the judgments against Jeroboam.</p>


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


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


text:
<p>Rehoboam went to Shechem; for all Israel had come to Shechem to make him king- </p><p>The LXX addition adds: "And Jeroboam went to Shechem in mount Ephraim, and assembled there the tribes of Israel; and Roboam the son of Solomon went up thither". This would explain why this gathering to instate Rehoboam as king was held in Shechem and not in Jerusalem. And yet although Jeroboam was present with supporters, it appears that "all Israel" favoured the idea of Rehoboam as king. The old men truly advised him that if he would only ease the taxation, all Israel would remain loyal to him. It could even be that the ten tribes had invited Rehoboam from Jerusalem to their great meeting place in Shechem specifically because they wanted him to be king. But this had to change, according to God's judgment upon Solomon- the ten tribes had to be removed from the control of his dynasty:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>When Jeroboam the son of Nebat heard of it (for he was in Egypt, where he had fled from the presence of king Solomon), then Jeroboam returned out of Egypt- </p><p>It seems this verse and :3 should follow <a href='B:140 9:31'>2Ch 9:31</a> as in LXX and some Hebrew manuscripts.</p>


text:
<p>They sent and called him; and Jeroboam and all Israel came, and they spoke to Rehoboam saying- </p><p>See on <a href='B:140 24:2'>2Ch 24:2</a>. We note that Jeroboam didn't immediately begin by demanding the throne, but rather led the people in asking Rehoboam to reduce his father's excessive taxation system. But his return from Egypt, and his awareness of the prophecy about him ruling over Israel, surely meant he had in view the possibility of Rehoboam rejecting the request.</p><p>In a distorted way, Jeroboam was almost a type of Christ; for as made clear at the end of 1 Kings 11, he could have been the Messianic ruler over Israel had he chosen Yahweh's way. I'd suggest that many wicked Old Testament characters could have been types of Christ if they had lived righteously, and the record indirectly indicates this. Jeroboam fled to Egypt because of the persecution of Solomon, as did the Lord. When Solomon died, "they sent and called him", connecting with the record of the Lord Jesus going to Egypt and coming back after Herod's death. Jeroboam came back on the third day (:12) and offered freedom from bondage to Israel, as did Christ on his resurrection. In <a href='B:110 13:10'>1Ki 13:10</a> we read of the prophet who came to prophesy about Jeroboam; we are told that he didn't return the way he came, but went back another way. That's an echo of the wise men, who came to see Jesus, and returned another way.</p>


text:
<p>Your father made our yoke grievous. Now therefore make lighter the grievous service of your father, and his heavy yoke which he put on us, and we will serve you- </p><p>Ephraim had been specifically targetted as a provider of labour and tax revenues (<a href='B:110 11:28'>1Ki 11:28</a>). The influence of Egypt upon Solomon is reflected by the way in which he is described as making the people serve him with "hard bondage" (<a href='B:140 10:4'>2Ch 10:4</a>; <a href='B:110 12:4'>1Ki 12:4</a>). This is the very Hebrew phrase used to describe what the Egyptians did to Israel (<a href='B:20 1:14'>Exo 1:14</a>; <a href='B:20 6:9'>Exo 6:9</a>; <a href='B:50 26:6'>Deu 26:6</a>). Solomon put his people under a yoke (<a href='B:140 10:4'>2Ch 10:4</a>), just as Egypt did to them (<a href='B:30 26:13'>Lev 26:13</a>). And so we see the progression. Solomon loved an Egyptian woman, came to serve her gods, traded with Egypt... and the attitude of Egypt to God's people became Solomon's attitude to them. There is something unique about God's people; and yet the closer we come to the world, the more we come to see our own community, God's special family, just as this world sees us. The world's attitude to us can so easily become our attitude to our brethren- no longer seeing them as the specially chosen little children of God, sensitive to them as our very own brothers and sisters.</p><p>The very possession of wisdom and teaching of it to others can of itself make a man or woman demotivated to personally apply it. He foretold that the people would sign when a wicked man ruled them (<a href='B:240 29:2'>Pro 29:2</a> RV)- and they did "sigh" because of the heavy burdens he placed upon them (<a href='B:110 12:4'>1Ki 12:4</a>). He imposed the "yoke" of tribute upon the people (<a href='B:140 10:4'>2Ch 10:4</a>), whereas he himself had warned that a king that imposes tribute on his people "overthrows" a country (<a href='B:240 29:4'>Pro 29:4</a> RV mg:). He saw it all as true- and yet it was far from him personally.</p><p>The influence of Egypt upon Solomon is reflected by the way in which he is described as making the people serve him with "hard bondage" (<a href='B:140 10:4'>2Ch 10:4</a>; <a href='B:110 12:4'>1Ki 12:4</a>). This is the very Hebrew phrase used to describe what the Egyptians did to Israel (<a href='B:20 1:14'>Exo 1:14</a>; <a href='B:20 6:9'>Exo 6:9</a>; <a href='B:50 26:6'>Deu 26:6</a>). Solomon put his people under a yoke (<a href='B:140 10:4'>2Ch 10:4</a>), just as Egypt did to them (<a href='B:30 26:13'>Lev 26:13</a>). And so we see the progression. Solomon loved an Egyptian woman, came to serve her gods, traded with Egypt... and the attitude of Egypt to God's people became Solomon's attitude to them. There is something unique about God's people; and yet the closer we come to the world, the more we come to see our own community, God's special family, just as this world sees us. The world's attitude to us can so easily become our attitude to our brethren- no longer seeing them as the specially chosen little children of God, sensitive to them as our very own brothers and sisters.</p><p>The very possession of wisdom and teaching of it to others can of itself make a man or woman demotivated to personally apply it. He foretold that the people would sign when a wicked man ruled them (<a href='B:240 29:2'>Pro 29:2</a> RV)- and they did "sigh" because of the heavy burdens he placed upon them (<a href='B:110 12:4'>1Ki 12:4</a>). He imposed the "yoke" of tribute upon the people (<a href='B:140 10:4'>2Ch 10:4</a>), whereas he himself had warned that a king that imposes tribute on his people "overthrows" a country (<a href='B:240 29:4'>Pro 29:4</a> RV mg:). He saw it all as true- and yet it was far from him personally.</p>


text:
<p>He said to them, Come again to me after three days. The people departed- </p><p>The three days may have been in order to allow the advisers to be summoned from Jerusalem.</p>


text:
<p>King Rehoboam took counsel with the old men who had stood before Solomon his father while he yet lived, saying, What advice do you give me to return answer to this people?- </p><p>If Solomon was 41 at this time and the "young men" were those who had grown up with him, these men would have been really quite "old", old enough to have lived through much of David's reign and to have been influenced by his spirituality. Or the word may be used here to simply refer to the elders, whereas Rehoboam had also surrounded himself with his own peer group as advisers.</p><p>In this context, we may consider Solomon's frequent proverbs about the wisdom of having advisors, and his words in <a href='B:240 20:18'>Pro 20:18</a>: "Plans are established by advice". Solomon's advice to his son sounds all well and good; but Rehoboam was given two different paths of advice by his advisors. Again, Solomon's words are true, but simplistic. Because as Rehoboam's case shows, the issue is not so much having advisors per se, but deciding which advisors to listen to. Solomon too had advisors, but did what he wanted, making this Proverb somewhat hollow when applied to himself.</p>


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


text:
<p>But he forsook the counsel of the old men which they had given him, and took counsel with the young men who had grown up with him, who stood before him- </p><p>It is true that as we go through life, we ought to realize that harsh responses and demands upon others are not really the way to go. These "young men" were perhaps the boys he had grown up with in Solomon's harem, his half brothers. They, like him, would not have been pure Israelites as their mothers were Gentiles, and they didn't have the long term well being of the nation at heart. Rehoboam was 41 at this stage. Perhaps then we can understand this as meaning that he had appointed young men as his advisers, who had been raised near him (the Hebrew eth translated "with" is a very wide word). They were young, but the Hebrew doesn't have to mean he had grown up with them. Rather they were young men who had been raised as he had been, in the same harem, which would hardly have been much of a place of wisdom.</p>


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


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


text:
<p>Now whereas my father burdened you with a heavy yoke, I will add to your yoke. My father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions- </p><p>The contrast is not between whips and scorpions, but the idea is rather than he would use a far heavier whip known as a scorpion. The Romans had a whip called a "scorpio", used for punishment.</p><p>We have an insight into why Solomon was like this in <a href='B:240 10:13'>Pro 10:13</a> LXX: "He that brings forth wisdom from his lips smites the fool with a rod". Solomon has himself in view, but now instead of attributing wisdom to Divine inspiration, he starts to consider that it emanated from himself. When he died, the people complained that he had whipped [Heb. 'beaten'] them unreasonably. It was Solomon's false view of his wisdom which led him to do this. He assumed that he must be right, he was infallible, because of his possession of Divine truths. He justified indulging his natural human tendency to be overly harsh on others because he claimed he was the source of all wisdom. And again we see a parallel in fundamentalist Christian groups; where the more dogmatic are the claimants to possession of absolute truth about everything, the more they tend to abuse others and show no mercy to any who fail to attain to their supposed wisdom:&nbsp; <a href='B:240 26:3'>Pro 26:3</a> is also relevant, in the LXX "As a whip for a horse, and a goad for an ass, so&nbsp;is&nbsp;a rod for a simple nation". It was this attitude which led Solomon to beat his own people. Like many who hold God's truth, the mere holding of it lifted Solomon up in pride, and he came to despise all others who didn't accept his wisdom.</p><p>Despite having such knowledge and wisdom with which to rule Israel (for this was the primary purpose of the gift of wisdom to him), Solomon oppressed his people. With evident reference to himself, he commented: “Because the king’s word has power, who may say unto him, What doest thou?” (<a href='B:250 8:4'>Ecc 8:4</a> RV). It is only God who cannot be questioned in this way. But Solomon felt that because he possessed God’s wisdom, he could therefore act as God: “I counsel you, Keep the King’s command, and that in regard of the oath of God” (<a href='B:250 8:2'>Ecc 8:2</a>) could suggest that he thought that his commandments were in fact God’s. So the possession of Truth, which we too have, can lead to an incredible arrogance, a lack of openness to others’ comments upon us, and a certainty that we are right in all that we do and are beyond criticism. The hardness of a man is changed by true wisdom (<a href='B:250 8:1'>Ecc 8:1</a> RV), but knowing this, Solomon became hard hearted. He had the wisdom- but as he said, it was far from him personally. &nbsp;</p><p>“Surely oppression maketh a wise man foolish” (<a href='B:250 7:7'>Ecc 7:7</a> RV), he commented at the end of his life- even though right then he was chastising the people with whips, oppressing them (<a href='B:110 12:11'>1Ki 12:11</a>). He knew the true wisdom, he saw his reflection so accurately in the mirror, but resigned from its personal implications. He could even write that “I returned and considered all the oppression that are done under the sun [by himself!]: and behold the tears of such as were oppressed, and they had no comforter; and on the side of their oppressors there was power [Solomon was king and had set up the tax system in a clever and biased way]; but they had no comforter” (<a href='B:250 4:1'>Ecc 4:1</a>; <a href='B:250 5:8'>Ecc 5:8</a>). It was a real case of spiritual schizophrenia- he sorrowed for the people he oppressed.</p>


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


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


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


text:
<p>When all Israel saw that the king didn’t listen to them, the people answered the king saying, What portion have we in David? Neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse! Every man to your tents, Israel! Now see to your own house, David. So all Israel departed to their tents- </p><p>This was the cry of Sheba in <a href='B:100 20:1'>2Sa 20:1</a>. But the promises of 2 Samuel 7 were to David and his seed / house. By resigning from any association with that house, they were walking out of the hope of Israel which was in those promises. This has been done so many times by those who [understandably] become disillusioned with the family of believers, but their break with them develops into a break with the things of God's Kingdom.</p>


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


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


text:
<p>When Rehoboam had come to Jerusalem, he assembled the house of Judah and Benjamin, one hundred and eighty thousand chosen men who were warriors, to fight against Israel, to bring the kingdom again to Rehoboam- </p><p>Benjamin was a small tribe (<a href='B:90 9:21'>1Sa 9:21</a>; <a href='B:230 68:27'>Psa 68:27</a>). 18 years later, there were 400,000 warriors in Judah (<a href='B:140 13:3'>2Ch 13:3</a>), so this was a very significant proportion of warriors:&nbsp;</p>


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


text:
<p>Speak to Rehoboam the son of Solomon, king of Judah, and to all Israel in Judah and Benjamin saying- </p><p>"The rest of the people" presumably refers to those of the ten tribes who lived in Judah and were loyal to Rehoboam (<a href='B:140 10:17'>2Ch 10:17</a>). The records dovetail so perfectly, as we would expect of a history written ultimately under Divine inspiration.</p>


text:
<p>Thus says Yahweh, ‘You shall not go up nor fight against your brothers! Return every man to his house; for this thing is of Me’. So they listened to the words of Yahweh, and returned from going against Jeroboam- </p><p>This was significant humility, involving a recognition that what had happened was "of God", in judgment for Solomon's sins. To fight against our brothers can never be justified. <a href='B:110 14:30'>1Ki 14:30</a> "There was war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam continually" would indicate disobedience to this command to Rehoboam not to fight the ten tribes.</p><p>At this point, LXX adds to the record: "Roboam his son reigned in his stead in Jerusalem, being sixteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned twelve years... And there was a man of mount Ephraim, a servant to Solomon, and his name was Jeroboam: and the name of his mother was Sarira, a harlot: and Solomon made him head of the levies of the house of Joseph: and he built for Solomon Sarira in mount Ephraim; and he had three hundred chariots of horses: he built the citadel with the levies of the house of Ephraim; he fortified the city of David, and aspired to the kingdom...</p>


text:
<p>Rehoboam lived in Jerusalem, and built cities for defence in Judah- </p><p><a href='B:110 12:25'>1Ki 12:25</a> fleshes out the detail: "Then Jeroboam built Shechem in the hill country of Ephraim, and lived in it; and he went out from there, and built Penuel". Shechem was ideally centrally situated within his territory. Penuel was on the east side of Jordan, and would consolidate his power there, as well as controlling the fords of Jordan.</p>


text:
<p>He built Bethlehem, Etam, Tekoa- </p><p>All quite near to each other. The idea is that he rebuilt or fortified them. Etam is the one in Judah, not the town belonging to Simeon (<a href='B:130 4:32'>1Ch 4:32</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Beth Zur, Soco, Adullam- </p><p>These were all strategically positioned to defend the approaches to Jerusalem. But we read in <a href='B:140 12:4'>2Ch 12:4</a> that when he turned away from Yahweh, Shishak "took the fortified cities which pertained to Judah and came to Jerusalem".</p>


text:
<p>Gath, Mareshah, Ziph- </p><p>This is surely not the Gath in Dan, as this wasn't under Rehoboam's control. If it is the Gath of the Philistines, from which David had won the hearts of several former Philistine enemies, we wonder at how a town once so against David now becomes a core part of God's people of Judah.</p>


text:
<p>Adoraim, Lachish, Azekah- </p><p>Inscriptions on the wall of the temple at Karnak list many cities in Palestine which Shishak of Egypt conquered, including three of the "cities for defence" which Rehoboam had built, Shoco, Adoraim and Aijalon (<a href='B:140 11:7-10'>2Ch 11:7-10</a>). The list also includes many cities within the ten tribes, suggesting that if Jeroboam got Shishak to invade Judah, Shishak then turned against his one time protégé Jeroboam and invaded the ten tribes also.</p>


text:
<p>Zorah, Aijalon and Hebron, which are in Judah and in Benjamin, fortified cities- </p><p>Zorah was in Dan, so it seems there were pockets of support for Judah even within the ten tribes.</p>


text:
<p>He fortified the strongholds, and put captains in them, and stores of food, and oil and wine- </p><p>This sounds like he expected a siege, and was very much on the defensive, in a kind of bunker mentality. He had inherited a political situation from Solomon which was far from peaceful; Judah faced threats not only from Israel, but from the surrounding nations.</p>


text:
<p>He put shields and spears in every city, and made them exceedingly strong. Judah and Benjamin belonged to him-</p><p>The idea seems to be that both tribes were solidly behind him We note that Benjamin, Saul's tribe, had initially been the tribe most disloyal to Judah just a generation before. We see the fickleness of people, and also how people can genuinely change. Just as Philistines of Gath became David's most loyal followers.</p>


text:
<p>The priests and the Levites who were in all Israel resorted to him out of all their border- </p><p>This could indeed imply a mass migration of them to Judah (:14). But Heb. "took their stand by him" suggests there may have been individuals within the ten tribes who were loyal to Judah and the Davidic line. Both books of Kings reference several such individuals.</p>


text:
<p>For the Levites left their suburbs and their possessions and came to Judah and Jerusalem; for Jeroboam and his sons cast them off, that they should not execute the priests’ office to Yahweh- </p><p>And yet Jeroboam claimed to be worshipping Yahweh, through worshipping the golden calves. But he changed the priesthood.</p>


text:
<p>He appointed priests for the high places, and for the male goats, and for the calves which he had made- </p><p>Jeroboam allowed the ordinary people to be priests; in Exodus 32 we learn that the ordinary people offered the sacrifices to the golden calf, not the priests. Again, it seems that Jeroboam was trying to consciously mimic the golden calf apostasy, perhaps arguing that Israel were a nation of priests. It is no accident that Josiah stamped his calves to powder, just as Moses did to the golden calf. Now why&nbsp;did Jeroboam so consciously lead Israel into the same apostasy which brought them as it were within a hairs breadth of national rejection in Exodus 32? Jeroboam wasn't ignorant. Perhaps he had gone down a path of contorted exposition which made out that Israel didn't really sin by worshipping the calf. Or perhaps he got so carried away with the idea that he was like Aaron, the priest, that he thought (like some modern Rabbis) that Aaron couldn't have done anything wrong, and therefore he consciously copied Aaron, as he did David, Solomon, Jacob and Samuel. Again, we see Jeroboam having a familiarity with Scripture, but not pausing to really meditate upon his actions or upon the real spirit of the word. We see him failing to analyze why Aaron acted as he did, failing to see that Aaron acted politically, failing to deeply analyze his own motives:&nbsp; The character of Jeroboam shines through here. Jeroboam named his sons Abijah [Abihu] and Nadab- the very names of Aaron's sons. It seems Jeroboam tried to model himself upon Aaron, and justify the building of the calves by interpreting what Aaron did as a positive, righteous thing (as some Jewish expositors do today). He politely overlooked the fact that Aaron was condemned for making the calf, and that Nadab and Abihu were slain for unacceptable worship (<a href='B:30 10:1-2'>Lev 10:1-2</a>). We too can justify outright wrong behaviour in the name of superficial allusion to Scripture, willfully failing to see the similarities between our actions and those of men who were condemned for doing in essence the things which we seek to justify.</p><p>The "male goats" are AV "devils" or demons (<a href='B:30 17:7'>Lev 17:7</a>). Clearly demons were originally images to idols, and in this context Paul says that idols have no real existence. And therefore, neither do demons.</p>


text:
<p>After them, out of all the tribes of Israel, such as set their hearts to seek Yahweh, the God of Israel, came to Jerusalem to sacrifice to Yahweh, the God of their fathers- </p><p>This suggests there may have been individuals within the ten tribes who were loyal to Judah and the Davidic line. Both books of Kings reference several such individuals.</p>


text:
<p>So they strengthened the kingdom of Judah, and made Rehoboam the son of Solomon strong, three years; for they walked three years in the way of David and Solomon-</p><p><a href='B:110 11:4-6'>1Ki 11:4-6</a> is clear that the way of Solomon was not that of David. So although the record here in inspired in its recording, this doesn't cancel out the bias of the historian, who wishes to whitewash the house of David. Likewise personal preference for various words and images is found in inspired writings; the process of inspiration didn't necessarily destroy the personal perspectives and style of the authors.</p>


text:
<p>Rehoboam took him a wife, Mahalath the daughter of Jerimoth the son of David and of Abihail the daughter of Eliab the son of Jesse- </p><p>Contrary to AV, this speaks of only one wife, Mahalath, whose parents were Jerimoth and Abihail. Rehoboam was well connected to the Davidic line.</p>


text:
<p>She bore him sons: Jeush, and Shemariah, and Zaham- </p><p>"Zaham", loathing', is surely not the name given to the child at birth. It 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>After her he took Maacah the daughter of Absalom. She bore him Abijah, Attai, Ziza and Shelomith- </p><p>"Daughter" may be grand daughter, as she was the daughter of Uriel of Gibeah (<a href='B:140 13:2'>2Ch 13:2</a>&nbsp; LXX, which gives “Maacah” rather than “Michaiah”). <a href='B:100 18:18'>2Sa 18:18</a> says that Absalom had no son, so presumably he had this daughter who married Uriel and became mother to Maacah. Maachah his beloved wife (<a href='B:140 11:20-22'>2Ch 11:20-22</a>) was an idolater (<a href='B:140 15:16'>2Ch 15:16</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Rehoboam loved Maacah the daughter of Absalom above all his wives and his concubines. (He took eighteen wives, and sixty concubines, and became the father of twenty-eight sons and sixty daughters:)- </p><p>We note that the sons he had by Maacah had secular names, apart from Abijah. Two of the three sons by his other wife had the Name of God in them. And yet Abijah was chosen by Rehoboam to succeed him.</p>


text:
<p>Rehoboam appointed Abijah the son of Maacah to be chief, the prince among his brothers; for he intended to make him king- </p><p>This would be another case of the firstborn being replaced by another. For Abijah wasn't the firstborn of Rehoboam. This is such a huge theme, it reflects how passionate God is for the outsiders.</p>


text:
<p>He dealt wisely, and settled some of his sons throughout all the lands of Judah and Benjamin, to every fortified city: and he gave them food in abundance. He sought for them many wives- </p><p>Rehoboam should have learned from his father Solomon's mistakes but his taking many wives shows that he didn't. “He that loveth silver (as Solomon did, <a href='B:250 2:8'>Ecc 2:8</a>; <a href='B:110 10:21-29'>1Ki 10:21-29</a>) shall not be satisfied with silver (as he wasn’t- see Ecclesiastes 2); nor he that loveth abundance (s:w. used about the abundance of Rehoboam's wives, <a href='B:140 11:23'>2Ch 11:23</a>) with increase. When goods increase, they are increased that eat them (cp. the large numbers at his table, <a href='B:110 4:27'>1Ki 4:27</a>)” (<a href='B:250 5:10-11'>Ecc 5:10-11</a>). The Hebrew word translated “not be satisfied” occurs around 25 times in the Proverbs, with Solomon warning of how the way of the flesh couldn’t satisfy. Solomon said all this with an eye on himself. And Rehoboam surely must have realized his father's hypocrisy. Solomon preached it to others, he felt deeply the truth of it, but he saw no personal way out of it. All he had was the accurate knowledge of his situation, but no real motivation to change- like the alcoholic or drug abuser who knows every aspect of the harm of his habit.</p>


text:
<p>When the kingdom of Rehoboam was established and he had made himself strong, he forsook the law of Yahweh, and all Israel with him- </p><p>Yahweh was no longer apparently needed by them, and so they turned to other gods. Maachah his beloved second wife (<a href='B:140 11:20-22'>2Ch 11:20-22</a>) was an idolater (<a href='B:140 15:16'>2Ch 15:16</a>). The simple truth is that those who perceive how powerless they are... turn to God for strength. And those who refuse to are those who turn away from Him to idols.</p>


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


text:
<p>with twelve hundred chariots and sixty thousand horsemen. The people were without number who came with him out of Egypt: the Lubim, the Sukkiim and the Ethiopians- </p><p>Rehoboam's father Solomon had sold his soul to the Egyptians, and married the daughter of Pharaoh. But now Egypt turned against his son, just as the world does. We note that "hundred" and "thousand" are often used to denote military divisions, rather than literally 100 or 1000.</p>


text:
<p>He took the fortified cities which pertained to Judah and came to Jerusalem- </p><p>I noted on <a href='B:140 11:6-7'>2Ch 11:6-7</a> that Rehoboam's carefully fortified cities were all strategically positioned to defend the approaches to Jerusalem. But this was all human strength, and without God on his side it all came to nothing.</p>


text:
<p>Now Shemaiah the prophet came to Rehoboam and to the princes of Judah, who were gathered together to Jerusalem because of Shishak, and said to them, Thus says Yahweh, You have forsaken Me, therefore have I also left you in the hand of Shishak- </p><p>This may be now a quotation from the history written by Shemaiah about Rehoboam (<a href='B:140 12:15'>2Ch 12:15</a>). "Forsaken" is the same word as "left you". But 'You forsake Me, I'll forsake you' is not the conclusion we should take too easily. For God only forsook sinners after years of patience with them. And it is doubtful whether Rehoboam ever had much spirituality, as his father was Solomon and his mother an Ammonitess pagan. Yet he was generously counted as 'with Yahweh'.</p>


text:
<p>Then the princes of Israel and the king humbled themselves; and they said, Yahweh is righteous- </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 in <a href='B:140 6:24'>2Ch 6:24</a>. There we read that if Israel sin and repent ''and confess Your name" they will be forgiven. But instead of ''confess Your 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 here, 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. But we note that Solomon had envisaged Israel sinning, repenting and being saved by reason of the temple. But here, humility was what was required. Solomon had been wrong in assuming that the temple would be a kind of mediatrix of forgiveness.</p>


text:
<p>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- </p><p>"Shemaiah", 'Yah has heard', gave them the message that He had heard their humility, as if that itself was reckoned as prayer. And indeed, character and situation are often effectively reckoned as prayer. We have the impression that God had intended the destruction of Jerusalem at this point; but He relented, in response to their repentance. Just as He did with Nineveh. There is a gap between His statement of judgment, and its fulfilment. During that gap, we can change the outcome by prayer and repentance.</p><p>"They have humbled themselves" could be an expression of pleasant surprise. Scripture repeatedly speaks as if God notices things and is then hurt or encouraged by what He sees (<a href='B:390 3:10'>Jon 3:10</a>; <a href='B:10 29:31'>Gen 29:31</a>; <a href='B:20 3:4'>Exo 3:4</a>; <a href='B:50 32:19'>Deu 32:19</a>; <a href='B:120 14:26'>2Ki 14:26</a>; <a href='B:140 12:7'>2Ch 12:7</a>; <a href='B:330 23:13'>Eze 23:13</a>; <a href='B:290 59:15'>Isa 59:15</a> cp. <a href='B:490 7:13'>Luk 7:13</a>). If He knew in advance what they were going to do, this language is hard for me to understand. But God is therefore hurt and 'surprised' at sin- He saw Israel as the firstripe grapes, but they were worshipping Baal even then (<a href='B:350 9:9'>Hos 9:9</a>). Thus God can allow Himself to feel an element of surprise- and this was a shock to Jeremiah, who queried: "Why are You like a man who is caught by surprise…?" (<a href='B:300 14:9'>Jer 14:9</a>).</p><p>The wrath of God can be turned away by the actions of those He is angry with (<a href='B:40 25:4'>Num 25:4</a>; <a href='B:50 13:15-17'>Deu 13:15-17</a>; <a href='B:150 10:14'>Ezr 10:14</a>; <a href='B:390 3:7'>Jon 3:7</a>; <a href='B:390 3:10'>Jon 3:10</a>; <a href='B:140 12:7'>2Ch 12:7</a>; <a href='B:300 4:4'>Jer 4:4</a>; <a href='B:300 21:12'>Jer 21:12</a>). And yet that wrath can also be turned away by the prayers of a third party (<a href='B:230 106:23'>Psa 106:23</a>; <a href='B:300 18:20'>Jer 18:20</a>; <a href='B:220 42:7'>Job 42:7</a>). This means that in some cases, our prayers for others can be counted as if they have repented. We can gain our brother for God’s Kingdom (<a href='B:470 18:15'>Mat 18:15</a>), as Noah saved his own house by his faithful preparation (<a href='B:650 11:7'>Heb 11:7</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Nevertheless they shall be his servants, that they may know My service, and the service of the kingdoms of the countries- </p><p>They were to perceive in their servitude to this man what servitude to Yahweh ought to be like. They were therefore to serve him "as unto the Lord", and <a href='B:580 3:23'>Col 3:23</a> taught Christian slaves to serve their masters as if they were serving the Lord Jesus. This, therefore, is an abiding theme in God's dealings with His people, and has enabled so many in positions of awful subservience to be able to live out their lives with the dignity of knowing that their lives are counted as serving God.</p>


text:
<p>So Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem, and took away the treasures of the house of Yahweh, and the treasures of the king’s house. He took it all away. He also took away the shields of gold which Solomon had made- </p><p>LXX mentions that David took golden spears from Hadadezer: “And the golden spears which David took from the hand of the servants of Adraazar king of Soba and carried to Jerusalem, he took them all”:&nbsp; These would not have been used as real spears, but were part of the worship of the golden sun which was the main religion in Syria at the time. David would have been better destroying them, rather than bringing idol paraphernalia into Jerusalem. For it later contributed towards the freedom Judah felt to worship sun gods. These spears would have been taken at the time of <a href='B:100 8:7'>2Sa 8:7</a>: "David took the shields of gold that were on the servants of Hadadezer, and brought them to Jerusalem". "Hadad" was the god of the sun, "Hadadezer" had not been 'helped by Hadad' as his name means, and so David brought these golden imitations of the sun to Yahweh's temple. It is perhaps questionable whether David should have brought idols into Jerusalem; we note that later Judah worshipped sun gods. David's actions here were not blessed, for the LXX adds “And Susakim [i:e. Shishak] king of Egypt took them, when he went up to Jerusalem in the days of Roboam the son of Solomon”.</p><p>Shishak is usually identified as Shoshenq I. But as always with Egyptology, there are other claims. Immanuel Velikovsky in Ages in Chaos has him as Thutmose III of the 18th dynasty; David Rohl as Ramesses II of the 19th dynasty, and Peter James as Ramesses III of the 20th dynasty.</p>


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


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


text:
<p>When he humbled himself- </p><p>"Humbled himself" is the word also used for being "subdued under" military powers. When Israel didn't subdue themselves under God, they were subdued beneath their enemies. So it was a case of humility one way or the other. And the same logic applies to us. Flesh must be humbled, either by our willing choice in this life, or in the condemnation of the last day.</p><p>The wrath of Yahweh turned from him, so as not to destroy him altogether. Moreover, in Judah there were good things found- </p><p><a href='B:230 78:38'>Psa 78:38</a>; <a href='B:230 85:3'>Psa 85:3</a> seem to suggest God Himself controlled His anger, Himself turning that anger away, rather than being like a pagan deity whose anger was appeased by blood sacrifice. God turned from His anger due to Moses' intercession (<a href='B:20 32:12'>Exo 32:12</a> s:w:), but this is not to say that He cannot in any case turn away His anger, simply by His grace. Just as we may control our anger from within ourselves, or at other times we may do this because of the appeal of another to us, or because there is repentance from the one who provoked us. And there were times when this was the case with God (s:w. <a href='B:40 25:4'>Num 25:4</a>; <a href='B:60 7:26'>Jos 7:26</a>; <a href='B:140 12:12'>2Ch 12:12</a>; <a href='B:140 29:10'>2Ch 29:10</a>; <a href='B:140 30:8'>2Ch 30:8</a>).</p>


text:
<p>So king Rehoboam strengthened himself in Jerusalem, and reigned. Rehoboam was forty-one years old when he began to reign, and he reigned seventeen years in Jerusalem, the city which Yahweh had chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, to put His name there. His mother’s name was Naamah the Ammonitess- </p><p><a href='B:110 14:21'>1Ki 14:21</a>; <a href='B:140 12:13'>2Ch 12:13</a> says Rehoboam was 41 when he became king. But he was "young and tender hearted" (<a href='B:140 13:7'>2Ch 13:7</a>). The LXX addition at <a href='B:110 12:24'>1Ki 12:24</a> says he was 16 when he began to reign. He was surrounded by young men who had grown up with him. I suggest on balance that he was indeed 41 and the "young men" were "young" in comparison to the older men present. The description "young and tender hearted" could simply be a purposeful repetition of the description of his father Solomon when he ascended the throne; or it could mean that he was a rather weak and child like man.</p>


text:
<p>He did that which was evil, because he didn’t set his heart to seek Yahweh-</p><p>Constantly, the Bible stresses the importance of the heart, and of conscious 'setting' of the heart, of directing the thoughts toward God. And doing evil is the result of failing to do this.</p>


text:
<p>Now the acts of Rehoboam, first and last, aren’t they written in the histories of Shemaiah the prophet and of Iddo the seer, after the way of genealogies?-</p><p>The priests who wrote those records in Chronicles were writing down the result of their national self-examination. This was the record of their lessons from Chronicles. Each of the genealogies say something about the people they are concerned with; and thus <a href='B:140 12:15'>2Ch 12:15</a> RVmg. speaks of how the acts of Rehoboam are reflected in the reckoning of the genealogies.</p><p>There were wars between Rehoboam and Jeroboam continually- </p><p>This would indicate disobedience to the command to Rehoboam not to fight the ten tribes (<a href='B:110 12:24'>1Ki 12:24</a>).</p>


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


text:
<p>In the eighteenth year of king Jeroboam began Abijah to reign over Judah- </p><p>Called Abijam in <a href='B:110 15:1'>1Ki 15:1</a>, which means "father of the sea", but 'father of' can mean 'worshipper of', as 'Abijah' means 'father / worshipper of Yah'. The sea god was worshipped, and so we conclude this was reflective of pagan devotions. He is called Abijah in 2 Chronicles, 'worshipper of Yah'. Having both a pagan and Yahwistic name was typical of the times, and Maacah / Michaiah his mother had a similar two names (see on :2). <a href='B:140 11:20-22'>2Ch 11:20-22</a> shows that Rehoboam had 28 sons. Abijam wasn't the firstborn, but rather the firstborn son of the favoured wife. Abijam had 38 children (<a href='B:140 13:21'>2Ch 13:21</a>), so he must have been a reasonable age when he came to the throne:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>He reigned three years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Micaiah the daughter of Uriel of Gibeah. There was war between Abijah and Jeroboam- </p><p>LXX gives Maacah for Micaiah, "the daughter of Absalom" (<a href='B:140 11:20'>2Ch 11:20</a>). "Daughter" may be grand daughter, as she was the daughter of Uriel. <a href='B:100 18:18'>2Sa 18:18</a> says that Absalom had no son, so presumably he had this daughter who married Uriel and became mother to Maacah. Michaiah, "Who is like Jehovah?", was known by her more pagan name Maachah, "oppression". The records of the kings so often mention their mothers, in reflection of the huge spiritual influence of a mother upon her children. The three years is a figure inclusive of parts of years, as he became king in the 18th year of Jeroboam's reign in Israel and died in his 20th year. "Three days / years" is often not a literal figure, and this must be recalled when considering the chronology of the Lord's three days in the tomb</p>&nbsp;


text:
<p>Abijah joined battle with an army of valiant men of war, even four hundred thousand chosen men. Jeroboam set the battle in array against him with eight hundred thousand chosen men, who were mighty men of valour- </p><p>We note that "hundred" and "thousand" are often used to denote military divisions, rather than literally 100 or 1000. This would indicate disobedience to the command to Rehoboam not to fight the ten tribes (<a href='B:110 12:24'>1Ki 12:24</a>). The terrible sin and tragedy of fighting ones own brethren is noted twice (also in <a href='B:110 14:30'>1Ki 14:30</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Abijah stood up on Mount Zemaraim, which is in the hill country of Ephraim, and said, Hear me, Jeroboam and all Israel- </p><p>Zemaraim was in the territory assigned to Benjamin (<a href='B:60 18:22'>Jos 18:22</a>), but is located "in the hill country of Ephraim" in <a href='B:140 13:4'>2Ch 13:4</a>. Clearly the inheritances were flexible in practice. Zemaraim was on the border of Benjamin and Ephraim, so this was an appropriate place for Israel and Judah to meet in battle.</p>


text:
<p>Ought you not to know that Yahweh, the God of Israel, gave the kingdom over Israel to David forever, even to him and to his sons by a covenant of salt?- </p><p>This was true only to an extent. The Davidic covenant was very clearly conditional upon obedience and faithfulness, and the wording clearly envisaged that the seed of David might not be that. And therefore Jeroboam himself had been offered the possibility of being the Messianic king, even though he was not of the line of David. Salt made a sacrifice meaningful (<a href='B:30 2:13'>Lev 2:13</a>), and therefore a "covenant of salt" meant a sure covenant confirmed by sacrifice (<a href='B:40 18:19'>Num 18:19</a>). David and Solomon had both dedicated the plans for the temple with abundant sacrifices, claiming that the covenant with David was fulfilled in Solomon and confirmed through the building of the temple. But that was on their initiative and suggestion, and in reality Solomon had broken that covenant.</p>


text:
<p>Yet Jeroboam the son of Nebat, the servant of Solomon the son of David, rose up, and rebelled against his lord- </p><p>This again was true but only to an extent. The kingdom was rent away from the house of David for their apostacy, and Jeroboam had potentially been enabled to be a new Messianic king. He failed in that, but to blame the division solely upon Jeroboam merely being a rebellious servant was Abijah's biased narrative.</p>


text:
<p>There were gathered to him vain men, base fellows, who strengthened themselves against Rehoboam the son of Solomon, when Rehoboam was young and tenderhearted, and could not withstand them- </p><p>Rehoboam was 41 when he became king, so again Abijah is spinning narrative according to his own bias.</p>


text:
<p>Now you think to withstand the kingdom of Yahweh in the hand of the sons of David. You are a great multitude, and there are with you the golden calves which Jeroboam made you for gods- </p><p>Abijah recognizes they are double his strength, but he seeks to touch their conscience about the golden calves, as if they are as it were pitting themselves against Yahweh. Even though his own wife was an idolater and he likely was too. He is leading up to the argument that they are fighting against God (:12). See on :21. He overlooks how God Himself withstood the line of David and had torn away the ten tribes and given them to Jeroboam, with the potential to make a Messianic kingdom out of them.</p>


text:
<p>Haven’t you driven out the priests of Yahweh, the sons of Aaron, and the Levites, and made priests for yourselves after the ways of the peoples of other lands? So that whoever comes to consecrate himself with a young bull and seven rams, the same may be a priest of those who are not gods- </p><p>Yahweh's priests were consecrated with a young bull and two rams (<a href='B:20 29:1'>Exo 29:1</a>). Again we see how Jeroboam crafted a false religious system on the basis of the true one, and that is typical of all our apostacy. And whilst perhaps they did drive out Yahweh's Levitical priests, it's likely many left the apostacy of their own accord. Although they would've arrived in a Judah also given over to idolatry, with the queen Maacah an idolater; hence God's wrath with Judah through Shishak's invasion.</p>


text:
<p>But as for us, Yahweh is our God, and we have not forsaken Him. We have priests ministering to Yahweh, the sons of Aaron, and the Levites in their work-</p><p>This was untrue, they had forsaken Yahweh and been seriously punished for it by Shishak, and the queen was an idolater. Abijah, like many in the orthodox churches, reasoned that because he had a priesthood obeying Mosaic commands, therefore and thereby they had not forsaken Yahweh. He thought that religious structure alone defined his faith in and loyalty to Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>and they burn to Yahweh every morning and every evening burnt offerings and sweet incense. They also set the showbread in order on the pure table; and the lampstand of gold with its lamps, to burn every evening. We keep the instruction of Yahweh our God; but you have forsaken Him- </p><p>Shishak's invasion had perhaps taken away the plural "gold tables" for the showbread, and forced them to return to the Godly, Mosaic pattern of just one table for the showbread.</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>Behold, God is with us at our head, and His priests with the trumpets of alarm to sound an alarm against you. Children of Israel- </p><p>We read here of Abijah's apparent devotion. The comment of <a href='B:110 15:3'>1Ki 15:3</a> is that his heart wasn't perfect with Yahweh as David's was. David clearly sinned and seems to have suffered a decline in his ethics and spirituality as he got older. But he was judged on the overall dominant desire of his heart, to the point that having a heart perfect with Yahweh seems to effectively mean 'He was wholeheartedly devoted to Yahweh and never worshipped other gods'. Whereas Abijah, despite peaks of spirituality and an appearance of loyalty to Him, did not have that total devotion to Yahweh as the dominant position of his heart throughout his life. Whatever peaks of obedience and devotion we may attain at points in our lives, it is the overall core position of our heart which is judged. Men like David may sin terribly at some points, those like Abijah may achieve wonderful levels of devotion at some points. But those high or low points play no major part in the final, unknowable equilibrium of Divine judgment. We need to remember this, as we encounter our brethren and ponder what to make of them, in their pits of sin and heights of devotion. Those points on their graph ought not to unduly weight our overall position on them.</p><p>The reference to trumpets alludes to <a href='B:40 10:9'>Num 10:9</a>, and Abijah thought that by merely blowing trumpets he would have Yahweh's help. This is why he was driven to a desperate situation in the battle with Jeroboam, so that he really called to Yahweh with all his heart, and not through mere ritualism.</p><p>Don’t fight against Yahweh, the God of your fathers; for you shall not prosper- </p><p><a href='B:510 5:39'>Act 5:39</a>; <a href='B:510 23:9'>Act 23:9</a> appear to allude to this. But as pointed out on :8, Abijah himself was associated with idolatry, and as with the context of the Acts allusions, this is a rather twisted argument. 'If you fight me you're fighting God' has been an oft deployed argument that often lacks full integrity. See on :21.</p>


text:
<p>But Jeroboam caused an ambush to come about behind them: so they were before Judah, and the ambush was behind them- </p><p>As discussed on :14, this was meant by God to put Judah into a hopeless situation. I have shown above that Judah were not much better than Israel and their claims to be faithful to Yahweh were hypocritical. But they were put into a situation which forced them to realize that, and to truly repent and cry to Yahweh from their hearts.</p>


text:
<p>When Judah looked back, behold, the battle was before and behind them; and they cried to Yahweh, and the priests sounded with the trumpets- </p><p>The reference to trumpets alludes to <a href='B:40 10:9'>Num 10:9</a>, and Abijah thought that by merely blowing trumpets he would have Yahweh's help. This is why he was driven to a desperate situation in the battle with Jeroboam, so that he really called to Yahweh with all his heart, and not through mere ritualism. The "shout" of :15 was their cry from the heart to God, and He responded to that. We all tend to repeat the same words in prayer, until prayer becomes little more than ritualism, the blowing of trumpets which Abijah had practiced:&nbsp; But then situations are brought into our lives when we "shout" to God from the heart, praying as we ought to- and then He responds.</p>


text:
<p>Then the men of Judah gave a shout; and as the men of Judah shouted, it happened, that God struck Jeroboam and all Israel before Abijah and Judah- </p><p>As explained on :14, this "shout" was a cry from the heart to Yahweh, well beyond the mere ritualism of blowing trumpets. Judah were not much better than Israel, as demonstrated above. But they cried from the heart to Yahweh, whereas Israel didn't. And so God gave them victory, and used them to punish Jeroboam for his impenitent apostacy.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Israel fled before Judah; and God delivered them into their hand- </p><p>Judah weren't much better than Israel. But God so respects faith and repentance, even if in extremity, such as on a deathbed- that He responds. .</p>


text:
<p>Abijah and his people killed them with a great slaughter; so there fell down slain of Israel five hundred thousand chosen men- </p><p>"Thousand" is not to be read literally; the term often refers to a military division of some sort. And they didn't fall in the same day, as the fighting continued for some time (:19).</p>


text:
<p>Thus the children of Israel were overcome at that time, and the children of Judah prevailed, because they relied on Yahweh, the God of their fathers- </p><p>They relied on Him at one point, and were rewarded for it. But not generally. This reflects God's extreme sensitivity to faith in Him, even if He knows the surrounding context of a man's life is not of faith in Him. "Relied" is the word used in <a href='B:140 14:11'>2Ch 14:11</a>; <a href='B:140 16:8'>2Ch 16:8</a> in a similar context:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Abijah pursued after Jeroboam, and took cities from him: Bethel with its suburbs, Jeshanah with its suburbs and Ephron with its suburbs- </p><p>These victories were short-lived, because Bethel soon returned to the northern kingdom, and the golden calf there was not destroyed by Judah as it should have been (<a href='B:120 10:29'>2Ki 10:29</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Jeroboam didn’t recover strength again in the days of Abijah. Yahweh struck him, and he died- </p><p>This implies special judgment from God (<a href='B:90 25:38'>1Sa 25:38</a>; <a href='B:510 12:13'>Act 12:13</a>).</p>


text:
<p>But Abijah grew mighty, and took to himself fourteen wives, and became the father of twenty-two sons, and sixteen daughters- </p><p>"Grew mighty" is the same word Abijah has twice used in :7,8, claiming in :8 that Jeroboam was withstanding or growing mighty against Yahweh. Perhaps the hint is that Abijah was really no better (see on :8,12), because he too withstood Yahweh in marrying so many wives, at least one of whom [the favourite] was an unashamed idolater.</p>


text:
<p>The rest of the acts of Abijah, and his ways and his sayings, are written in the commentary of the prophet Iddo-</p><p>Neither the sayings of Abijah nor the book of Iddo have been preserved. There are many writings referenced within scripture which are not now available. The book of the prophet Iddo may well have been inspired by God, but was only useful for its time. The scriptures we have are therefore the result of careful Divine selection, and all of them are somehow relevant to us, even the Chronicles genealogies, in a way these other writings aren't.</p>


text:
<p>So Abijah slept with his fathers, and they buried him in the city of David; and Asa his son reigned in his place. In his days the land was quiet ten years- </p><p>The description of death as sleeping with fathers is clear evidence that death is seen as a sleep, unconsciousness, and not as the start of an immortal soul going to heaven or 'hell'. Good and bad, David and Solomon, are gathered together in death. The division between them will only therefore come at the resurrection of the dead, and the granting of immortality at the judgment seat of the Lord Jesus.</p><p>The land itself was quiet but that didn't mean Judah were not at war. There was 20 years peace later on (<a href='B:140 15:10'>2Ch 15:10</a>; <a href='B:140 15:19'>2Ch 15:19</a>). The impression is given that Asa's [partial] faithfulness to Yahweh meant there was peace, and peace is a fruit of loyalty to Yahweh. Baasha became king of Israel in the third year of Asa (<a href='B:110 15:28'>1Ki 15:28</a>; <a href='B:110 15:33'>1Ki 15:33</a>) and “there was war between Asa and Baasha all their days” (<a href='B:110 15:32'>1Ki 15:32</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Asa did that which was good and right in the eyes of Yahweh his God- </p><p>This is the phrase specifically used in appeal to Israel as they approached the promised land; their inheritance of it was conditional upon this (<a href='B:50 6:18'>Deu 6:18</a>; <a href='B:50 12:28'>Deu 12:28</a>). This connects with the idea of the land being at peace whilst Asa was obedient (see on :1; <a href='B:140 15:19'>2Ch 15:19</a>). One meaning of "Asa" is "physician", and he ended his days trusting physicians rather than Yahweh. Perhaps he trained as a physician and ended up therefore having more faith in science than in Yahweh. The statement therefore may refer to his initial state of loyalty to Yahweh. But this could refer to God's judgment upon his whole life, and <a href='B:110 15:11'>1Ki 15:11</a> says that "he did that which was right in the eyes of Yahweh, as did David his father". </p><p>Asa is recorded as serving God just as well as David, when actually this wasn't the case; but God counted him as righteous. The incomplete faith of men like Baruch was counted as full faith by later inspiration (<a href='B:70 4:8-9'>Jdg 4:8-9</a> cp. <a href='B:650 11:32'>Heb 11:32</a>). Asa was not perfect, nor was David; but God's overall judgment was that he "did right", despite doing wrong at specific points in his life. Indeed as noted on <a href='B:140 16:12'>2Ch 16:12</a>, Asa died at a low point for him spiritually. But the judgment overall was that he "did right" and that "nevertheless the heart of Asa was perfect with Yahweh all his days" (<a href='B:110 15:14'>1Ki 15:14</a>). We must learn therefore not to judge a person too harshly if they die at a weak spiritual point, e.g. through suicide.</p>


text:
<p>He took away the foreign altars, and the high places, and broke down the pillars, and cut down the Asherim- </p><p>Chronicles typically seeks to sanitize the record and present the kings as positively as possible. The truth is that Asa didn't remove the high places (<a href='B:110 15:14'>1Ki 15:14</a>), and soon afterwards, the worship of foreign gods revived. So Asa's reforms were not that thorough, and in any case, the people generally remained in idolatry.</p>


text:
<p>and commanded Judah to seek Yahweh, the God of their fathers, and to obey the law and the commandment- </p><p>Perfection is simply not achieved by God's people. Therefore the idiom of 'seeking Yahweh' is used, and is made parallel with obedience to His laws (<a href='B:140 14:4'>2Ch 14:4</a>) and not forsaking Him, just holding on to Him in faith, 'being with Him' (<a href='B:140 15:2'>2Ch 15:2</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Also he took away out of all the cities of Judah the high places and the sun images- </p><p>Asa and Jehoshaphat removed the high places, but in a sense they didn't (<a href='B:110 15:14'>1Ki 15:14</a> cp. <a href='B:140 14:5'>2Ch 14:5</a>; <a href='B:140 17:6'>2Ch 17:6</a> cp. 20:33). We read of how the land was purged of Baal, Sodomites etc:; but in a very short time, we read of another purge being necessary. Hezekiah, Manasseh and Josiah all made major purges within a space of 80 years. Jeremiah therefore condemns the Jews who lived at the time of Josiah's reformation for not knowing God in their hearts. Asa gathered the gold and silver vessels back into the temple- and then went and used them to make a political treaty. He apparently treated them as God's riches, but then in reality he used them as his own (<a href='B:110 15:18'>1Ki 15:18</a>; <a href='B:110 15:15'>1Ki 15:15</a>). Many a Western Christian has this very same tendency. We too must ask ourselves whether our spirituality is really just a product of the crowd mentality; as the crowd shouted one day "Hosanna to the Son of David", a few days later they wanted Jesus to be delivered rather than Barabbas, but within minutes they were persuaded to cry for the crucifixion of the Son of God. Church life, Bible studies, the breaking of bread... inevitably, there is a crowd mentality developed here. There is a feeling of devotion which wells up within us as a community, as an audience, as we sit there, as we stand in praise and worship together. But the real spirituality is far deeper than this. We must seriously ask whether our spirituality, our feelings of devotion, our true repentance, are only stimulated by these meetings?</p><p>The kingdom was quiet before him- </p><p>See on :1; <a href='B:140 15:19'>2Ch 15:19</a>.</p>


text:
<p>He built fortified cities in Judah; for the land was quiet, and he had no war in those years, because Yahweh had given him rest- </p><p>This seems a major theme in the record; see on :1; <a href='B:140 15:19'>2Ch 15:19</a>. We note how circumstances repeated. Rehoboam had built fortified cities in Judah, especially on the approaches to Jerusalem. But they were all overwhelmed by Shishak, and he took Jerusalem. The lesson was that human strength alone would not save Judah. He was intended to learn from Rehoboam's history, as we are.</p>


text:
<p>For he said to Judah, Let us build these cities, and make walls around them, with towers, gates, and bars. The land is yet before us, because we have sought Yahweh our God. We have sought Him, and He has given us rest on every side. So they built and prospered- </p><p>It is unlikely that all Israel were solidly seeking Yahweh, as Asa himself had weak aspects, the high places weren't removed and the population revived the idolatry after his death. So this seems a rather self congratulatory attitude. See on :12. After the victory against the Ethiopians, Asa purges Judah of idols (<a href='B:140 15:8'>2Ch 15:8</a>); and there is ample evidence from what is said after the victory that Asa and Judah were not so totally devoted to Yahweh at the time of 2 Chronicles 14 (see on <a href='B:140 15:1'>2Ch 15:1</a>; <a href='B:140 15:3'>2Ch 15:3</a>; <a href='B:140 15:5'>2Ch 15:5</a>; <a href='B:140 15:8'>2Ch 15:8</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Asa had an army that carried shields and spears: out of Judah three hundred thousand; and out of Benjamin, that bore shields and drew bows, two hundred and eighty thousand. All these were mighty men of valour- </p><p>We note the relatively large number of Benjamites. "Little Benjamin" were far smaller than Judah but committed more soldiers in relative terms. The loyalty of Benjamin to Judah is a theme of the records, and yet we recall that relatively recently, they as the tribe of Saul had been the least loyal to Judah. Just as Philistines of Gath became David's most loyal followers, so Benjamin became solidly united with Judah. God has a way of turning people around completely.</p><p>There is a significant increase in numbers in his son's time, when the army was exactly double the size of that recorded in this section (<a href='B:140 14:8'>2Ch 14:8</a> cp. <a href='B:140 17:14-18'>2Ch 17:14-18</a>). The total here was 580,000; but there it is exactly double (1,160,000;&nbsp; Judah 780,000, Benjamin 380,000). This suggests that again, numbers are not being used in the literal sense which modern readers are accustimed to.</p>


text:
<p>There came out against them Zerah the Ethiopian with an army of a million troops, and three hundred chariots; and he came to Mareshah- </p><p>The apparent problem of large numbers in the records are largely resolved by understanding the terms 'hundred' and 'thousand' not literally, but as referring to military subdivisions. A "Zerah" is mentioned as a descendant of Esau, and the name refers to at least four different people, all within the Abraham family. So this individual could have been a descendant of Esau who was exercising "the old hatred" against Jacob, although he was now located in "Ethiopia", a vague term applicable to anywhere around Egypt.</p>


text:
<p>Then Asa went out to meet him, and they set the battle in array in the valley of Zephathah at Mareshah- </p><p>Zephathah is the Zephath of <a href='B:70 1:17'>Jdg 1:17</a>, where Judah won a great victory against the Canaanites, and was afterward renamed to Hormah, also a site of victory (<a href='B:40 21:3'>Num 21:3</a>). Perhaps the usage of the old name is to draw attention to the victory won there historically.</p>


text:
<p>Asa cried to Yahweh his God and said, Yahweh, there is none apart from You to help, between the mighty and him who has no strength. Help us, Yahweh our God; for we rely on You, and in Your name are we come against this multitude. Yahweh, You are our God. Don’t let man prevail against You- </p><p>This is a similar situation to that in <a href='B:140 13:18'>2Ch 13:18</a>, where an otherwise unspiritual and idolatrous Judah "relied" on Yahweh in desperation. They relied on Him at that one point, and were rewarded for it. But not generally. This reflects God's extreme sensitivity to faith in Him, even if He knows the surrounding context of a man's life is not of faith in Him.</p><p>Our faith will be strengthened by knowing that because we bear the Name, all that happens to us happens to our Lord and His Father. Thus Asa prayed: “Help us… in Your Name we go against this multitude…let not man prevail against You”. It is absurd that man should prevail against God; and yet Asa believed that because His people carried His Name, therefore it was just as impossible that man should prevail against them.</p><p>This is a feature of many spiritual prayers: not to crudely, directly ask for the obvious; but to simply inform the Almighty of the situation, in faith. Other examples include: <a href='B:10 19:24'>Gen 19:24</a>;&nbsp; <a href='B:230 3:1-4'>Psa 3:1-4</a>; <a href='B:230 142:1-2'>Psa 142:1-2</a>; <a href='B:500 11:21-22'>Joh 11:21-22</a>; <a href='B:110 19:10'>1Ki 19:10</a> cp. <a href='B:520 11:2-3'>Rom 11:2-3</a>; <a href='B:230 106:44'>Psa 106:44</a> cp. <a href='B:290 64:3'>Isa 64:3</a>.</p><p>There is only one God, one source of help and power- and thus the oneness of God inspires our faith in Him. This motivated Asa to cry unto Yahweh in faith: "There is none beside You to help…". <a href='B:660 2:14-18'>Jas 2:14-18</a> speaks of the connection between faith (believing) in the one God and works (doing). It is no co-incidence that <a href='B:660 2:19'>Jas 2:19</a> then says in this context: "Thou believest that God is one; thou doest well" (RV). To have faith in the unity of God will lead to works, 'doing well'.</p>


text:
<p>So Yahweh struck the Ethiopians before Asa and before Judah; and the Ethiopians fled- </p><p>Enemies fleeing before God's people was the sign of obedience to the covenant. But as noted on :7, Judah generally were not particularly obedient. We continually marvel at God's grace toward His people, ever eager to impute righteousness, and to be impressed by any sign of faith and obedience. After the victory against the Ethiopians, Asa purges Judah of idols (<a href='B:140 15:8'>2Ch 15:8</a>); and there is ample evidence from what is said after the victory that Asa and Judah were not so totally devoted to Yahweh at the time of 2 Chronicles 14 (see on <a href='B:140 15:1'>2Ch 15:1</a>; <a href='B:140 15:3'>2Ch 15:3</a>; <a href='B:140 15:5'>2Ch 15:5</a>; <a href='B:140 15:8'>2Ch 15:8</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Asa and the people who were with him pursued them to Gerar. There fell of the Ethiopians so many that they could not recover themselves; for they were destroyed before Yahweh and before His army; and they carried away very much booty- </p><p>Yahweh's army is paralleled with that of Judah. Yahweh of hosts, of Angelic armies, is manifested in His people upon earth. David was taught this when he was told to advance his army only in accordance to the noise of the heavenly armies above him (see on <a href='B:100 5:24'>2Sa 5:24</a>). We too are not alone; we are the manifestation of our guardian Angels above us, and collectively, the hosts of God's people reflect Yahweh of hosts above them.</p>


text:
<p>They struck all the cities around Gerar; for the fear of Yahweh came on them. They despoiled all the cities; for there was much spoil in them- </p><p>A similar situation repeated itself in <a href='B:140 17:10'>2Ch 17:10</a>. The record constantly stresses that the victory was from God. The fear of Yahweh coming upon those cities was the promised reward for obedience (<a href='B:50 11:25'>Deu 11:25</a>), and recalls the terror which fell upon the cities around Jacob at the time of <a href='B:10 35:5'>Gen 35:5</a>. But that terror didn't come because Israel were righteous at that time; in fact the opposite. For they had just massacred Shechem. Likewise here, these blessings were by grace, for Judah were not so righteous at this time; and reflected Yahweh's extreme sensitivity to any faith and obedience toward Him. The Hebrew word here used for "spoil" is found only in Chronicles, Ezra, Esther, Nehemiah and Daniel- evidence that this part of Chronicles was Divinely rewritten in the captivity.</p>


text:
<p>They struck also the tents of the herdsmen, and carried away sheep in abundance, and camels, and returned to Jerusalem- </p><p>This phrase in the LXX is used in <a href='B:490 24:52'>Luk 24:52</a> and <a href='B:510 1:12'>Act 1:12</a> of the disciples returning after a far greater victory. The Bible is continually seeing deeper meaning and application of all the wealth of history recorded in it. Although it is debatable whether such pillaging as recorded here was really God's will.</p>


text:
<p>The Spirit of God came on Azariah the son of Oded- </p><p>I hinted throughout 2 Chronicles 14 that things were not quite as spiritually rosy with Asa and Judah as Asa liked to present. And so this message from God was to warn Asa of the conditionality of God's help, implying Asa was tempted to forsake Him. "Azariah", 'Yah has helped', was the son of Oded, 'repetition'; it was as if the message that God had helped win the victory of 2 Chronicles 14 needed to be repeated. It seems from :2 that Azariah went out to meet Asa as he returned to Jerusalem from the victory of <a href='B:140 14:15'>2Ch 14:15</a>.</p>


text:
<p>and he went out to meet Asa and said to him, Hear me, Asa, and all Judah and Benjamin! Yahweh is with you, while you are with Him; and if you seek Him, He will be found by you; but if you forsake Him, He will forsake you- </p><p>The whole way of life of the righteous man is described as seeking God, knowing we will eventually find Him when the Lord returns to change our natures. So many times does David parallel those who seek God with those who keep His word (e.g. <a href='B:230 119:2'>Psa 119:2</a>). We will never achieve perfect obedience; but seeking it is paralleled with it. Perfection is simply not achieved by God's people. Therefore the idiom of 'seeking Yahweh' is used, and is made parallel with obedience to His laws (<a href='B:140 14:4'>2Ch 14:4</a>) and not forsaking Him, just holding on to Him in faith, 'being with Him'.</p><p>The Lord Jesus was well aware of the connection between God's refusal to answer prayer and His recognition of sin in the person praying (<a href='B:100 22:42'>2Sa 22:42</a> = <a href='B:230 2:2-5'>Psa 2:2-5</a>). It is emphasized time and again that God will not forsake those who love Him (e.g. <a href='B:50 4:31'>Deu 4:31</a>; <a href='B:50 31:6'>Deu 31:6</a>; <a href='B:90 12:22'>1Sa 12:22</a>; <a href='B:110 6:13'>1Ki 6:13</a>; <a href='B:230 94:14'>Psa 94:14</a>; <a href='B:290 41:17'>Isa 41:17</a>; <a href='B:290 42:16'>Isa 42:16</a>). Every one of these passages must have been well known to our Lord, the word made flesh. He knew that God forsaking Israel was a punishment for their sin (<a href='B:70 6:13'>Jdg 6:13</a>; <a href='B:120 21:14'>2Ki 21:14</a>; <a href='B:290 2:6'>Isa 2:6</a>; <a href='B:300 23:33'>Jer 23:33</a>). God would forsake Israel only if they forsook Him (<a href='B:50 31:16-17'>Deu 31:16-17</a>; <a href='B:140 15:2'>2Ch 15:2</a>). We can therefore conclude that His desperate “Why have You forsaken me?” was because He was so intensely identified with our sins that in the crisis of the cross, He indeed felt forsaken because of sin. He did not sin, but felt like a sinner; He thereby knows how sinners feel.</p><p>Asa had a wife called Azubah, who was the mother of the generally righteous Jehoshaphat (<a href='B:110 22:42'>1Ki 22:42</a>). The mother may be mentioned because of her great influence upon the spiritual path of her children. However, there is also the theme that believers arise from unbelieving backgrounds. "Azubah" means "forsaken". It is the same word used here in <a href='B:140 15:2'>2Ch 15:2</a>, where Jehoshaphat's father Asa was told of God "If you forsake Him, He will forsake you". It could be that Asa forsook Azubah and she was effectively a divorced woman; or perhaps the wife was renamed this because Asa felt she had forsaken Yahweh, which is how the word "forsaken" ('Azubah') is usually used.</p>


text:
<p>Now for a long time Israel was without the true God, and without a teaching priest, and without law- </p><p>Although this can be read as a general comment upon Israel's history at the time of the judges (:4), it clearly has relevance to the time of Asa (see on <a href='B:140 17:9'>2Ch 17:9</a>). It would also have been perceived by the exiles as relevant to them. This again suggests that the spiritual picture of Asa and Judah in 2 Chronicles 14 was presented there in a very rosy way. Things were not spiritually so wonderful. The main priestly duty was to teach God's word to the people. A whole string of texts make this point: <a href='B:50 24:8'>Deu 24:8</a>; <a href='B:120 17:27'>2Ki 17:27</a>; <a href='B:140 15:3'>2Ch 15:3</a>; <a href='B:160 8:9'>Neh 8:9</a>; <a href='B:400 3:11'>Mic 3:11</a>. Note too the common partnership between priests and prophets. Because of their role as teachers, it is understandable that the anger of the first century priesthood was always associated with Christ and the apostles teaching the people: <a href='B:470 21:33'>Mat 21:33</a>; <a href='B:490 19:47'>Luk 19:47</a>; <a href='B:490 20:1'>Luk 20:1</a>; <a href='B:510 5:21'>Act 5:21</a>. The priests felt that their role was being challenged. As part of the priesthood, our duty is to all teach or communicate the word of God to each other. It was God's intention that natural Israel should obey the spirit of this, so that they would "teach every man his neighbour and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord" (<a href='B:650 8:11'>Heb 8:11</a>). That was how God intended Israel of old to fulfil this idea of being a priestly nation.</p>


text:
<p>But when in their distress they turned to Yahweh the God of Israel and sought Him, He was found by them- </p><p>The point was that Asa must learn the lesson from the history of God's people at the time of the judges, and continue seeking God in distress as he had done in the conflict of 2 Chronicles 14. Sadly at the end of his life, Asa in his distress didn't turn to Yahweh (<a href='B:140 16:12'>2Ch 16:12</a>).</p>


text:
<p>In those times there was no peace to him who went out, nor to him who came in; but great troubles were on all the inhabitants of the lands- </p><p>This clearly describes how things were at the time of the judges. But Asa is being bidden see parallels between that period and his time. And this invitation surely reveals that things were not well with Judah spiritually, and Asa was being set up as similar to the judges who revived God's people.</p>


text:
<p>They were broken in pieces, nation against nation, and city against city; for God troubled them with all adversity- </p><p>This may be a reference to the fighting within Israel which went on in the period of the judges (e.g. <a href='B:70 9:44-47'>Jdg 9:44-47</a>; <a href='B:70 20:35-45'>Jdg 20:35-45</a>). Asa is being bidden understand that circumstances repeat, exactly because we are intended to learn from Biblical history. He was to see that his conflict with the ten tribes was a repeat of those situations. And to act as the Godly judges did, in faith.</p>


text:
<p>But you be strong, and don’t let your hands be slack; for your work shall be rewarded- </p><p>"Work" here is put for "faith". For it is faith and not works which is being appealed for from Asa (:2). This continues the purposeful confusion between faith and works which is found in James.</p>


text:
<p>When Asa heard these words, and the prophecy of Oded the prophet, he took courage, and put away the abominations out of all the land of Judah and Benjamin, and out of the cities which he had taken from the hill country of Ephraim; and he renewed the altar of Yahweh that was before the porch of Yahweh- </p><p>This purging of idolatry which took place after the victory against the Ethiopians in 2 Chronicles 14 shows that Asa's claims that Judah were totally loyal to Yahweh, and therefore as it were deserved victory, were somewhat hollow. But he was given the victory, and in fact that elicited from him an awareness that this was by grace, and his claims to total devotion to Yahweh in <a href='B:140 14:7'>2Ch 14:7</a>; <a href='B:140 14:11'>2Ch 14:11</a> had been exaggerated. We too are sometimes given blessing and victory which is inappropriate to our faith, and the experience elicits in us self examination and repentance.</p>


text:
<p>He gathered all Judah and Benjamin, and those who lived with them out of Ephraim and Manasseh, and out of Simeon; for they fell to him out of Israel in abundance, when they saw that Yahweh his God was with him- </p><p>AV "And he gathered all Judah and Benjamin, and the strangers with them out of Ephraim and Manasseh, and out of Simeon". "The strangers" reflects how religious division soon leads to those divided from being considered as foreigners. This makes the account absolutely psychological reality, and is true to observed experience in Christian divisions. Simeon had inheritance within Judah (<a href='B:60 19:1'>Jos 19:1</a>), so it is unsurprising that people from there came over to Judah.</p>


text:
<p>So they gathered themselves together at Jerusalem in the third month, in the fifteenth year of the reign of Asa- </p><p>The feast of weeks began on the sixth day of the third month.</p>


text:
<p>They sacrificed to Yahweh in that day, of the spoil which they had brought, seven hundred head of cattle and seven thousand sheep- </p><p>Remember that 'hundred' and 'thousand' are not always to be taken as literal numbers, but can refer to groups. The sacrifices often feature offerings in groups of seven (<a href='B:40 29:32'>Num 29:32</a>; <a href='B:130 15:26'>1Ch 15:26</a>). Presumably these were offered as peace offerings, although there is no evidence of the burnt offerings and sin offerings which were intended to precede peace offerings.</p>


text:
<p>They entered into the covenant to seek Yahweh the God of their fathers, with all their heart and with all their soul- </p><p><a href='B:140 15:12'>2Ch 15:12</a>; <a href='B:140 15:15'>2Ch 15:15</a> parallels seeking God with having our whole desire for Him, giving all our heart and soul to Him. God judges a man’s life with regard to where the essential, dominant desire of his heart is focused. This is why some of the kings of Judah are introduced with the comment that they did right in God’s sight- even though it becomes apparent that they did many wrong things, and sometimes died committing wrong acts. But surely they were judged on their dominant desire, where their heart was, and not on their specific acts of failure. For David, the salvation promised to him through Christ was “all my desire” (<a href='B:100 23:5'>2Sa 23:5</a>). The direction of his life was towards that end.</p>


text:
<p>and that whoever would not seek Yahweh the God of Israel, should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman- </p><p>This smacks of hypocrisy and a commitment made on the cusp of religious extremism, rather than humble spirituality. For as noted throughout 2 Chronicles 14 and <a href='B:140 15:3'>2Ch 15:3</a>; <a href='B:140 15:5'>2Ch 15:5</a>; <a href='B:140 15:8'>2Ch 15:8</a>, they themselves had not wholly sought Yahweh. And now they condemn such persons to death. But not so many years later they needed to be brought back to Yahweh (<a href='B:140 19:4'>2Ch 19:4</a>). See on :14.</p>


text:
<p>They swore to Yahweh with a loud voice, and with shouting, trumpets and cornets- </p><p>The loudness of their voice corroborates the impression noted on :13, that this was unspiritual religious extremism.</p>


text:
<p>All Judah rejoiced at the oath; for they had sworn with all their heart, and sought Him with their whole desire; and He was found of them: and Yahweh gave them rest all around- </p><p>This joy was at an oath which threatened death against anyone who didn't worship Yahweh (:13), when they themselves had not been wholeheartedly for Him. And yet despite the hypocrisy, Yahweh "was found of them". Again, we see His sensitivity to any faith and spirituality. This is not to say that He accepts just whatever we give Him, and that, by extension, we can serve God on our own terms. But it is also so that God is very sensitive to all movements towards Him and for Him.</p>


text:
<p>Also Maacah, the mother of Asa the king, he removed from being queen, because she had made an abominable image for an Asherah. Asa cut down her image, and made dust of it, and burnt it at the brook Kidron- </p><p>This would have been difficult for him, given it was his mother. The Lord may have thought of this as He crossed the same brook, the night before His death.</p>


text:
<p>But the high places were not taken away out of Israel. Nevertheless the heart of Asa was perfect all his days- </p><p>As discussed on :15, this is not to say that we are free to serve God on our own terms, picking and choosing our issues of obedience and compliance. Rather does this reflect how human external behaviour, even if it is sinful, is not always a reflection of the basic, core position of the human heart. Human behaviour is so complex in its motivation, and there is often a connection between the heart and external behaviour which is very indirect and can even at times be inverse. In other words, we may act the opposite of what we really think. But God alone can know and judge these complexities. This is why we must not judge; because we cannot judge. We do not see the heart.</p><p>Asa and Jehoshaphat removed the high places, but in a sense they didn't (<a href='B:110 15:14'>1Ki 15:14</a> cp. <a href='B:140 14:5'>2Ch 14:5</a>; <a href='B:140 17:6'>2Ch 17:6</a> cp. 20:33). We read of how the land was purged of Baal, Sodomites etc:; but in a very short time, we read of another purge being necessary. Partial cleansing of idolatry amounted to no cleansing. Hezekiah, Manasseh and Josiah all made major purges within a space of 80 years. Jeremiah therefore condemns the Jews who lived at the time of Josiah's reformation for not knowing God in their hearts. Many a Western Christian has this very same tendency. We too must ask ourselves whether our spirituality is really just a product of the crowd mentality; as the crowd shouted one day "Hosanna to the Son of David", a few days later they wanted Jesus to be delivered rather than Barabbas, but within minutes they were persuaded to cry for the crucifixion of the Son of God. Church life, Bible studies, the breaking of bread... inevitably, there is a crowd mentality developed here. There is a feeling of devotion which wells up within us as a community, as an audience, as we sit there, as we stand in praise and worship together. But the real spirituality is far deeper than this. We must seriously ask whether our spirituality, our feelings of devotion, our true repentance, are only stimulated by these meetings?</p><p>As discussed on <a href='B:110 15:3'>1Ki 15:3</a>, Asa like David clearly sinned and seems to have suffered a decline in his faith as he got older, as the Chronicles record shows. But he was judged on the overall dominant desire of his heart, to the point that having a heart perfect with Yahweh seems to effectively mean 'He was wholeheartedly devoted to Yahweh and never worshipped other gods'. Despite all the ups and downs, of which his final faith in doctors rather than Yahweh was one of the down points (<a href='B:120 16:12'>2Ki 16:12</a>), his overall deepest heart was for Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>He brought into God’s house the things that his father had dedicated, and that he himself had dedicated, silver, and gold, and vessels- </p><p>The reference is to what he captured from the Ethiopians and looted from the tribesmen around Gerar (<a href='B:140 14:14-15'>2Ch 14:14-15</a>); and to what his father Abijah had taken from Jeroboam (<a href='B:140 13:16'>2Ch 13:16</a>). We note that Abijah dedicated things to God, but despite that, "he walked in all the sins of his father, which he had done before him; and his heart was not perfect with Yahweh his God" (<a href='B:110 15:3'>1Ki 15:3</a>). External generosity isn't anywhere near as valuable as a heart totally given over to God.</p>


text:
<p>There was no more war until the thirty-fifth year of the reign of Asa- </p><p><a href='B:130 14:1'>1Ch 14:1</a> likewise notes that Asa's reign began with 10 years of peace. The land itself was at peace but that didn't mean Judah were not at war. For Baasha became king of Israel in the third year of Asa (<a href='B:110 15:28'>1Ki 15:28</a>; <a href='B:110 15:33'>1Ki 15:33</a>) and “there was war between Asa and Baasha all their days” (<a href='B:110 15:32'>1Ki 15:32</a>). Then there was then this 20 years peace later on (<a href='B:140 15:10'>2Ch 15:10</a>; <a href='B:140 15:19'>2Ch 15:19</a>). The impression is given that Asa's [partial] faithfulness to Yahweh meant there was peace, and peace is a fruit of loyalty to Yahweh. See on <a href='B:140 16:1'>2Ch 16:1</a>.</p>


text:
<p>In the thirty sixth year of the reign of Asa, Baasha king of Israel went up against Judah- </p><p>But Baasha died in the 26th year of Asa's rulership (<a href='B:110 16:8'>1Ki 16:8</a>; <a href='B:110 16:10'>1Ki 16:10</a>). The 35th year in <a href='B:140 15:19'>2Ch 15:19</a> refers to the point of division with Israel, when Judah became a separate entity. And this may be the same case here. However, the Hebrew characters used for 30 and 10 are very similar, and this may be an example of a coping error. If we read 15 and 16 in <a href='B:140 15:19'>2Ch 15:19</a> and <a href='B:140 16:1'>2Ch 16:1</a>, then the chronological problem disappears.</p><p>And built Ramah, that he might not allow anyone to go out or come in to Asa king of Judah- </p><p>There was such a flow of Israelites to Judah that Baasha tried to stop it, by building Ramah as an effective border control point on the approach road to Jerusalem- only about six miles from city. Ramah was in Benjamin, and clearly Asa had failed to retain it within Judah.</p>


text:
<p>Then Asa brought out silver and gold out of the treasures of the house of Yahweh and of the king’s house, and sent to Ben Hadad king of Syria, who lived at Damascus saying- </p><p>Benhadad was the grandson of Hezion, a name which uses similar characters to Rezon who led the first attempted revival of Zobah and Damascus (<a href='B:110 11:23'>1Ki 11:23</a>) after David's victories against them in <a href='B:100 8:3-8'>2Sa 8:3-8</a>. Asa gathered the gold and silver vessels back into the temple- and then went and used them to make a political treaty. He apparently treated them as God's riches, but then in reality he used them as his own (<a href='B:110 15:18'>1Ki 15:18</a>; <a href='B:110 15:15'>1Ki 15:15</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Let there be a covenant between me and you, as there was between my father and your father. Behold, I have sent you silver and gold. Go, break your treaty with Baasha king of Israel, that he may depart from me- </p><p>The intent of the treaty, however, was that Benhadad would attack Baasha (:4). Perhaps this was not stated specifically because Asa wanted to give lip service obedience to the command not to fight with his own brethren in (<a href='B:110 12:24'>1Ki 12:24</a>. So the Lord's money was spent on effectively getting others to fight their own brethren; and in essence the same can happen today in church politics. We also see how fickle are relationships when not governed by Divine principle; Benhadad's treaty with Baasha was broken when money was received from a third party, and he not only trashed the treaty but attacked him.</p><p>We must balance this lack of faith against the Divine assessment in <a href='B:140 15:17'>2Ch 15:17</a>: "The high places were not taken away out of Israel. Nevertheless the heart of Asa was perfect all his days".</p>


text:
<p>Ben Hadad listened to king Asa, and sent the captains of his armies against the cities of Israel; and they struck Ijon, and Dan, and Abel Maim, and all the storage cities of Naphtali- </p><p>These cities were in the far north of Israel. It was an invasion of the border area rather than of all Israel.</p>


text:
<p>It happened, when Baasha heard of it, that he left off building Ramah, and let his work cease- </p><p>Asa's plan appeared to have worked. Baasha stopped the attempted blockade of Jerusalem. Even though Asa did wrong in how he used the Lord's money / wealth, that isn't commented upon. It all seemed to work out. But we are left, naturally, with the question as to whether this was right or not.</p>


text:
<p>Then Asa the king took all Judah; and they carried away the stones of Ramah, and its timber, with which Baasha had built; and he built therewith Geba and Mizpah- </p><p>We see here the value of stones and timber and the huge amount of labour needed to move them. This corroborates the way that Solomon's huge demand for these things led him into debt financially (see on <a href='B:110 9:14'>1Ki 9:14</a>) and into abusing his people for labour.</p>


text:
<p>At that time Hanani the seer of visions came to Asa king of Judah and said to him, Because you have relied on the king of Syria, and have not relied on Yahweh your God, therefore is the army of the king of Syria escaped out of your hand- </p><p>A lack of spiritual ambition is in fact a sin. When Asa was threatened by his enemies, he hired the Syrians to drive them away- and he was condemned for this, being told that he should instead have had the ambition to ask God to deliver the mighty Syrians into his hand, as well as his enemies (<a href='B:140 16:7'>2Ch 16:7</a>). He was reminded that the Angelic eyes of the Lord are running to and fro in our support (<a href='B:140 16:9'>2Ch 16:9</a>), as Asa would have theoretically acknowledged. But his sin of omission, his lack of an ambitious vision, incited the Father’s anger. We need to meditate carefully upon this, because it surely has many similarities with modern life, where money and ‘hiring’ worldly help is so easy…</p>


text:
<p>Weren’t the Ethiopians and the Lubim a huge army, with exceeding many chariots and horsemen? Yet, because you relied on Yahweh, He delivered them into your hand- </p><p>This is a similar situation to that in <a href='B:140 13:18'>2Ch 13:18</a>, where an otherwise unspiritual and idolatrous Judah "relied" on Yahweh in desperation. They relied on Him at that one point, and were rewarded for it. But not generally. This reflects God's extreme sensitivity to faith in Him, even if He knows the surrounding context of a man's life is not of faith in Him.</p><p>Asa's faith was rewarded when he faced a massive Ethiopian army; but some years later, God repeated the situation. A huge Israelite army faced him; and instead of trusting in Yahweh, he gave the temple treasures to Syria so that they would come and fight the battle for him. And God wasn't slow to point out how circumstances had repeated, but this time Asa had failed the test: " Were not the Ethiopians and Lubims a huge host…? Yet because you relied on the Lord, He delivered them into your hand... herein you have done foolishly: therefore from henceforth you shall have wars" (<a href='B:140 16:8-9'>2Ch 16:8-9</a>). The "wars" God brought upon Asa weren't merely punishments; they were yet further opportunities for Asa to face the same situations, and overcome them with faith. And God likewise works in our lives.</p>


text:
<p>For the eyes of Yahweh run back and forth throughout the whole earth, to show Himself strong in the behalf of them whose heart is perfect toward Him- </p><p>The Biblical record seems to very frequently seek to deconstruct popular ideas about sin and evil. One of the most widespread notions was the "evil eye", whereby it was believed that some people had an "evil eye" which could bring distress into the eyes of those upon whom they looked in jealousy or anger. This concept is alive and well in many areas to this day. The idea entered Judaism very strongly after the Babylonian captivity; the Babylonian Talmud is full of references to it. The sage Rav attributed many illnesses to the evil eye, and the Talmud even claimed that 99 out of 100 people died prematurely from this (Bava Metzia 107b). The Biblical deconstruction of this is through stressing that God's eye is all powerful in the destiny of His people (<a href='B:50 11:12'>Deu 11:12</a>; <a href='B:230 33:18'>Psa 33:18</a>); and that "an evil eye" refers to an internal attitude of mean spiritedness within people- e.g. an "evil eye" is understood as an ungenerous spirit in <a href='B:50 15:9'>Deu 15:9</a>; <a href='B:470 6:23'>Mat 6:23</a>; <a href='B:470 20:15'>Mat 20:15</a>; or pure selfishness in <a href='B:50 28:54'>Deu 28:54</a>; <a href='B:50 28:56'>Deu 28:56</a>; <a href='B:240 23:6'>Pro 23:6</a>; <a href='B:240 28:22'>Pro 28:22</a>. We must remember that the people of Biblical times understood an "evil eye" as an external ability to look at someone and bring curses upon them. But the Bible redefines an "evil eye" as a purely internal attitude; and cosmic evil, even if it were to exist, need hold no fear for us- seeing the eyes of the only true God are running around the earth for us and not against us (<a href='B:140 16:9'>2Ch 16:9</a>).</p><p>Herein you have done foolishly; for from henceforth you shall have wars- </p><p>"Done foolishly" alludes to the failures of Saul (<a href='B:90 13:13'>1Sa 13:13</a>) and David (<a href='B:100 24:10'>2Sa 24:10</a>), both also connected with trust in human rather than Divine strength.</p>


text:
<p>Then Asa was angry with the seer of visions, and put him in the prison; for he was in a rage with him because of this thing. Asa oppressed some of the people at the same time- </p><p>If true guilt is not faced up to, there will be anger, the anger that comes from refusing to acknowledge subconscious guilt. Balaam’s angry striking of his donkey is an obvious Biblical example, and we are surrounded by so many others. Another classic example would be Asa’s “rage” with Hanani the prophet when he rebuked Asa for trusting in the Syrian army rather than in Yahweh. And Asa’s anger was then taken out upon the people- for “Asa oppressed some of the people at the same time” (<a href='B:140 16:10'>2Ch 16:10</a>).</p><p>The harsh treatment of the Ammonites, torturing them under harrows, is indication enough of David’s bad conscience before God being shown in his harsh treatment of others. Likewise Asa oppressed the people when he was guilty in his conscience (<a href='B:140 16:10'>2Ch 16:10</a>). And the wicked Kings of Israel usually died “without being desired” by their people, presumably because their broken relationship with God had led to a broken relationship between them and their brethren (e.g. <a href='B:140 21:20'>2Ch 21:20</a>).</p><p>When Israel played traitor to their brethren, by doing so they broke their marriage covenant with God (<a href='B:460 2:10'>Mal 2:10</a>); their attitude to their brethren was essentially their attitude to their Heavenly Father. Our God and our brethren simply can't be separated. Asa’s broken relationship with God resulted in him ‘crushing’ the people at the same time (<a href='B:140 16:10'>2Ch 16:10</a> Avmg:).</p>


text:
<p>Behold, the acts of Asa, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of the kings of Judah and Israel- </p><p>This may not necessarily be the book of Kings as we know it.</p>


text:
<p>In the thirty-ninth year of his reign, Asa was diseased in his feet. His disease was exceeding great; yet in his disease he didn’t turn to Yahweh, but to the physicians- </p><p>One meaning of "Asa" is "physician", and he ended his days trusting physicians rather than Yahweh. Perhaps he trained as a physician and ended up therefore having more faith in science than in Yahweh. <a href='B:110 15:11'>1Ki 15:11</a> says that "he did that which was right in the eyes of Yahweh, as did David his father". <a href='B:140 14:2'>2Ch 14:2</a> is likewise positive: "Asa did that which was good and right in the eyes of Yahweh his God". </p><p>Asa is recorded as serving God just as well as David, when actually this wasn't the case; but God counted him as righteous. The incomplete faith of men like Baruch was counted as full faith by later inspiration (<a href='B:70 4:8-9'>Jdg 4:8-9</a> cp. <a href='B:650 11:32'>Heb 11:32</a>). Asa was not perfect, nor was David; but God's overall judgment was that he "did right", despite doing wrong at specific points in his life. Yet we learn here that Asa died at a low point for him spiritually. But the judgment overall was that he "did right" and that "nevertheless the heart of Asa was perfect with Yahweh all his days" (<a href='B:110 15:14'>1Ki 15:14</a>). We must learn therefore not to judge a person too harshly if they die at a weak spiritual point, e.g. through suicide.</p>


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


text:
<p>They buried him in his own tombs, which he had dug out for himself in the city of David, and laid him in the bed which was filled with sweet odours and various kinds of spices prepared by the perfumer’s art; and they made a very great burning for him-</p><p>"The bed" may refer to that on which he laid at the end of his life (:12). It seems he was buried in his own bed, which recalls the style of burial for the Pharaohs and other Gentile kings. This would be another indication that Asa died spiritually weak, and yet as discussed on :12, he was still reckoned as righteous according to his core heart positions.</p>


text:
<p>Jehoshaphat his son reigned in his place-</p><p>Jehoshaphat means 'whom Jehovah judges'. And this is largely the point of his life. He made major mistakes in his relationships with Israel, incited the wrath of God against him (<a href='B:140 19:2'>2Ch 19:2</a>), died without removing the high places, and yet overall was judged as having a faithful heart before God (<a href='B:110 22:43'>1Ki 22:43</a>; <a href='B:140 19:3'>2Ch 19:3</a>). And so we have a parade example of how indeed 'Jehovah judges', factoring in the various dimensions of a man's life in a way in which we cannot. The lesson is indeed that we cannot judge, nor should we be tempted to judge a person according to the high and low points on their spiritual graph, nor upon the fact they may die with unconquered weaknesses.</p><p>And strengthened himself against Israel- </p><p>Yet <a href='B:110 22:44'>1Ki 22:44</a> commends him that: "Jehoshaphat made peace with the king[s] of Israel". But the way to that peace was by clarifying boundaries.</p>


text:
<p>He placed forces in all the fortified cities of Judah, and set garrisons in the land of Judah, and in the cities of Ephraim which Asa his father had taken- </p><p>This building or rebuilding of fortified cities at the start of a reign is a continuity between Asa, Jehoshaphat and Rehoboam. But in each case, those strengthened cities failed to protect them as they intended, but rather God's strength was needed. The later kings were clearly intended to learn from history as recorded, as we are.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh was with Jehoshaphat, because he walked in the first ways of his father David, and didn’t seek the Baals- </p><p>Many have struggled to reconcile the statement that David was a man after God’s own heart (<a href='B:90 13:14'>1Sa 13:14</a>) with the fact that his life contains many examples not only of failure, but of anger and a devaluing of human life. He was barred from building the temple because of the amount of blood he had shed (<a href='B:130 22:8'>1Ch 22:8</a>). The figure of ‘shedding blood’ takes us back to the incident with Nabal, where David three times is mentioned as intending to “shed blood” (<a href='B:90 25:26-33'>1Sa 25:26-33</a>), only to be turned away from his sinful course by the wisdom, spirituality and charm of Abigail. David started out as the spiritually minded, humble shepherd, full of faith and zeal for his God. Hence Jehoshaphat is commended for walking “in the first ways of his father David” (<a href='B:140 17:3'>2Ch 17:3</a>). It seems to me that the comment that David was “a man after God’s own heart” refers to how he initially was, at the time God chose him and rejected Saul. But the trauma of his life, the betrayals, jealousies and hatred of others, led him to the kind of bitterness which so often surfaces in the Psalms and is reflected in several historical incidents where he lacks the value of others’ lives which we would otherwise expect from a man who walked so close with his God.</p>


text:
<p>but sought to the God of his father, and walked in His commandments and not after the doings of Israel- </p><p>Yet Jehoshaphat allowed his son to marry Ahab's daughter (<a href='B:140 18:1'>2Ch 18:1</a>), and repeatedly failed in being as separate from Israel as he ought to have been. He nearly lost his life as a result of it. Yet God's overall judgment is that for all his social contact with Israel and failure to separate from them, he still did not himself 'walk' in their evil doings.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore Yahweh established the kingdom in his hand. All Judah brought to Jehoshaphat tribute; and he had riches and honour in abundance- </p><p>The tribute may refer to a revival of the taxation system of Solomon described in 1 Kings 4. Or possibly the reference may be to the tithes being brought to Jehoshaphat, as if he were a king-priest; see on :7. Or the reference may simply be to presents, brought to him when he ascended the throne as in <a href='B:90 10:27'>1Sa 10:27</a>. In this case, the entire description of Jehoshaphat in :2-6 would specifically refer to the beginning of his reign.</p>


text:
<p>His heart was lifted up in the ways of Yahweh- </p><p>The phrase "lifted up" is nearly always used in a negative sense about pride. The idea was that he was proud of Yahweh and His ways.</p><p>Furthermore, he removed the high places and the Asherim out of Judah- </p><p>Asa and Jehoshaphat removed the high places, but in a sense they didn't (<a href='B:110 15:14'>1Ki 15:14</a> cp. <a href='B:140 14:5'>2Ch 14:5</a>; <a href='B:140 17:6'>2Ch 17:6</a> cp. 20:33). We read of how the land was purged of Baal, Sodomites etc:; but in a very short time, we read of another purge being necessary. Hezekiah, Manasseh and Josiah all made major purges within a space of 80 years. Jeremiah therefore condemns the Jews who lived at the time of Josiah's reformation for not knowing God in their hearts. Asa gathered the gold and silver vessels back into the temple- and then went and used them to make a political treaty. He apparently treated them as God's riches, but then in reality he used them as his own (<a href='B:110 15:18'>1Ki 15:18</a>; <a href='B:110 15:15'>1Ki 15:15</a>). Many a Western Christian has this very same tendency. We too must ask ourselves whether our spirituality is really just a product of the crowd mentality; as the crowd shouted one day "Hosanna to the Son of David", a few days later they wanted Jesus to be delivered rather than Barabbas, but within minutes they were persuaded to cry for the crucifixion of the Son of God. Church life, Bible studies, the breaking of bread... inevitably, there is a crowd mentality developed here. There is a feeling of devotion which wells up within us as a community, as an audience, as we sit there, as we stand in praise and worship together. But the real spirituality is far deeper than this. We must seriously ask whether our spirituality, our feelings of devotion, our true repentance, are only stimulated by these meetings?</p>


text:
<p>Also in the third year of his reign he sent his princes, even Ben Hail, Obadiah, Zechariah, Nethanel and Micaiah, to teach in the cities of Judah- </p><p>The sending of princes along with Levites (:8) could imply some idea of a joint king-priesthood, which we saw possibly hinted at in :5, if we understand the "tribute" given to Jehoshaphat as king as being the tithes due to the Levites.</p>


text:
<p>and with them the Levites, even Shemaiah, Nethaniah, Zebadiah, Asahel, Shemiramoth, Jehonathan, Adonijah, Tobijah and Tobadonijah the Levites; and with them Elishama and Jehoram, the priests- </p><p>The idea was that the two priests were sent to teach Judah the law (:9), for that was the function of the priests. But in practical terms they were assisted by a group of Levites and princes (:7). We would rather imagine the priests as being listed first, and then those subservient to them coming afterwards. But the priests were true servant leaders and are listed last, as being "with the Levites" [the servants of the priests] rather than the other way around.</p>


text:
<p>They taught in Judah, having the book of the law of Yahweh with them. They went about throughout all the cities of Judah, and taught among the people- </p><p>This is a tacit admission that the local priests were not teaching the people. <a href='B:140 15:3'>2Ch 15:3</a> had reminded Asa of the similarity of his times with those of the judges: "Now for a long time Israel was without the true God, and without a teaching priest, and without law". It seems that sad situation continued. The statements about Judah's faithfulness and loyalty to Yahweh were therefore very generous; for in an illiterate society, they would have been unaware of the majority of details in the Mosaic law if they weren't taught it by the local priests. Although priests from the ten tribes had emigrated to Judah, it seems they were not teaching the people as intended. Their identity with Yahweh religion was therefore more cultural than based upon accurate awareness of His ways. But despite this lack of knowledge, God still counted them as loyal to Him, just as He counted weak kings like Asa as loyal to Him in their hearts. Yahweh's generosity in judgment of His people is one of the themes which comes through in the historical records.</p>


text:
<p>The fear of Yahweh fell on all the kingdoms of the lands that were around Judah, so that they made no war against Jehoshaphat- </p><p>A similar situation repeated itself in <a href='B:140 14:14'>2Ch 14:14</a>. The record constantly stresses that the victory was from God. The fear of Yahweh coming upon Gentiles was the promised reward for obedience (<a href='B:50 11:25'>Deu 11:25</a>), and recalls the terror which fell upon the cities around Jacob at the time of <a href='B:10 35:5'>Gen 35:5</a>, "so that they made no war against" Jacob. But that terror didn't come because Israel were righteous at that time; in fact the opposite. For they had just massacred Shechem. Likewise here, these blessings were by grace, for Judah were not so righteous at this time; and reflected Yahweh's extreme sensitivity to any faith and obedience toward Him. And it was surely the same in Jehoshaphat's time.</p>


text:
<p>Some of the Philistines brought Jehoshaphat presents, and silver for tribute. The Arabians also brought him flocks, seven thousand seven hundred rams, and seven thousand seven hundred male goats- </p><p>Remember that 'hundred' and 'thousand' are not always to be taken as literal numbers, but can refer to groups. It was these same groups of Philistines and Arabians whose spirit Yahweh stirred up (for He can work directly upon the human mind) to break away from Judah in Jehoram's time (<a href='B:140 21:16'>2Ch 21:16</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Jehoshaphat grew great exceedingly; and he built in Judah fortified and store cities- </p><p>See on :2. "Store cities" implies he anticipated the possibility of a siege from enemies.</p>


text:
<p>He had many works in the cities of Judah; and men of war, mighty men of valour, in Jerusalem- </p><p>"Many works" is unclear. GNB for :12,13 offers: "Throughout Judah he built fortifications and cities,&nbsp;where supplies were stored in huge amounts. In Jerusalem he stationed outstanding officers".</p>


text:
<p>This was the numbering of them according to their fathers’ houses. Of Judah, the captains of thousands: Adnah the captain, and with him mighty men of valour three hundred thousand- </p><p>Remember that 'hundred' and 'thousand' are not always to be taken as literal numbers, but can refer to groups. The "them" could refer specifically to the officers or soldiers quartered in Jerusalem (:13).</p>


text:
<p>and next to him Jehohanan the captain, and with him two hundred and eighty thousand- </p><p>We note that the names of all the captains in this section include God's Name.</p>


text:
<p>and next to him Amasiah the son of Zichri, who willingly offered himself to Yahweh; and with him two hundred thousand mighty men of valour- </p><p>His being so willing to offer himself to Yahweh was noted, as in <a href='B:70 5:9'>Jdg 5:9</a>. Human initiative in serving God is indeed valuable to Him; not because He saves according to works, but because He recognizes and values freewill human expressions of love toward Him.</p>


text:
<p>Of Benjamin: Eliada a mighty man of valour, and with him two hundred thousand armed with bow and shield- </p><p>There is a significant increase in numbers from his father's time, when the army was exactly half the size of that recorded in this section (<a href='B:140 14:8'>2Ch 14:8</a>). The total then was 580,000; but here in :14-18 it is exactly double (1,160,000), Judah 780,000, Benjamin 380,000. This suggests that again, numbers are not being used in the literal sense which modern readers are accustomed to.</p>


text:
<p>and next to him Jehozabad; and with him one hundred and eighty thousand prepared for war- </p><p>This group were ready for immediate deployment.</p>


text:
<p>These were those who waited on the king, besides those whom the king put in the fortified cities throughout all Judah- </p><p>This is a very large number to continually serve the king. The same phrase is used in <a href='B:130 27:1'>1Ch 27:1</a>, where they served their king through a rotation system of monthly service.</p>


text:
<p>Now Jehoshaphat had riches and honour in abundance; and he joined affinity with Ahab-</p><p>The Chronicles record clearly shows that he was too close to Israel. His son married a daughter of Ahab, and his insistence on supporting Ahab was seen as loving those who hated Yahweh, and the wrath of God was upon him because of it&nbsp; (<a href='B:140 19:2'>2Ch 19:2</a>). And yet he is commended for having peace with the kings of Israel (<a href='B:110 22:44'>1Ki 22:44</a>), even though&nbsp; that desire for peace with them led him into major sin. But he was judged as having a heart right with God (<a href='B:140 19:3'>2Ch 19:3</a>). We sense God weighting Jehoshaphat's sins with his relations with Israel against his genuine desire for peace within God's people. And overall, as he was judged on the state of his heart, his desire for unity and peace was judged as his dominant desire. We simply cannot factor in or weight all the dimensions in a man's heart. Only God can. And the reason we are not to judge is because in fact we cannot judge, in that we don't have access to human hearts. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>After certain years he went down to Ahab to Samaria. Ahab killed sheep and cattle for him in abundance, and for the people who were with him, and moved him to go up with him to Ramoth Gilead-</p><p>Jehoshaphat's son Jehoram had wrongly married Ahab’s daughter, Athaliah; probably under some false mantra of 'unity amongst God's people'. The visit was likely in connection with this. Had Jehoshaphat not fraternized with wicked Ahab, the possibility of the doomed venture which follows wouldn't have arisen. And if Ahab had slain Benhadad as commanded, Ramoth Gilead would have been returned to Israel. And indeed if Benhadad kept his covenant, it should have been returned anyway (<a href='B:110 20:34'>1Ki 20:34</a>).</p><p>"Moved" is 'persuaded'. "Ahab persuaded Jehoshaphat to go up with him to Ramoth-gilead", just as Jezebel persuaded Ahab to do wickedness (<a href='B:110 21:25'>1Ki 21:25</a> Heb:). It is a story of sin leading to sin, and sinful attitudes and behaviour spreading through wrong and unwise associations.</p>


text:
<p>Ahab king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat king of Judah, Will you go with me to Ramoth Gilead? He answered him, I am as you are, and my people as your people. We will be with you in the war-</p><p>We note they both have "horses", which were forbidden for the kings of Israel under the law of Moses. Jehoshaphat likely reasoned that a weak Syria on the east bank of Jordan was good for Judah, but he was also caught up in the false mantra of "unity" which had led his son to marry Ahab's daughter.</p>


text:
<p>Jehoshaphat said to the king of Israel, Please inquire first for the word of Yahweh-</p><p>Ahab responded to the request for a word from Yahweh by summoning the group of 400 false prophets (:5). He had so mixed Yahweh worship with paganism that he considered their word to be that of Yahweh. And he gathered such a huge group in order to argue that the majority must surely be right. And the Bible consistently teaches that in these situations, the majority is usually wrong.</p>


text:
<p>Then the king of Israel gathered the prophets together, four hundred men, and said to them, Shall we go to Ramoth Gilead to battle, or shall I desist? </p><p>Ahab had 400 false prophets earlier in his reign (<a href='B:110 18:19'>1Ki 18:19</a>), who were slain on Carmel. So it seems that he didn't learn his lesson, and raised up another such group. This fits with the common theme of purges and repentances at the time of the kings needing to be repeated. For the purges were only surface level, despite all the evidence for them at the time. "Forbear" means 'to cease'. Ahab, like us at times, had already started the project without asking God's guidance, and his request for guidance in the project was compromised in integrity by the fact he had already begun it.</p><p>They said, Go up; for God will deliver it into the hand of the king-</p><p>This recalls the instant answer of Nathan when David enquired about building a temple for Yahweh. Too easily we assume we know the will of God, and speak and act as if we have His blessing on our endeavours already.</p>


text:
<p>But Jehoshaphat said, Isn’t there here a prophet of Yahweh besides, that we may inquire of him?-</p><p>Ahab had provided the 400 prophets of Baal in response to the request for a word from Yahweh. Jehoshaphat realized this; and ought to have immediately pulled out of working with someone who was presenting Baal worship as Yahweh worship. He means of course 'an old time, old school prophet of Yahweh who is not also a prophet of Baal and repudiates Baal'.</p>


text:
<p>The king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, There is yet one man by whom we may inquire of Yahweh-</p><p>The idea is, "one more man". He considered that the 400 prophets of Baal were also in touch with Yahweh (see on :5), and Micaiah was just one more who could do that, although he repudiated Baal worship.</p><p>But I hate him, for he never prophesies good concerning me, but always evil-</p><p>Again we sense the pouting, spoilt kid characteristics of Ahab. His characterization in the records is absolutely consistent and credible, as we would expect of a Divinely inspired history. We have here a parade example of how men come to God's word having already decided what they want to hear. Indeed there is a tendency to have "itching ears", heaping up teachers to confirm us in our own desires, lusts and hunches (<a href='B:620 4:3'>2Ti 4:3</a>; maybe a reference to Ahab heaping up 400 such teachers to tell him what he wanted to hear). This is why there are so many different interpretations of the Bible. Because readers / hearers like to hear only what confirms that which they already had a hunch about. To achieve a second naivety as we come to God's word, to be a born again virgin, is hard indeed. Jehoshaphat realized what Ahab was doing, and asked him not to talk like that- but to accept Yahweh's word. The fact Jehoshaphat himself still went into battle shows how he himself perceived the truth of all this, but didn't do accordingly. The "evil" prophesied was presumably of Ahab's condemnation, confirming Elijah's words.</p><p>He is Micaiah the son of Imla. Jehoshaphat said, Don’t let the king say so-</p><p>Again we are introduced to a true prophet of Yahweh who existed at the time of Elijah. His claim to be the only prophet of Yahweh is continually demonstrated to be false. Presumably Elijah knew these other prophets, but considered that they had all gone wrong on this or that point of doctrine or practice. And perhaps they had, but God still counted them as His prophets, and used them as such. And it was Elijah who was removed from the prophetic ministry because of his arrogance in considering none of them genuine, and he alone being the true representative of Yahweh. Micaiah had previously spoken critical things to Ahab in Yahweh's Name, hence Ahab says that this prophet only says "evil" about him and he doesn't want to consult him. Elijah was quite wrong to discount all these brave prophets as somehow not genuine:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Then the king of Israel called an officer and said, Get Micaiah the son of Imla quickly-</p><p>"Who is like Yah?" was a direct challenge to the idea that Yahweh could be worshipped through Baal worship (see on :4). According to :26, Micaiah was imprisoned at this time. The 'quick' summoning from prison by an officer to speak God's word would have recalled to Micaiah the example of faithful Joseph.</p>


text:
<p>Now the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat the king of Judah sat each on his throne, arrayed in their robes. They were sitting in an open place at the entrance of the gate of Samaria; and all the prophets were prophesying before them- </p><p>This was an impressive sight, and the area had clearly been especially prepared so that so many prophets could prophesy together. It was designed to sway Jehoshaphat according to the false maxim that the majority must be right, and how could so many be wrong. See on <a href='B:330 10:5'>Eze 10:5</a></p>


text:
<p>Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah made him horns of iron and said, Thus says Yahweh, ‘With these you shall push the Syrians, until they are consumed’- </p><p>Zedekiah, like a typical apostate, is mixing the truth of God out of context with wrong ideas. He alludes to Moses'&nbsp; blessing of Joseph in <a href='B:50 33:17'>Deu 33:17</a> to the northern tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh: “Buffalo horns are his (Joseph's) horns, with them he thrusts down nations”. But of course he overlooked the fact that the blessings of Moses were predicated upon obedience to the covenant. He probably made the horns and held them on his forehead. Micaiah's response is to also quote from the law of Moses, but about the judgment for disobedience to the covenant (:16).</p>


text:
<p>All the prophets prophesied so, saying, Go up to Ramoth Gilead, and prosper; for Yahweh will deliver it into the hand of the king- </p><p>These 400 prophets of Baal [for they were the equivalent of the 400 executed on Mount Carmel] still used the name of Yahweh. Their position was that they conducted Yahweh worship through Baal worship. Perhaps their usage of the Hebrew word for "prosper" alluded to how the word is four times used of the prospering of Abraham's servant on his journey and mission (<a href='B:10 24:21'>Gen 24:21</a>; <a href='B:10 24:40'>Gen 24:40</a>; <a href='B:10 24:42'>Gen 24:42</a>; <a href='B:10 24:56'>Gen 24:56</a>). And this is probably our most common temptation as believers; to mix the flesh and the spirit, to justify sin in the name of serving God. But Ahab had broken the covenant, and would not prosper (s:w. <a href='B:50 28:29'>Deu 28:29</a>). Jehoshaphat later learnt this lesson, for he uses the word in saying that only those who hear Yahweh's prophets will "prosper" (<a href='B:140 20:20'>2Ch 20:20</a>).</p>


text:
<p>The messenger who went to call Micaiah spoke to him saying, Behold, the words of the prophets declare good to the king with one mouth. Let your word therefore, please be like one of theirs, and speak good- </p><p>We sense the build up of pressure upon Micaiah. He was imprisoned for having spoken God's word against Ahab (see on :8,25), and would be under huge pressure from the presence of the 400 prophets and the audience watching (:27 "all you people"). And as the officer led him from prison towards the huge crowd of people gathered before the two kings, he too added his pressure. The request of the officer was perhaps because he actually liked Micaiah and could foresee the death sentence being given if he again "spoke evil" and not "good" to Ahab, and he didn't want to have to carry that out. But he still totally fails to perceive that God's word cannot be changed or controlled by man.</p>


text:
<p>Micaiah said, As Yahweh lives, what my God says, that will I speak- </p><p>If Micaiah was at that time imprisoned for prophesying evil against Ahab (see on :8,25), bearing in mind Naboth had been slain for allegedly cursing the king, he would have been sorely tempted to now buy his freedom by saying what Ahab wanted to hear. And despite his determination not to do so, I suggest on :14 that he did temporarily fail. The pressure on him was intense. Micaiah uses the words and ideas of Balaam when pressured to not say Yahweh's word. He was clearly a spiritually minded man who was deeply aware of Biblical precedent for his situation, as we ought to be.</p>


text:
<p>When he had come to the king, the king said to him, Micaiah, shall we go to Ramoth Gilead to battle, or shall I desist? He said, Go up, and prosper. They shall be delivered into your hand- </p><p>It could be argued that by repeating the very words of the false prophets, Micaiah was just repeating them sarcastically, with the tone of his voice indicating that. But I prefer to conclude that this faithful man, who had gone to prison for his witness of God's word to Ahab, now faltered under the pressure of the presence of the 400 false prophets. He acted like Nathan when David enquired about building a temple for Yahweh, who gave the answer that his enquirer wanted to hear. Such failure of a moment would be absolutely true to human experience and would be psychologically and spiritually credible. See on :13.</p>


text:
<p>The king said to him, How many times shall I adjure you that you speak to me nothing but the truth in the name of Yahweh?- </p><p>See on :14. We are left to speculate which singular "king" it was who said this, Ahab or Jehoshaphat. The Biblical record is intentionally open ended at some points, to encourage us to think ourselves into the situation. The king sensed that Micaiah was cowed by the situation, and really wanted to know what Yahweh thought. So we sense "the king" in view was Jehoshaphat.</p>


text:
<p>He said, I saw all Israel scattered on the mountains, as sheep that have no shepherd. Yahweh said, These have no master. Let them return every man to his house in peace- </p><p>As explained on :10, Zedekiah had quoted Moses' blessings of the tribes as justification for a successful battle- which were conditional upon obedience to the covenant. Micaiah responds by quoting the curses for disobedience to the covenant (<a href='B:40 27:16-17'>Num 27:16-17</a>). The removal of the master / shepherd implies that the shepherd or king of Israel is to be slain, and the sheep would return to their homes once the shepherd was slain. And that is just what happened when it was recognized that Ahab had been slain.</p>


text:
<p>Micaiah said, Therefore hear the word of Yahweh- </p><p>There does not follow a "Thus says the Lord", but rather a description of the vision Micaiah had seen, a peek into the heavenly throne room, the court of heaven. Discerning the vision was perhaps the essential "word of Yahweh" which the kings were to "hear".</p><p>I saw Yahweh sitting on His throne, and all the army of heaven standing on His right hand and on His left- </p><p>It seems there are two groups of Angels- Angels of evil (<a href='B:230 78:49'>Psa 78:49</a>) and of good. Thus God creates both good and evil- and <a href='B:290 45:5-7'>Isa 45:5-7</a> emphasizes that He makes a distinct creation of both- using these separate groups of Angels. However we stress that the Angels of evil are not sinful Angels. We think of the Angel called "the destroyer" at Passover time, who was restrained by the Passover Angel from destroying the Israelite firstborn. And so one wonders whether "the destroyer" was one of those on the left hand side, and the Passover Angel one of those on the right hand. This division is perhaps hinted at here, where "all the host of Heaven" are seen standing around the throne of God himself "on His right and on His left". The exact way in which these two groups of Angels work is unclear, and this perhaps explains the difficulty all Bible students face in understanding the undefined "power of darkness", hints of which lurk throughout Scripture (e.g. evil spirits, the forces of evil unleashed at the end of Revelation etc:), and also in defining the apparently super-human power of righteousness which the Psalms and New Testament especially speak of. At&nbsp; present&nbsp; these&nbsp; topics seem to defy close definition- until we appreciate the Angelic basis behind them?</p><p>The visions of Isaiah 6 and Revelation 4 also show God seated on a throne with Angels before Him, bringing information and requests to Him and departing with commands to obey; the idea of a council in Heaven is clearly hinted at in Job 1; <a href='B:10 1:26'>Gen 1:26</a>; <a href='B:230 89:7'>Psa 89:7</a>. God sitting on a throne implies that each request or piece of information presented is 'judged' and an appropriate decision made. The 'case' of the adversaries to God is presented by a 'satan' Angel in Job.</p><p>We have here perhaps the most detailed picture of the Heavenly council. God told them His desire- for Ahab to die at Ramoth-Gilead. He then asked which Angel wanted to effect this. We thus learn that like us, on hearing God's desire the elohim all have different ways of trying to fulfil it. One "Spirit" (Angel) suggested that He would put a lying spirit in the mouth of Ahab's prophets, and this was the suggestion chosen and enabled by God. This shows that the Angels do not all automatically know the best way of bringing about God's purpose, and therefore they need to seek His advice and perhaps discuss things amongst themselves first before acting. Note that "all the host of Heaven" were there around the throne of God participating in this decision. And so all the Angels are involved in the decisions God and the Angels make about us. <a href='B:490 15:6'>Luk 15:6</a> implies the same.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh said, Who shall entice Ahab king of Israel, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth Gilead? One spoke saying this way, and another saying that way- </p><p>"Entice" is the word elsewhere translated 'deceive'. Clearly God does deceive; for He confirms men in the mental path in which they themselves wish to go. <a href='B:330 14:9'>Eze 14:9</a> uses the word very clearly in this connection (see commentary there); and the teaching is confirmed in <a href='B:600 2:11'>2Th 2:11</a>.</p><p>In Revelation we see the incense of human prayers arising into Heaven, resulting in Angels coming to earth, pouring out bowls, blowing trumpets, and major events happening on earth (<a href='B:730 5:8'>Rev 5:8</a>; <a href='B:730 8:3'>Rev 8:3</a>). Prayer is noticed; it brings forth quite out of proportion responses. The Angels discuss their plans for us in the court of Heaven, coming up with various possibilities of how to act in our lives, discussing them with God (<a href='B:110 22:20-22'>1Ki 22:20-22</a>). They play some part in the whole process of our prayers. When we read that “Surely the Lord does nothing without revealing his secret to his servants the prophets” (<a href='B:370 3:7'>Amo 3:7</a>), we might tend to take that as a statement of absolute principle that is obvious to all the Angels. But we find an Angel discussing with others: “Shall I hide from Abraham [who was a prophet] what I am about to do?” (<a href='B:10 18:17'>Gen 18:17</a>). The Angels have more debate, expend more mental and physical energy than we surely realize, in order to operationalize things which we might consider to be standard and automatic in God’s work with men. In our context, what this means is that when men reject the machinations and schemings of God’s love, they reject an awful lot; and it grieves and disappoints Him, and appears tragic to those like the prophets who see things from His viewpoint.</p>


text:
<p>A spirit- </p><p>God makes His Angels "spirits" (<a href='B:230 104:4'>Psa 104:4</a>), and Angels are in view here. But the word 'spirit' has a wide range of meaning. It can refer to power, but also to the thought which is then expressed through the power of action. The Angel is here called a "spirit" because the idea was to place a thought in the mind or spirit of the false prophets, and thereby Ahab.</p><p>Came out- </p><p>This is the same word as in :21 "I will go forth". The Angel was as it were demonstrating how he intended acting.</p><p>Stood before Yahweh and said- </p><p>It was the true prophets who stood before Yahweh (<a href='B:110 17:1'>1Ki 17:1</a>). The connection is to show that the true prophets were represented by the Angels in the court of heaven, and this Angel was as it were on their side.</p><p>I will entice him. Yahweh said to him, How?- </p><p>Ahab had been persuaded or enticed to do evil by Jezebel, and had enticed or persuaded Jehoshaphat to go to battle. But this was because he had himself been persuaded or enticed by God.</p>


text:
<p>He said, I will go forth, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. He said, You will entice him, and will prevail also- </p><p>God deceived prophets to speak things in His Name which were actually false (<a href='B:110 22:20-22'>1Ki 22:20-22</a>; <a href='B:330 14:9'>Eze 14:9</a>). He chose Israel's delusions by making their idols answer them (<a href='B:290 66:3-4'>Isa 66:3-4</a>). Jeremiah feared God had deceived him (<a href='B:300 20:7'>Jer 20:7</a>)- showing he knew such a thing was possible. <a href='B:50 13:1-3'>Deu 13:1-3</a> warns Israel not to believe prophets whose prophecies came true although they taught false doctrines, because they may have been raised up to test their obedience. God deceived Israel by telling them about the peace which would come on Jerusalem in the future Kingdom; they didn't consider the other prophecies which were given at the same time concerning their imminent judgment, and therefore they thought that God was pleased with them and was about to establish the Messianic Kingdom; when actually the very opposite was about to happen (<a href='B:300 4:10'>Jer 4:10</a>). This is why the Bible is confusing to those who aren’t humble to God’s word.</p><p>Go forth, and do so- </p><p>This describes the Angels being sent out from the court of Heaven to do God’s word. So when we read of God sending lions (<a href='B:120 17:25-26'>2Ki 17:25-26</a>), sending wild beasts and famine (<a href='B:30 26:22'>Lev 26:22</a>; <a href='B:330 5:17'>Eze 5:17</a>; <a href='B:50 32:24'>Deu 32:24</a>), sending locusts (<a href='B:360 2:25'>Joe 2:25</a>), it would seem that Angels are sent forth from God’s throne in order to command animals to obey God’s word. And moreover, He sends an evil spirit between men (<a href='B:70 9:23'>Jdg 9:23</a>) and stubborn hearts are also sent from God (<a href='B:230 81:13'>Psa 81:13</a>). The same Angels who are sent to control the animals can also therefore work to give men certain attitudes of mind.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore, behold, Yahweh has put a lying spirit in the mouth of these your prophets; and Yahweh has spoken evil concerning you- </p><p>This was exactly what Micaiah had said before about Ahab, and Ahab intuitively knew that this was coming.</p>


text:
<p>Then Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah came near, and struck Micaiah on the cheek, and said, Which way did the spirit of Yahweh go from me to speak to you?- </p><p>"Cheek" can be "ear". The idea was that Zedekiah implied Micaiah was saying that the spirit had left him and entered Micaiah through his ear. And so he smote that ear. To strike on the cheek was the punishment for a heretic, and was applied to the Lord Jesus (<a href='B:400 5:1'>Mic 5:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Micaiah said, Behold, you shall see on that day, when you shall go into an inner room to hide yourself- </p><p>When Ahab was defeated and slain, everyone in Samaria would be looking for the false prophets to kill them. Not least Jezebel. For the defeat would have been blamed upon them. So Zedekiah would have hid from shame and fear of being killed. There is a connection between Benhadad going into an inner room to hide when Ahab was given victory against him (<a href='B:110 20:30'>1Ki 20:30</a>), and the false prophet Zedekiah going into an inner room to hide when Ahab was defeated (<a href='B:110 22:25'>1Ki 22:25</a>). The same Hebrew words are used, and the connection becomes more apparent if we accept that 1 Kings 20, 21 should be placed the other way around, as in LXX. This would mean that the hiding of Benhadad is recorded just a short time before that of Zedekiah. The connection would be to show that the false prophets were in fact bracketed together by God with Israel's enemies; whereas they had claimed that they were nationalists on Israel's side, proclaiming Israel's certain victory against their enemies. God sees not as man sees, and the real spiritual realities are often the very opposite of what appears.</p>


text:
<p>The king of Israel said, Take Micaiah, and carry him back to Amon the governor of the city, and to Joash the king’s son- </p><p>These men were those who ran the prison, for "carry him back" means Micaiah was already in prison. See on :8. Again we see how wrong Elijah had been to claim that no prophet of Yahweh existed apart from himself. Micaiah had gone to prison for speaking God's word to Ahab. But Elijah presumably considered there was some curious point of theology or matter of legal practice which enabled Elijah to rubbish Micaiah as not sincere and not a true prophet. It reminds us of how truly committed Christians who have gone to jail or even death for their witness... are trashed by others as somehow not the real Christians. And only they the critics are in fellowship with God. They really need to learn the lesson of Elijah. For he was ejected from his ministry because of those attitudes.</p>


text:
<p>Say, ‘Thus says the king, Put this fellow in the prison, and feed him with bread of affliction and with water of affliction, until I return in peace’- </p><p>I suggest on :8,25 that he was already in prison for his faithful witness against Ahab. So the idea here seems to be that he was to be put in the inner prison and given a very tough regime.</p>


