# commentaries

text:
<p>Now these are the last words of David. David the son of Jesse says, the man who was raised on high says, the anointed of the God of Jacob, the sweet psalmist of Israel- </p><p><a href='B:100 23:1-5'>2Sa 23:1-5</a> gives quite some insight into the nature of David’s spiritual maturity at the end. He comes over as:</p><p>Sure of his salvation</p><p>Aware of his own failures and frailty, acknowledging that his family ‘was not so with God’</p><p>Deeply aware of God’s grace</p><p>Having a clear vision of Jesus the future Messiah, even foreseeing how He would be pierced with a weapon and slain by wicked men- in order to attain our salvation</p><p>Aware that his own rulership was pathetically inferior to that of the Lord Jesus</p><p>Appreciative that all these wonderful things are rooted in the covenant made to himself, which was all his salvation and desire.</p><p>These very same themes we find recurring in the lives of many other servants of God.</p>


text:
<p>The Spirit of Yahweh spoke by me. His word was on my tongue-</p><p>This is a classic statement of Divine inspiration, putting His word upon the tongue of the inspired writers and speakers of His word.</p>


text:
<p>The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spoke to me, ‘One who rules over men righteously, who rules in the fear of God- </p><p>This may have been spoken to David by Samuel when he was first anointed; or by special revelation to David when he first became king. <a href='B:240 29:2'>Pro 29:2</a> alludes to this, saying that when the righteous rule, the people rejoice (s:w:). The king of Israel was to ever remember that God was the ultimate king; and was to rule therefore in respect of Him.</p>


text:
<p>shall be as the light of the morning, when the sun rises, a morning without clouds, when the tender grass springs out of the earth, like the clear shining after rain’- </p><p>This suggests that the ruler in view was to be as the sunrise, after the clouds and darkness of the night have dispersed. This was indeed how David's reign appeared after the reign of Saul. But the clouds returned in the course of David's reign, and it looks ahead to the coming of David's greater Son, the Lord Jesus, to arise as the dawn and re-establish David's kingdom as God's eternal Kingdom on earth (s:w. "sun rises" <a href='B:460 4:2'>Mal 4:2</a>). "Clear shining" is the word used for the "brightness" of the cherubim which were to return to Zion along with the exiles to establish eternal brightness there, with a restored Davidic king (<a href='B:330 1:4'>Eze 1:4</a>; <a href='B:330 10:4'>Eze 10:4</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Most certainly my house is not so with God- </p><p>David is one of the major Old Testament types of the Lord Jesus. The words of David in Psalms 16 are quoted in <a href='B:510 2:25'>Act 2:25</a>; <a href='B:510 2:29'>Act 2:29</a> concerning Jesus: “I have set the Lord always before me... He is at my right hand... You will not leave my soul in hell, neither will You suffer Your holy one to see corruption”. These are words describing David’s feelings about his own death and resurrection; and yet so identified was he with the Messiah, that they are quoted as being directly true of Jesus. But <a href='B:510 2:29'>Act 2:29</a> also quotes these words with a slightly different spin- in that David saw the Lord Jesus always before him, and it was this sense that stabilized him. This could only have been true in that David understood all his feelings and present and future experiences [e.g. resurrection, not being suffered to corrupt eternally] as being typical of the Lord Jesus. He so understood himself as a type of the One to come that he saw this person as ever with him. This is the extent of the typology. <a href='B:130 17:17'>1Ch 17:17</a> in Young’s Literal has David saying: “Thou hast seen me as a type of the man on high” [i:e. Messiah]. David describes himself at ease with clearly Messianic titles such as ‘the Christ’, ‘the man raised on high’, and then goes on to speak of the Messiah who is to come on the “morning without clouds”, admitting that “verily my house is not so with God” (<a href='B:100 23:1-5'>2Sa 23:1-5</a>). This is only really understandable if we accept that David consciously saw himself as a type of the future Messiah.</p><p>There is an intended ambiguity in the Hebrew text of <a href='B:100 23:5'>2Sa 23:5</a>. The AV has: “Although my house be not so with God…this is all my salvation”; whilst the NIV and other translations suggest the opposite: that because his house was in order, therefore this was all his salvation and desire fulfilled. Solomon and David were sure that the house of David was “with God”, and yet from God’s perspective they weren’t, and the fulfilment of the promises would have to be in the future Messiah.</p><p>Yet He has made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things, and sure, for it is all my salvation, and all my desire, although He doesn’t make it grow- </p><p>David's "desire / delight" was in God's law (<a href='B:230 1:2'>Psa 1:2</a> s:w:) and also in the things of the future Kingdom of God (s:w. <a href='B:100 23:5'>2Sa 23:5</a>); our "delight" in those things is reflected in our attitudes to God's word. And we shall be finally judged according to our 'delights', our dominant desires (s:w. <a href='B:250 3:17'>Ecc 3:17</a>; <a href='B:250 8:6'>Ecc 8:6</a>). The Lord Jesus was devoted to sharing Yahweh's "delight" (<a href='B:290 53:10'>Isa 53:10</a>). We shall be judged according to what are our dominant desires.</p><p><a href='B:290 26:8-9'>Isa 26:8-9</a> parallels “the desire of my soul” with “my spirit”; it is the dominant desire of a man. 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>But all of the ungodly shall be as thorns to be thrust away, because they can’t be taken with the hand- </p><p>The ungodly, like thorns, cannot be taken away by human hand. The sensitivity of the Lord Jesus constructed the parable of the wheat and weeds with the aim of showing the thoughtful how deeply inappropriate is their desire to root up the tares. He clearly had in mind the prophecy of Himself in <a href='B:100 23:6-7'>2Sa 23:6-7</a>: "The sons of Belial shall be all of them as thorns thrust away, because they cannot be taken by (human) hands: but the man that shall touch them (Christ) must be fenced with iron and the staff of a spear; and they shall be utterly burned with fire in the same place (just outside Jerusalem) "where Christ was "fenced with iron". It isn't possible for us to uproot the tares because this can only possibly be done by the one who totally uprooted&nbsp; sin in Himself, dying to it on the cross. This association between Christ's right to judge and His victorious death is shown by the way the "tares" will be burnt in the same area as He was crucified in. Php_2:9-11 reasons along the same lines; because Christ died for us, He therefore has the right to have every knee bowing to Him at the judgment. On account of being "the Son of man" and yet also being our perfect Messiah, He has the right therefore to be judge (<a href='B:500 5:27'>Joh 5:27</a> cp. <a href='B:340 7:13-14'>Dan 7:13-14</a>). The Lord understood all this; and to the thoughtful, those who would grasp His allusion to 2 Samuel 23, He was saying: 'If you think you can root up the tares, if you think you have that wisdom to identify the tares, you are really insulting the greatness of what I achieved on the cross. It's only on account of that that I have the ability and right to divide wheat from tares, sheep from goats'.</p><p>But Adam Clarke understands this simply as "A metaphor taken from hedging; the workman thrusts the thorns aside either with his bill or hand, protected by his impenetrable mitten or glove, till, getting a fair blow at the roots, he cuts them all down. The man is fenced with iron, and the handle of his bill is like the staff of a spear. This is a good representation of the dubbing-bill, with which they slash the thorn hedge on each side before they level the tops by the pruning-shears. The handle is five or six feet long. This is a perfectly natural and intelligible image".</p>


text:
<p>but the man who touches them must be filled with iron and the staff of a spear- </p><p>See on :6. David recognizes that he had failed, that his house was “not so with God”, and yet through the future Messiah, “the light of the morning”, who would be pierced by a spear, the promises to him regarding his eternal future would indeed be fulfilled (<a href='B:100 23:4-5'>2Sa 23:4-5</a>; <a href='B:100 23:7'>2Sa 23:7</a>).</p><p>They shall be utterly burned with fire in the same place- </p><p>This could mean that in the place where the Messianic seed was to be filled with the iron of a spear, those who did this to Him would be burnt. Perhaps they will be literally resurrected to judgment and burnt in the valley of Hinnom, near the place of the Lord's crucifixion.</p>


text:
<p>These are the names of the mighty men whom David had: Josheb Basshebeth a Tahchemonite, chief of the captains; the same was Adino the Eznite, who slew eight hundred at one time- </p><p>"Captains" is a form of the word translated "thirty" used in :23, and is evidence that the "thirty" are not to be read as a literal number; in any case, 37 names are given for the "mighty men", not 30. And there are more in the parallel record in Chronicles. Likewise "hundred" need not be taken literally as 100, rather like the term "legion", and can refer to a military group.</p>


text:
<p>After him was Eleazar the son of Dodai the son of an Ahohite, one of the three mighty men with David, when they defied the Philistines who were there gathered together to battle, and the men of Israel had fled away- </p><p>"Defied" is the word used of how Goliath had defied Israel (<a href='B:90 17:10'>1Sa 17:10</a>; <a href='B:90 17:25-26'>1Sa 17:25-26</a>; <a href='B:90 17:36'>1Sa 17:36</a>; <a href='B:90 17:45'>1Sa 17:45</a>). Later Philistine defiance is described with the same word (<a href='B:100 21:21'>2Sa 21:21</a>). David's victory over Goliath was inspirational to other Israelites, just as the Lord's triumph on the cross should be to us.</p>


text:
<p>He arose, and struck the Philistines until his hand was weary, and his hand froze to the sword; and Yahweh worked a great victory that day; and the people returned after him only to take spoil-</p><p>We note that Yahweh worked a great victory through David over Goliath (same phrase in <a href='B:90 19:5'>1Sa 19:5</a>; see on :12), specifically without a sword. But this man was inspired by David and used in the same way, although his faith was perhaps weaker in that he used a sword, unlike David who turned down the offer of Saul's sword.</p>


text:
<p>After him was Shammah the son of Agee a Hararite. The Philistines were gathered together into a troop, where there was a plot of ground full of lentils; and the people fled from the Philistines- </p><p>The Chronicles record says it was full of barley, so perhaps lentils were grown together with barley. Shammah defended the field of barley because it was valuable to the Israelites. And in this we have a corroboration of the record with how Absalom had burnt Joab's field of barley (<a href='B:100 14:30'>2Sa 14:30</a>). We may wonder why Joab slew Absalom. It could have been that to lose a field of barley was to lose food for many months or even a year. It was therefore a major loss to Joab. As Shammah defended a field of barley with his life, so Joab was so vengeful at the loss of his field of barley that he later slew Absalom.</p>


text:
<p>But he stood in the midst of the plot and defended it, and killed the Philistines- </p><p>"Defended" or "delivered" is the word used for David's victories (<a href='B:90 17:37'>1Sa 17:37</a>; <a href='B:90 30:8'>1Sa 30:8</a>; <a href='B:90 30:18'>1Sa 30:18</a>; <a href='B:90 30:22'>1Sa 30:22</a>) which were clearly so inspirational to his men, as the Lord's victory should be to us.</p><p>And Yahweh worked a great victory- </p><p>The record continually gives the glory to Yahweh for working through His willing workers. They did not achieve these victories in their own strength alone. The very phrase as in :10 of <a href='B:90 19:5'>1Sa 19:5</a> describing how Yahweh gave David the great victory over Goliath. This was clearly inspirational to David's men in their own battles, just as the Lord's victory on the cross should not be seen simply as a historical achievement for us, but an abiding inspiration to us to in essence do likewise.</p>


text:
<p>Three of the thirty chief men went down- </p><p>Not literally thirty; see on :23.</p><p>And came to David in the harvest time- </p><p><a href='B:130 11:15'>1Ch 11:15</a> "to the rock"; see on :14.</p><p>To the cave of Adullam; and the troop of the Philistines was encamped in the valley of Rephaim- </p><p>The giants of the Philistines were in the valley of the giants. And they even had a garrison in David's home town (:14). They appeared insuperable. This refers to an incident during the campaign of <a href='B:100 5:17'>2Sa 5:17</a>.</p>


text:
<p>David was then in the stronghold; and the garrison of the Philistines was then in Bethlehem- </p><p>The hideout of <a href='B:100 5:17'>2Sa 5:17</a>. The rock or hill of Adullam was surrounded by valleys fully viewable from the top of the hill, making it a strong position. Yet despite the obvious tactical advantages of the place, David's Psalms repeatedly describe Yahweh as his rock, stronghold and fortress.</p>


text:
<p>David longed and said, Oh that one would give me water to drink of the well of Bethlehem, which is by the gate!- </p><p>This has absolute psychological credibility. A leader of partisans sitting with his men in a cave, bitterly reflecting that the enemy have placed a garrison in his home village... would indeed make such a passing, under his breath comment like this.</p>


text:
<p>The three mighty men broke through the army of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David: but he would not drink of it, but poured it out to Yahweh- </p><p>We see here the intense personal loyalty to David which is a theme throughout the record. It looks forward to that which there is to be between the Lord Jesus and we who follow Him in these outlaw days of our generation.</p>


text:
<p>He said, Be it far from me, Yahweh, that I should do this! Isn’t it the blood of the men who went in jeopardy of their lives? Therefore he would not drink it. The three mighty men did these things- </p><p>Despite the intense personal loyalty which David inspired, he is to be commended for not allowing this to turn into a mere personality cult. He poured out that water to Yahweh, feeling unworthy to drink it. We note that water represented blood. This is a warning against being too literalistic in requirements concerning the elements of the breaking of bread service. David perceived the spirit of the law about drink offerings, and "poured [water] out to Yahweh" (:16) in a cave, not being a Levitical priest, and far from the sanctuary.</p>


text:
<p>Abishai, the brother of Joab, the son of Zeruiah, was chief of the three. He lifted up his spear against three hundred and killed them, and had a name among the three- </p><p>"Hundred", like "legion", need not be read literally; it could refer to a group or military subdivision. Again the idea of singularly attaining victory against a multitude is a replication in spirit of David's victory over Goliath.</p>


text:
<p>Wasn’t he the most honourable of the three? Therefore he was made their captain: however, he didn’t attain to the three- </p><p>This apparently means that he was demoted. This happened several times, as David considered that military valour was not the prime qualification for the post of army general, but rather perceiving grace and not shedding the blood of war in peace. Because Joab clearly failed to understand grace, David replaced him with Amasa- whom Joab later murdered out of jealousy.</p>


text:
<p>Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, the son of a valiant man of Kabzeel, who had done mighty deeds- </p><p>Benaiah was one of David's senior military commanders (<a href='B:100 8:18'>2Sa 8:18</a>; <a href='B:130 27:5'>1Ch 27:5</a>), and the Hebrew of <a href='B:100 23:20'>2Sa 23:20</a> can be translated "Benaiah the son of Jehoiada the priest, as head", i:e. of a group of David's mighty men. The Jehoiada in view as his father would therefore be Jehoiada the priest. The idea is that priests were also military leaders within David's army, indeed it seems there were a large group of them as ordinary soldiers in <a href='B:130 12:27'>1Ch 12:27</a>. This shows how priesthood was not understood as abstract spirituality, but that spirituality was articulated in practice. And this, along with the hints in the names of the mighty men that some were Levites, is significant in that the Levites were not numbered as they were exempt from military service (<a href='B:40 1:47'>Num 1:47</a>). But these chose to do it. See on <a href='B:100 24:5'>2Sa 24:5</a>.</p><p>He killed the two sons of Ariel of Moab: he went down also and killed a lion in the midst of a pit in time of snow- </p><p>Perhaps this incident occurred at this time of the campaign in <a href='B:100 8:2'>2Sa 8:2</a>. Although that campaign was not David and his men at their spiritual best; see note there. We see him following the path of David, whose victory over a literal lion gave him courage to fight Goliath. So Benaiah was inspired by David personally to kill a lion, and then kill two lion like men (AV) of Moab. The lion would have been driven by the cold from the forests, and was preyed upon people. Benaiah therefore risked his life for the sake of his people, and slew the lion.</p>


text:
<p>He killed an Egyptian, a goodly man- </p><p>Literally, a man to look at. This was because he was five cubits tall (<a href='B:130 11:23'>1Ch 11:23</a>).</p><p>And the Egyptian had a spear in his hand; but he went down to him with a staff, and plucked the spear out of the Egyptian’s hand, and killed him with his own spear- </p><p>Again this is a repeat of the spirit of David's victory over Goliath, coming to Goliath with a staff and sling, and slaying him with his own weaponry. The point is repeatedly made that like the Lord's victory on the cross, David's over Goliath was programmatic for the inspiration of his followers to be like him.</p>


text:
<p>Benaiah the son of Jehoiada did these things, and had a name among the three mighty men- </p><p>As noted on :19, there seems to be the idea that some of these men were demoted. Thus Benaiah was both amongst the three, but didn't attain / remain amongst them (:23). "The three" is likely not to be read too literally, but may be a technical term for a group office, like "the thirty"; see on :23.</p>


text:
<p>He was more honourable than the thirty, but he didn’t attain to the three- </p><p>The numbers "three" and "thirty" are not necessarily to be taken literally. A form of the word for "thirty" is used of the "captains" in :8, and of Pharaoh's captains (<a href='B:20 14:7'>Exo 14:7</a>; <a href='B:20 15:4'>Exo 15:4</a>); in any case, 37 names are given for the "mighty men", not 30. And there are more in the parallel record in Chronicles.</p><p>David set him over his guard- </p><p>Heb. 'David appointed him to his audience', he was a member of David's inner circle of advisers on the basis of his faith shown in personal life, and not because of any possession of only theoretical wisdom.</p>


text:
<p>Asahel the brother of Joab was one of the thirty; Elhanan the son of Dodo of Bethlehem- </p><p>Elhanan had also replicated David's victory over Goliath; see on <a href='B:100 21:19'>2Sa 21:19</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Shammah the Harodite, Elika the Harodite- </p><p>This Shammah was "Shammuth the Izrahite" of <a href='B:130 27:8'>1Ch 27:8</a>. "Izrahite" there could be "the Zarhite" a man descended from Zerah the son of Judah. But he was from Harod (<a href='B:100 23:25'>2Sa 23:25</a>), near mount Gilboa in the north. Perhaps he was given this name because he had done something valiant for Saul in the last fateful battle he fought in that area against the Philistines.</p>


text:
<p>Helez the Paltite, Ira the son of Ikkesh the Tekoite- </p><p>He is called a man of Ephraim in <a href='B:130 27:10'>1Ch 27:10</a>. But Beth-Palet [he was a "Paltite", <a href='B:100 23:26'>2Sa 23:26</a>] was a town in the tribe of Judah. We get the impression that many of these men were living outside the territory of their native tribes. That could have been for various reasons, but perhaps we are to conclude that the men who supported David were [as with us and our loyalty to Jesus] those who had had non standard personal lives which left them isolated from their home areas.</p>


text:
<p>Abiezer the Anathothite- </p><p>A priestly town in Benjamin. Perhaps he too was a priest; see on <a href='B:100 23:20'>2Sa 23:20</a>.</p><p>Mebunnai the Hushathite- </p><p>Sibbechai of <a href='B:100 21:18'>2Sa 21:18</a>. He was a descendant of Zerah of Judah (see also on :25) (<a href='B:130 4:4'>1Ch 4:4</a>; <a href='B:130 27:11'>1Ch 27:11</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Zalmon the Ahohite- </p><p>Called Ilai in <a href='B:130 11:29'>1Ch 11:29</a>. There is only one Hebrew letter different. This would be an example of slight errors in copying which are found in the Hebrew text, although overall it is Divinely inspired.</p><p>Maharai the Netophathite- </p><p>This was near Jerusalem and the Levitical singers lived there after the exile (<a href='B:150 2:22'>Ezr 2:22</a>; <a href='B:160 11:28'>Neh 11:28</a>); so he too may have been a Levite living in Judah. See on :20.</p>


text:
<p>Heleb the son of Baanah the Netophathite- </p><p>See on :28.</p><p>Ittai the son of Ribai of Gibeah of the children of Benjamin- </p><p>He was from Saul's birthplace, and so would have rejected Saul for David, although David was not from his tribe. He did what was counter instinctive and countercultural, as all David's followers did. And as do the followers of his greater Son.</p>


text:
<p>Benaiah a Pirathonite, Hiddai of the brooks of Gaash- </p><p>Pirathon was in Ephraim (<a href='B:70 12:15'>Jdg 12:15</a>), and there was always antipathy between Judah and Ephraim. So as noted on :29, here again was a man who stepped out from his surrounding cultural expectations in loyalty to David.</p>


text:
<p>Abialbon the Arbathite- </p><p>Beth Arabah was a small settlement right out in the desert (<a href='B:60 15:61'>Jos 15:61</a>; <a href='B:60 18:22'>Jos 18:22</a>), therefore also called Arabah (<a href='B:60 18:18'>Jos 18:18</a>). From such a poor and obscure place there arose a man who was attracted to David's cause (<a href='B:100 23:31'>2Sa 23:31</a>), just as the Lord calls all manner of unusual people to Himself today.</p><p>Azmaveth the Barhumite- </p><p>Coming from Bahurim, he would have been aware of David's shameful behaviour there (see on <a href='B:100 3:16'>2Sa 3:16</a>) and yet he still followed David. He would have seen David's actions to Michael and Paltiel as out of character with David generally, and didn't allow his loyalty to be fazed by them.</p>


text:
<p>Eliahba the Shaalbonite, the sons of Jashen, Jonathan- </p><p>Eliahba was from Shaalabbin in Dan in the far north, very far from David's origins (<a href='B:100 23:32'>2Sa 23:32</a>; <a href='B:60 19:42'>Jos 19:42</a>). But somehow he encountered David, and loyally followed him. We marvel at the extent of those who followed David; they were from all over Israel. In those days of limited communication, we wonder how he came to know David well enough to give his life to his cause. But it is the same marvel as we reflect how people are called to the Lord Jesus today.</p>


text:
<p>Shammah the Hararite, Ahiam the son of Sharar the Ararite-</p><p>To reconcile this with the record in Chronicles, we may need to read Shammah as one of the sons of Jonathan of the preceding verse. We could then read this verse along with the last part of :32 as "Jonathan the son of Shammah, the son of Agee the Hararite."</p>


text:
<p>Eliphelet the son of Ahasbai, the son of the Maacathite- </p><p>Beth-Maachah was a town in Naphtali (<a href='B:100 20:14'>2Sa 20:14</a>), confirming the impression that David's closest supporters were not just local family friends, but men providentially drawn to him from all over Israel.</p><p>Eliam the son of Ahithophel the Gilonite- </p><p>Eliam was the father of Bathsheba, making Ahithophel her grandfather. We can more readily understand why he turned against David after his shameful behaviour with his granddaughter.</p>


text:
<p>Hezro the Carmelite, Paarai the Arbite- </p><p>Arab is in Judah whereas Carmel is in northern Israel. The juxtaposition of the two confirms the impression that David's supporters were from all over Israel. The way they were all united together around this man from Bethlehem is amazing, and points forward to the gathering of the disparate followers of the Lord Jesus around Him today.</p>


text:
<p>Igal the son of Nathan of Zobah, Bani the Gadite- </p><p>Chronicles has "Joel the brother of Nathan" but Igal and Joel in Hebrew are very similar. Igal would have been a Syrian from Zobah, perhaps one of the soldiers who fought against David (<a href='B:100 10:6'>2Sa 10:6</a>) and then converted to him. The Gittites who followed David were likewise Philistines from Gath who were once his enemies but converted to his God, and devoted themselves zealously to Him. This is an incredible witness to the power of Yahweh to convert, because such willing defections of individuals to the people and God of their enemies, and being zealously committed to Him, was unheard of in their society. See on :37.</p>


text:
<p>Zelek the Ammonite, Naharai the Beerothite, armour bearers to Joab the son of Zeruiah- </p><p>As noted on :36, the one time enemies of David such as Zelek the Ammonite became his most committed followers. Or perhaps his conversion was a result of the one time friendship between David and Ammon, and the support for David by Shobi (<a href='B:100 17:27'>2Sa 17:27</a>). Likewise Naharai was from Beeroth, which although counted to Benjamin (<a href='B:100 4:2'>2Sa 4:2</a>) was inhabited by Gentile Gibeonites, whom Saul had persecuted.</p>


text:
<p>Ira the Ithrite, Gareb the Ithrite- </p><p>The faithful Ithrites (<a href='B:100 23:38'>2Sa 23:38</a>) were from Kirjath Jearim (<a href='B:130 2:53'>1Ch 2:53</a>), perhaps converted to a more spiritual outlook by the long presence of the ark amongst them (<a href='B:90 7:2'>1Sa 7:2</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Uriah the Hittite: thirty-seven in all- </p><p>As noted on :20, the number "thirty" need not be read literally, Uriah is mentioned last to draw attention to him. His father in law was also one of the mighty men (:34), so the shame of what David did was felt very strongly in the ranks of his closest followers.</p>


text:
<p>Again- </p><p>I will suggest on :25 that there are similarities with the cursing of the land at the time of <a href='B:100 21:14'>2Sa 21:14</a>. So "again" may mean that this final cameo of Davidic history is another example as that of 2 Samuel 21, of where Yahweh's anger was against the land of Israel and He was then "intreated for the land" by repentance and sacrifice.</p><p>The anger of Yahweh was kindled against Israel- </p><p>This common phrase is typically used of God's anger with Israel for idolatry, which was clearly a problem amongst them even at David's time. He didn't want to punish them. The census gave them the opportunity to pay a half shekel each for "atonement money" (<a href='B:20 30:12-15'>Exo 30:12-15</a>), lest they be struck with plague. It seems God worked through David's fear of an invasion or forthcoming battle with a 'satan'' / adversary, so that he took a census and the people had the chance to pay that atonement money in loyalty to Yahweh. But they didn't- and so they were struck with plague. David's feeling of guilt over the matter is understandable, but I will argue on :10 that it was more a case of false guilt.</p><p>And He moved David against them saying, Go, number Israel and Judah- </p><p>This is an example of God's Spirit moving people to do things, operating on their heart through circumstances- in this case, the 'satan' of some opposition which provoked David to take a census of his fighters.</p><p>The books of Samuel and Chronicles are parallel accounts of the same incidents, as the four gospels are records of the same events but using different language. <a href='B:100 24:1'>2Sa 24:1</a> records: “Yahweh... moved David against Israel” in order to make him take a census of Israel. The parallel account in <a href='B:130 21:1'>1Ch 21:1</a> says that “Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David” to take the census. In one passage God does the ‘moving’, in the other Satan does it. The only conclusion is that God acted as or through a ‘Satan’ or adversary to David. He did the same to Job by bringing trials into his life, so that Job said about God: “With the strength of Your hand You oppose me” (<a href='B:220 30:21'>Job 30:21</a>); ‘You are acting as a Satan against me’, was what Job was basically saying. Or again, speaking of God: “I must appeal for mercy to my accuser (Satan)” (<a href='B:220 9:15'>Job 9:15</a> NRSV). The idea is sometimes used to describe our greatest adversary, i:e. our own sin, and at times for whole systems or empires which stand opposed to the people of God and personify sinfulness and evil. But it seems obvious that it is a bizarre approach to Bible reading to insist that whenever we meet these words 'Satan' and 'Devil', we are to understand them as references to a personal, supernatural being.</p><p>Perhaps the satan which moved David to number Israel was a Satan-Angel, as in the case of the righteous Angel involved with Balaam, acting as a satan / adversary, and with Job. The parallel with Balaam is that God sent a Satan-Angel against him because His anger was kindled against Balaam (<a href='B:40 22:22'>Num 22:22</a>, the same phrase as in :1). The Angel may have acted directly on David's heart to bring about a trial for both David and Israel. This is one of the many indications that the numbering of the people was not David's sin. See on :10. But the adversaries to David and Israel were at that point the surrounding nations. Even if an Angel was involved, the immediate 'satan' would have been an approaching enemy army; and David wanted to know how many men he had to fight off that invasion. Or it could have been an extension of the gathering of troops made at the time of <a href='B:100 20:4'>2Sa 20:4</a>, when David wanted to know how many soldiers he could really count on after Absalom's rebellion. See on :2.</p>


text:
<p>The king said to Joab the captain of the army, who was with him, Now go back and forth through all the tribes of Israel, from Dan even to Beersheba, and number the people, that I may know the sum of the people- </p><p>The list of David's mighty men just given in 2 Samuel 23 included men literally from Dan to Beersheba. I suggested on :1 that the occasion of this census may have been when David wanted to know how many soldiers he could really count on after Absalom's rebellion. It's possible that although out of chronological sequence, the catalogue of mighty men in 2 Samuel 23 was the result of this census. This would explain Joab's comment in <a href='B:130 21:3'>1Ch 21:3</a> "Are they not all my Lord's servants?", as if to say 'Loyalty to you is not in question, taking a census won't prove loyalty to you'.</p>


text:
<p>Joab said to the king, Now may Yahweh your God add to the people, however many they may be, one hundred times- </p><p>Joab is alluding to <a href='B:50 1:11'>Deu 1:11</a>. For all his unspirituality, he did also have a spiritual side. He was not unaware of the scriptures, and seemed to want to do what was genuinely best for Israel. Men with deeply mixed motives is quite a theme of the Bible's historical records; and that is because they are true to life. For that is how people are.</p><p>And may the eyes of my lord the king see it. But why does my lord the king delight in this thing?- </p><p>The numbering of Israel was another weak moment for David (note <a href='B:100 24:3-4'>2Sa 24:3-4</a>; <a href='B:100 24:10'>2Sa 24:10</a>), leading to suffering for others. Yet this same David had written that “there is no king saved by the multitude of an host” (<a href='B:230 33:16'>Psa 33:16</a>). Perhaps this was an expression of repentance after this incident; or, if written before it, an example of David being over confident of his faith. “Why will he be a cause of trespass to Israel?” (<a href='B:130 21:3'>1Ch 21:3</a>) suggests Joab suspected the people would not pay the half shekel required when a census was taken, and so would be led into sin. Although it was their fault, the situation was provoked by God Himself provoking David to take the census, because His anger was kindled against Israel (:1). This would then be an example of God confirming a sinful people in the way they wished to go.</p>


text:
<p>Notwithstanding, the king’s word prevailed against Joab, and against the captains of the army. Joab and the captains of the army went out from the presence of the king, to number the people of Israel- </p><p>The army captains likewise agreed with Joab that the census was not a good idea. This incident is at a time when David's word prevails against Joab and the generals, and we get the impression that this would not have happened after his sin with Bathsheba, after which Joab speaks and acts towards David in a belligerent manner. So the incident may be not in chronological order; indeed none of the cameos of Davidic history at the end of 2 Samuel are in chronological order.</p>


text:
<p>They passed over the Jordan, and encamped in Aroer, on the right side of the city that is in the middle of the valley of Gad, and to Jazer- </p><p>The list of cities given in this section is detailed, and if they just describe the itinerary and maximum extent of the route taken by the generals in making the census, we wonder why such detail is given. I suggest that the areas named were those where they found significant numbers of men loyal to David and willing to fight for him. For that was the purpose of the census. Jazer was a priestly city (<a href='B:60 21:39'>Jos 21:39</a>). Yet it was on the very borders of Hebrew territory, suggesting that Israel gave the Levites the remotest and very poorest of their cities, rather than the best. Yet we also see the theme discussed on <a href='B:100 23:20'>2Sa 23:20</a> continued- that the Levites, although exempted from military service by the Law (<a href='B:40 1:47'>Num 1:47</a>), were often to be found amongst David's most loyal soldiers.</p>


text:
<p>then they came to Gilead, and to the land of Tahtim Hodshi; and they came to Dan Jaan, and around to Sidon- </p><p>"Tahtim Hodshi" is unknown, so we can go with LXX "to the land of the Hittites to Kedesh". Sidon likewise was never really inhabited by the Hebrews (<a href='B:70 1:31'>Jdg 1:31</a>) but rather by the Phoenicians, who are therefore called the Zidonians. But the idea may be that in these Gentile areas, David had soldiers he could count on. Because it is a theme of the list of commanders in 2 Samuel 23 that David's most loyal supporters were often Gentiles or from distant, isolated areas. This is often the case with the Lord's supporters in this life.</p>


text:
<p>and came to the stronghold of Tyre, and to all the cities of the Hivites, and of the Canaanites; and they went out to the south of Judah, at Beersheba- </p><p>This could be simply defining the borders of the areas covered. But there is also the possibility that just as the mighty men of David were from various odd places, there were pockets of loyalty to David in various unusual places such as the city of Tyre- which was never generally inhabited by the Israelites. And likewise, the list of the mighty men in 2 Samuel 23 include Gentiles who had previously been David's enemies. And so it is possible that amongst the Canaanites, there were groups of men loyal to David who could be counted as his loyal soldiers.</p>


text:
<p>So when they had gone back and forth through all the land, they came to Jerusalem at the end of nine months and twenty days- </p><p>The maximum human gestation period may have been thus understood at the time. We can understand the concern of Joab and the generals; they were going to be scattered throughout Israel and this would leave the nation very weak and open to attack. We see the contradiction, the fear was of some 'Satan', some external group of attackers, and yet by the military leadership scattering amongst Israel to take the census, they were left even weaker before the threat. We wonder at what stage David was ever able to allow his army generals nine months to take a census. We get the impression that he was under constant military threat, especially after the sin with Bathsheba. So this incident may have occurred well before that.</p>


text:
<p>Joab delivered the sum of the numbering of the people to the king: and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men who drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men-</p><p>According to <a href='B:130 21:5'>1Ch 21:5</a>, there were 1,100,000 “men that drew sword” in Israel. According to <a href='B:100 24:9'>2Sa 24:9</a>, there were 800,000 “valiant men” in Israel, according to the same census. One way to reconcile this is to focus on this distinction between "valiant men" and standard soldiers. The Samuel record is perceiving that there was a higher level of commitment amongst some who were numbered. There were the enthusiasts, and those who merely could draw a sword. They were all living on different levels.</p><p>The numbers are also difficult because the Hebrew word for "thousand" need not mean a literal 1,000, but it is at time used to refer to a military subdivision. And it can have different definitions in some areas and at some times and by some writers. That is likely the reason for the difference between the numbers presented in Samuel and Chronicles, rather than textual corruption. If taken literally, the numbers are unrealistic; nearly 2 million soldiers (according to Chronicles) in the combined kingdom would imply a huge total population. Even if there were six million population in the territory they then inhabited (about 11,000 square miles), this would give an average population density of 600 / square mile. It seems really doubtful that the country could have supported this.</p><p>The Levites were not numbered as they were exempt from military service (<a href='B:40 1:47'>Num 1:47</a>), indeed Joab didn't number Benjamin or Levi (<a href='B:130 21:6'>1Ch 21:6</a>) which would further heighten the total population.</p><p>"Drew the sword" is the same phrase used in <a href='B:130 21:16'>1Ch 21:16</a> of how the destroying Angel had a drawn sword in his hand. The idea seems to be that God's Angelic power was more than a match for thousands of Israelites with their drawn swords. This would be an argument in favour of the idea that David did indeed sin at this time by trusting in his own swords, although the greater sin appears to have been with the people; see on :10.</p>


text:
<p>David’s heart struck him after that he had numbered the people- </p><p>This phrase is used three times of David; his heart struck him concerning cutting off Saul's skirt (<a href='B:90 24:5'>1Sa 24:5</a> - false guilt), about Bathsheba (<a href='B:230 102:4'>Psa 102:4</a> - true guilt) and now about numbering the people (<a href='B:100 24:10'>2Sa 24:10</a>), which I suggest was a mixture of true and false guilt.</p><p>David said to Yahweh, I have sinned greatly in that which I have done-</p><p>The response is similar to that to the sin with Bathsheba, again before a prophet. Balaam also said the same words (<a href='B:40 22:34'>Num 22:34</a>), and again we find an Angel 'standing'. Although David did take false guilt, it seems there was some element of real failure.</p><p>But now, Yahweh, put away, I beg you, the iniquity of Your servant; for I have done very foolishly- </p><p>The allusion is to the foolishness of Saul (<a href='B:90 13:13'>1Sa 13:13</a>). He feels he is no better than Saul for his trust in human strength; see on :14. <a href='B:130 21:6-7'>1Ch 21:6-7</a> says that David's "word" of command of the census was "abominable" to Joab, and also God was "displeased" with "this thing", the same Hebrew translated "word". Unless this refers to His displeasure with Joab for despising David's word. Yahweh had likewise been "displeased" with David in the matter of Uriah (<a href='B:100 11:27'>2Sa 11:27</a> s:w:). But although David's lack of faith wasn't good, it seems to me on balance that he was largely taking false guilt. Perhaps we are to read that God was displeased with Israel's lack of response to the word of command about the census, seeing Israel didn't pay the half shekel required at the time. Indeed David's trust in human numbers would not have been pleasing to God, it was a slip backwards. But we wonder whether he took false guilt in this matter. For it was allowable to take a census of Israel, although there was to be a half shekel tax paid at the time, which if not paid would result in plague (<a href='B:20 30:12-15'>Exo 30:12-15</a>). Joab perhaps guessed that those numbered would not pay this and therefore the census would lead Israel into sin. This is why God chose the punishment of plague; not upon David, but upon Israel. Yet David perhaps realized all that, but knew that his lack of faith in wanting a census, his lack of consideration for the weakness of others, would lead them into sin and punishment. And therefore he felt guilty. It could be argued that his sacrifice atoned for himself and for the people, but they still suffered for not having paid the required "atonement money". But then we must balance against this the comment that "David had done that which was right in the eyes of Yahweh, and didn’t turn aside from anything that He commanded him all the days of his life, except only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite" (<a href='B:110 15:5'>1Ki 15:5</a>). No mention is made of the matter of the census. There is true guilt, the guilt we should take for our actual sins; and false guilt, the guilt put on us by others and the malfunctioning of the human conscience. In this matter of David's guilt about the census, we may have an example of a man taking false guilt. The fact Israel and not David were punished with plague would rather confirm this. It may be impossible for us to sort out within us what is true guilt or false guilt, at least not be any intellectual process. But we can rest assured that all our guilt, of whatever kind, is met in the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus, the ultimate guilt offering.</p>


text:
<p>When David rose up in the morning, the word of Yahweh came to the prophet Gad, David’s seer, saying- </p><p>Gad was to write his record of these things (<a href='B:130 29:29'>1Ch 29:29</a>), so maybe his record has been incorporated here into 2 Samuel.</p>


text:
<p>Go and speak to David, ‘Thus says Yahweh, I offer you three things. Choose one of them, that I may do it to you’- </p><p>When given a choice, Ahaz declined to choose, and was condemned for it (<a href='B:290 7:11'>Isa 7:11</a>). David declines to choose, because he preferred to fall into God's hands of grace than decide himself; and is not condemned. The same actions can be committed with different motives, and therefore only God can judge. But the invitation to "choose one of them" was for David's education, to elicit his reflection as to whether it was appropriate that he were punished, or the people; or he be punished along with the people. God's choice of plague was in accordance with the teaching of <a href='B:20 30:12-15'>Exo 30:12-15</a>, that if Israel didn't pay the atonement money at the time of a census, they would be punished with plague.</p>


text:
<p>So Gad came to David, and told him, and said to him, Shall seven years of famine come to you in your land?- </p><p>LXX "three years", in line with <a href='B:130 21:12'>1Ch 21:12</a>. As king, this would not have hurt David personally. He was asked to consider whether this was appropriate.</p><p>Or will you flee three months before your foes while they pursue you? Or shall there be three days of plague in your land? Now answer, and consider what answer I shall return to Him who sent me-</p><p>Famine, war and plague are the three Divine judgments listed in <a href='B:330 14:21'>Eze 14:21</a> as coming upon Jerusalem at the time of the exile. David had already experienced war and famine (because of the Gibeonites, 2 Samuel 21). Now he was to experience plague. The lesson to the exiles was that these judgments had indeed come because of sin, but the experience of them could be cut short by intense prayer and repentance after the pattern of David. For Yahweh "relented" of the three days plague because of David's prayer and sacrifice. See on :15. We see here the open ended nature of His purpose.</p>


text:
<p>David said to Gad, I am in distress- </p><p>The phrase "sore distressed" in <a href='B:130 21:13'>1Ch 21:13</a> is that used of Saul's great distress on the night of his final condemnation (<a href='B:90 28:15'>1Sa 28:15</a>). David felt he had been foolish as Saul had been (<a href='B:100 24:10'>2Sa 24:10</a> = <a href='B:90 13:13'>1Sa 13:13</a>). David had replaced Saul because of Saul's apostacy, but he was being made to realize through this experience (even if it was all false guilt), that he too was a sinner and saved by his acceptance of grace, and not because he was intrinsically better than Saul.</p><p>Let us fall now into the hand of Yahweh; for His mercies are great. Let me not fall into the hand of man-&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>David appealed to God's mercy in the matter of Bathsheba (<a href='B:230 51:1'>Psa 51:1</a>). Perhaps he learned from that, and chose to throw himself upon that same mercy. But the exact timing of this incident isn't clear. Perhaps it was because of learning about God's grace through this incident that he later learned to throw himself upon God's great mercy when he sinned with Bathsheba and against Uriah. David’s experience of God’s grace stayed with him when he faced up to the results of his errors in the future. From experience, he can ask to fall into the Lord’s hand rather than man’s, because “His mercies are great” (<a href='B:100 24:14'>2Sa 24:14</a>)- using the same two Hebrew words he had used when Nathan came to him in <a href='B:230 51:1'>Psa 51:1</a>: “Have mercy upon me… according unto the multitude [Heb. ‘greatness’] of thy tender mercies”. And so the experience of God’s gracious mercy over one sin fortifies us to believe in His grace when, sadly, we fall again; although, in passing, I think that in 2 Samuel 24, David himself didn’t really do so much wrong. Yet he perceived himself to have sinned, so the point is still established.</p><p>Truly David is our example. David was very much involved in Israel his people. He saw himself as their representative. "The God of my rock is my shield... he is a shield to all them that trust in him" (<a href='B:100 22:3'>2Sa 22:3</a>; <a href='B:100 22:31'>2Sa 22:31</a>). “I am in a great strait; let us fall now into the hand of the Lord” (<a href='B:100 24:14'>2Sa 24:14</a>) reflects this. When he sung Psalms, he invited them to come and sing along with him (<a href='B:230 105:2'>Psa 105:2</a>; <a href='B:230 107:22'>Psa 107:22</a>; <a href='B:230 111:1'>Psa 111:1</a>). And many of these Psalms of praise seem to have their origin in his experience of forgiveness regarding Bathsheba. The Lord based His parables of the lost sheep and the man finding the treasure of the Gospel in a field on the statements of David (<a href='B:230 119:162'>Psa 119:162</a>; <a href='B:230 119:176'>Psa 119:176</a>), as if He saw David as representative of all those who would truly come to Him. "Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven" (<a href='B:230 32:1'>Psa 32:1</a>), David wrote, after experiencing God's mercy in the matter of Bathsheba. But Paul sees this verse as David describing "the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works" (<a href='B:520 4:6'>Rom 4:6</a>). Each of us are in need of a like justification; therefore we find ourselves in David's position.</p><p>God is kinder than men. It's better to be punished by Him than by men. This puts paid to the Catholic conception of God as a merciless torturer of wicked men. Clearly the doctrine of eternal torments was invented by men, not God.</p>


text:
<p>So Yahweh sent a plague on Israel from the morning even to the appointed time; and there died of the people from Dan even to Beersheba seventy thousand men- </p><p>"The appointed time" could refer to the time of the evening sacrifice, which David was to offer on Araunah's property and not at the sanctuary. Or the idea may be that there was an "appointed time" of suffering but it was not defined, because it was open ended- the terminus depended upon the intensity of David's prayers and sacrifice. The three day period of plague (:13) was changed because "Yahweh relented" (:16)- because of David's prayer shortening the stipulated time period. This is why there can be no prescriptive chronology of events in the last days, nor date set for the Lord's return. The appointed time is variable, depending upon factors such as human prayer, repentance and taking the Gospel to all the world.</p><p>LXX "So David chose for himself the mortality: and they were the days of wheat-harvest; and the Lord sent a pestilence upon Israel from morning till noon, and the plague began among the people"</p>


text:
<p>When the angel stretched out his hand towards Jerusalem to destroy it- </p><p><a href='B:130 21:16'>1Ch 21:16</a> says that the Angel had a "drawn sword" in hand, the same words used of the Angel before Balaam (<a href='B:40 22:23'>Num 22:23</a>; <a href='B:40 22:31'>Num 22:31</a>). His donkey "turned aside", using the same word for "stretched out" here. The sin of Balaam was connected with idolatry, and I suggested on :1 that this was the reason for God's anger being kindled against Israel. The sin of Balaam has connections with that of Israel, but not particularly with that of David. Again we get the impression the judgments were for the sake of the sins of the people, the anger of Yahweh was with them, rather than with David for wanting to take a census.</p><p>Yahweh relented of the disaster, and said to the angel who destroyed the people, It is enough. Now stay your hand. The angel of Yahweh was by the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite- </p><p>This could imply that Araunah's area was about to be destroyed. But it seems we have here an example of the summary being made, and then we read how that came about. Perhaps David was in Jerusalem, maybe praying at the sanctuary, and saw the Angel standing over the nearby hill of Jebus or Moriah. His prayer and obedient, urgent sacrifice then stopped the Angel right there. The Angel "stood" by the threshing floor (<a href='B:130 21:15'>1Ch 21:15</a>), as if the Angel's path of destruction was stopped right there by the sacrifice offered in that place.</p><p>The encouragement for the later generation of Jews was that the evil planned upon Jerusalem could be relented from; if there was genuine repentance. God's hand here was "stayed", but the encouragement was that God would not "stay" His hand in His program of redemption; the same word is often translated "fail" in the assurance that God will not fail His people in ultimately restoring them.</p><p>This “destroying Angel” (<a href='B:130 21:15'>1Ch 21:15</a> RV) is surely “the destroyer” who operated in the wilderness. We see here one Angel having the ability to formulate a purpose and another blindly carrying it out until told not to- a scenario which we&nbsp; see repeated elsewhere (e. g. at the Passover and in Ezekiel 9). It was only David's prayer which lead to “the destroyer” ceasing. Notice how the Angel repented and then encouraged David to offer a sacrifice so the Angel would be "intreated for the land" (:19,25). Similarly, the Angel repented of punishing Israel and wanted to restore them, and to enable this to happen He encouraged the people through Ezra to be spiritual. Thus Angelic repentance has to be confirmed by human action.</p>


text:
<p>David had spoken to Yahweh when he saw the angel who struck the people, and had said- </p><p><a href='B:130 21:17'>1Ch 21:17</a> adds “David lifted up his eyes, and saw the angel of the Lord standing between the earth and the heaven, having a drawn sword in his hand stretched out over Jerusalem. And David and the elders, who were clothed in sackcloth, fell upon their faces”.</p><p>Behold, I have sinned, and I have done perversely; but these sheep, what have they done? Please let Your hand be against me, and against my father’s house- </p><p>This was effectively asking God to abrogate the promises about his family of 2 Samuel 7.</p><p>Thanks to David building an altar at his own expense and asking God to kill him and his family, God stopped the plague upon Israel (<a href='B:100 24:16-17'>2Sa 24:16-17</a> - the stretched out hand of God in destruction was what David asked to be upon him and his family). Israel were suffering the effect of their own sin, in not paying the temple tax (<a href='B:20 30:11-16'>Exo 30:11-16</a>); but&nbsp; in the spirit of Christ, David was willing to die for them. And his dominant desire was counted as if it had been done, and thanks to his self-sacrificial spirit, the people were saved when they personally were unworthy. 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>). Through our personal dying to the flesh, the life of Christ is manifest not only in us, but is made available to others: “Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body. For we which live are always delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh. So then death worketh in us, but life in you” (<a href='B:540 4:10-12'>2Co 4:10-12</a>). The life that is even now made manifest in us is also made available to work in others because death to the flesh has worked in us personally.</p>


text:
<p>Gad came that day to David- </p><p>At the direction of the Angel (<a href='B:130 21:18'>1Ch 21:18</a>).</p><p>And said to him, Go up, build an altar to Yahweh on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite- </p><p><a href='B:140 3:1'>2Ch 3:1</a> 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.</p>


text:
<p>David went up according to the saying of Gad, as Yahweh commanded- </p><p><a href='B:130 21:16'>1Ch 21:16</a> says that David went along with the elders of Israel, clothed in sackcloth. David is always presented as totally obedient to the prophets in his life (Samuel, Nathan and Gad), unlike Saul who was consistently disobedient to God's word through Samuel.</p>


text:
<p>Araunah looked out- </p><p>From the place in the threshing area where he was threshing wheat, where he and his four sons had hidden from the presence of the Angel (<a href='B:130 21:20'>1Ch 21:20</a>). The records in Chronicles and Samuel perfectly fit with each other, although clearly focusing upon different elements of the scene; just like the gospel records.</p><p>And saw the king and his servants coming on towards him. Then Araunah went out, and bowed himself before the king with his face to the ground- </p><p>Chronicles has "saw the Angel". <a href='B:100 24:20'>2Sa 24:20</a> "saw the king". This may reflect the confusion between malak ["Angel"] and melek ["king"], especially as ancient Hebrew didn't add the vowel points and the consonants of the two words are the same, m-l-k. Or it could be that Araunah saw David and also at the same time saw the Angel behind him in some form.</p>


text:
<p>Araunah said, Why has my lord the king come to his servant? David said, To buy your threshing floor, to build an altar to Yahweh- </p><p>The urgent thing required was sacrifice to God represented by the Angel hovering over the hill where both men were standing, about to slay the people of Jerusalem. We wonder why David firstly asks to buy the threshing floor, as this was a long process which Araunah may have needed to think carefully about as it was his home. Maybe this is a hint that Araunah was not a worshipper of Yahweh and therefore the land must be bought before an offering to another God could be made upon it. There is more evidence for that on :23. Or it may be that David wanted to offer the most genuine sacrifice, which was thought to be offered upon one's own property. He offered to buy the threshing floor "for the full price" (<a href='B:130 21:22'>1Ch 21:22</a>), the same phrase used of Abraham's purchase of property from the Canaanites in <a href='B:10 23:9'>Gen 23:9</a>. This confirms the impression that Araunah was a Canaanite and not an Israelite.</p><p>That the plague may be stopped from afflicting the people- </p><p>This is the very phrase of <a href='B:40 16:48'>Num 16:48</a>; <a href='B:40 16:50'>Num 16:50</a> and <a href='B:40 25:8'>Num 25:8</a>; <a href='B:230 106:30'>Psa 106:30</a>, where the people of Israel suffered from plague because of their idolatry, and Aaron stopped it, standing between the living and the dead. David was in an identical position to Aaron, again acting as the High Priest. And again we have evidence that the essential sin being punished was not David's taking of a census, but Israel's sin (see on :1).</p>


text:
<p>Araunah said to David, Let my lord the king take and offer up what seems good to him. Behold, the cattle for the burnt offering, and the threshing instruments and the yokes of the oxen for the wood- </p><p>Chronicles adds “and the wheat for the meat offering”. LXX "and the wheels and furniture of the oxen for wood". "The threshing instruments" may have referred to quite a major and expensive piece of equipment. But Araunah totally senses the urgency of the situation and is willing to offer even this as wood.</p>


text:
<p>all this, my king, does Araunah give to the king. Araunah said to the king, May Yahweh your God accept you- </p><p>AV "All these things did Araunah, as a king, give unto the king". This could mean that Araunah ['the scarlet one', maybe hinting at royalty] was king of Jebus at the time; or had once been. The way Araunah speaks of "Yahweh your God", whereas David speaks of "Yahweh my God" (:24) could support the idea that he was a Gentile. But he was genuinely willing to give freely toward the offering of sacrifice to Yahweh. There are three different spellings of Araunah's name in the record, and this might suggest his name was unusual and a Gentile name, which could be legitimately be transcribed in different ways in Hebrew. See on :21.</p>


text:
<p>The king said to Araunah, No; but I will most certainly buy it from you for a price. I will not offer burnt offerings to Yahweh my God which cost me nothing. So David bought the threshing floor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver- </p><p>I have suggested that the historical records were in places edited and made relevant for the exiles; and given their mean attitude to offerings in <a href='B:460 1:10'>Mal 1:10</a>; <a href='B:460 1:13-14'>Mal 1:13-14</a>, David's example and principle would have been pertinent. And this is an abiding principle; sacrifice is to be costly, we are to be left "minus", rather than being without cost to us.</p><p><a href='B:130 21:25'>1Ch 21:25</a> speaks of 600 shekels for "the place", whilst <a href='B:100 24:24'>2Sa 24:24</a> mentions 50 shekels for the threshing floor and oxen. The entire area was later bought, in order to build the temple on that site (<a href='B:130 22:1'>1Ch 22:1</a>; <a href='B:140 3:1'>2Ch 3:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p>David built an altar to Yahweh there, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings. So Yahweh heard the prayer for the land, and the plague was stayed from Israel- </p><p>LXX "And the Lord hearkened to the land", as if His pity was stirred by the tragedy seen there. The idea is the same as in <a href='B:100 21:14'>2Sa 21:14</a>, that the sin had affected the land, but sacrifice meant that the land's suffering stopped once it had been repented of and atoned for. <a href='B:130 21:26'>1Ch 21:26</a> adds that God "answered him from the sky by fire on the altar of burnt offering". This is just the language of God justifying Himself over Baal at the time of Elijah. I have suggested throughout that the plague was essentially punishment for Israel's idolatry; see on :1. The Angel put the sword back into its sheath (<a href='B:130 21:27'>1Ch 21:27</a>) at Yahweh's command. We have here a visual representation of God's sensitivity to human prayer and repentance. Burnt offerings always precede peace offerings (<a href='B:100 24:25'>2Sa 24:25</a>), because sacrifice is the principle upon which we can have peace with God. But David remained traumatized by the incident, fearing the sword he had seen (<a href='B:130 21:30'>1Ch 21:30</a>). This was a similar reaction by him to how he feared association with the ark for some period after the slaying of Uzzah (<a href='B:130 13:12-13'>1Ch 13:12-13</a>). The similarity in reaction is another indication that the record is true and the character portrayals absolutely consistent, as could only be true of a Divinely inspired record.</p><p>LXX adds "and Solomon made an addition to the altar afterwards, for it was little at first". The site was purchased for this; see on :24.</p>


text:
<p>Now king David was old and advanced in years; and they covered him with clothes, but he couldn’t keep warm-</p><p>This is a legitimate translation but "keep warm" is a Hebrew term also used about procreation. There appeared to be some great desire that he should produce yet another child:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Therefore his servants said to him, Let there be sought for my lord the king a young virgin. Let her stand before the king, and cherish him; and let her lie on your chest, so that my lord the king may keep warm- </p><p>If indeed there were genuine health reasons for this (although see on :1), it seems morally questionable. Despite David's undoubted faith and spirituality, his life leaves many abiding questions about his basic ethics and those of his immediate circle:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>So they sought for a beautiful young lady throughout all the borders of Israel, and found Abishag the Shunammite, and brought her to the king- </p><p>"Abishag" is literally father / mother of the erring / astray. The language is so similar to <a href='B:190 2:2'>Est 2:2</a> that it indeed seems that a wife, of sorts, was being found for David. Some read "Shulamite", the word of <a href='B:260 6:13'>Son 6:13</a> for Solomon's lover, a female version of the name "Solomon". In this case we can see some kind of manipulation going on to try to ensure that David's final wife and possible child were within Solomon and Bathsheba's camp.</p>


text:
<p>The young lady was very beautiful; and she cherished the king, and ministered to him; but the king didn’t know her intimately-</p><p>This could be read as meaning that she failed to bring him to heat in a sexual sense (see on :1), and so the comment here is to the effect that the plan didn't work. Before David's repentance he appears to have suffered with some kind of serious disease soon after it: "My loins are filled with a loathsome (venereal?) disease: and there is no soundness in my flesh" (<a href='B:230 38:7'>Psa 38:7</a>). It is even possible that David became impotent as a result of this; for we get the impression that from this point onwards he took no other wives, he had no more children, and even the fail safe cure for hypothermia didn't seem to mean much to David (<a href='B:110 1:1-4'>1Ki 1:1-4</a>). Therefore "My lovers and my friends stand aloof from my sore" (<a href='B:230 38:11'>Psa 38:11</a>) must refer to some kind of venereal disease. The Hebrew word translated "lovers" definitely refers to carnal love rather than that of friendship. It may be that an intensive plural is being used here- in which case it means 'my one great lover', i:e. Bathsheba.</p>


text:
<p>Then Adonijah the son of Haggith exalted himself, saying, I will be king- </p><p>He was the oldest surviving son of David and therefore considered in line for the throne.</p><p>Then he prepared him chariots and horsemen, and fifty men to run before him-</p><p>"Prepared" or "established" is a major theme in the promises of the eternal establishment of David's throne (<a href='B:100 7:12-13'>2Sa 7:12-13</a>; <a href='B:100 7:16'>2Sa 7:16</a> etc:), and Solomon wrongly assumed that the conditional nature of the promises concerning the seed were just irrelevant to him as he had wisdom. Therefore he uses the word of how his kingdom has been "established" (<a href='B:110 2:24'>1Ki 2:24</a> s:w:). Solomon's contenders for the throne were all stopped by God, they tried to prepare or establish themselves but it never worked out (<a href='B:100 15:1'>2Sa 15:1</a>; <a href='B:110 1:5'>1Ki 1:5</a>); and so surely Solomon has the idea in mind that he has been established as the promised Messianic seed of David with an eternally "established" throne and kingdom. This leads him to the conclusion that the outcome of wisdom and folly is in this life, and he has no perspective of a final day of judgment and eternal establishment of God's Kingdom on earth. This is why the simplistic dichotomies he presents in Proverbs between the blessed and wise, and the cursed and foolish, are not always true to observed experiences in this life. For it is the future Kingdom which puts them in ultimate perspective.</p>&nbsp;<p>Absalom did the same (<a href='B:100 15:1'>2Sa 15:1</a>), and the similarities in the rebellions mean that David was intended to learn from them.</p>


text:
<p>His father had not displeased him at any time in saying, Why have you done so? And he was also a very handsome man; and he was born after Absalom- </p><p>We are immediately given the hint that he was of the same character and appearance of Absalom, and also similar to Saul (<a href='B:90 9:2'>1Sa 9:2</a>). Perhaps we are to understand that David had never disciplined him, unlike Solomon who in his Proverbs reflects upon David's discipline of him. Or maybe the idea is more specifically that David had never forbidden his clear pretensions to the throne, despite his stated desire for Solomon to succeed him.</p>


text:
<p>He conferred with Joab son of Zeruiah and with Abiathar the priest: they followed Adonijah and helped him- </p><p>That Joab David's cousin, should turn away from David after a lifetime of loyalty is hard to understand. But we sense a personality conflict between the two of them, and indeed it seems that originally Joab had supported Absalom's idea of seizing power, but then fell out with him. David held Joab as too hard a man, not understanding grace; whereas Joab held David to be far too soft, and increasingly lacking strong leadership skills in his old age. The support for Adonijah was perhaps more because of disillusion with David than because Adonijah personally had much to offer.</p><p>Abiathar's father and family had all been slain as a result of loyalty to David, and maybe decades later this remained as a source of bitterness to him. Or perhaps he was simply in a jealousy complex against Zadok, as it is unclear which of them was the high priest.</p>


text:
<p>But Zadok the priest, Benaiah son of Jehoiada, Nathan the prophet, Shimei, Rei and the mighty men who belonged to David, were not with Adonijah- </p><p>We see here the division between the two priests, Abiathar and Zadok, who had been so united in helping David survive Absalom's putsch. Perhaps there was jealousy between them because Abiathar was the priest in Jerusalem, whilst 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>). "The mighty men" are those listed in 2 Samuel 23. If "Shimei" is the Shimei who cursed David, then we see his loyalty to David now; and that David should later order his murder is the more reprehensible.</p>


text:
<p>Adonijah killed sheep and cattle and fatlings by the stone of Zoheleth, which is beside En Rogel; and he called all his brothers, the king’s sons, and all the men of Judah, the king’s servants-</p><p>This is another similarity with Absalom's revolt (see on :5), who began his revolt with a religious festival. It is alluded to by Solomon in <a href='B:240 21:27'>Pro 21:27</a>: "The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination: how much more, when he brings it with a wicked mind!". Solomon may have in view Saul's rejection from the kingship for his wrong attitude to sacrifice (<a href='B:90 15:21-22'>1Sa 15:21-22</a>). Likewise the attempts of Absalom and Adonijah to take the throne from David and Solomon involved the offering of sacrifices (<a href='B:100 15:12'>2Sa 15:12</a>; <a href='B:110 1:9'>1Ki 1:9</a>). What Solomon says in the Proverbs is true on one level, but he harnesses Divine truth to justify himself and his own agendas; just as we can.</p>


text:
<p>but Nathan the prophet, and Benaiah, and the mighty men, and Solomon his brother, he didn’t call-</p><p>As with Absalom's rebellion, sympathizers were invited to a religious feast, and this was used to declare the new king.</p>


text:
<p>Then Nathan spoke to Bathsheba the mother of Solomon saying, Haven’t you heard that Adonijah the son of Haggith reigns, and David our lord doesn’t know it?- </p><p>"Adonijah" means 'Yah is lord', although clearly he wasn't a spiritual man. Nathan refers to David as their 'Lord'. Perhaps this is intended to be another example of how faithful women like Sarah called their husbands "lord" (<a href='B:670 3:6'>1Pe 3:6</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore come, please let me give you advice, that you may save your own life, and the life of your son Solomon-</p><p>Nathan is in fact giving Bathsheba his advice, knowing that the usurper would typically slay the family of his rivals. But Nathan frames his approach as asking for her advice. Bathsheba was it seems the favoured queen. We wonder why Abigail had fallen out of favour; although mortality for women being so low in those times, she may well have died by this stage.</p>


text:
<p>Go in to king David and tell him, ‘Didn’t you, my lord, king, swear to your handmaid saying, Assuredly Solomon your son shall reign after me, and he shall sit on my throne? Why then does Adonijah reign?’-</p><p>It was God who had sworn to David that his "son" would reign on his throne, and Nathan was the prophet through whom he had been told this. But David seems to have assumed that he had some choice to make in directing God's purpose, and had in turn sworn that Solomon should reign on his throne. The similarity of the wording suggests that he assumed Solomon was going to be the fulfilment of the promises to him of 2 Samuel 7. But this was in fact setting Solomon up for spiritual failure, as do many such parental assumptions. For those promises were conditional. And just as David refused to take full note of that, therefore neither did Solomon. He assumed he was the Messianic son of David and ignored the conditions, leading to his own spiritual shipwreck.</p>


text:
<p>Whilst you are talking there with the king, I also will come in after you, and confirm your words- </p><p>Literally, 'fulfil the words'. As discussed on :13, we sense that the words in view are those of the promises to David about his seed, which David had too quickly assumed must refer to Solomon. We note that Nathan too had too quickly assumed he knew God's will and word in <a href='B:100 7:3-5'>2Sa 7:3-5</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Bathsheba went in to the king into the room. The king was very old; and Abishag the Shunammite was ministering to the king- </p><p>We are naturally reminded of she had first come in to the king when they committed adultery. And now she enters his bedroom uninvited, and finds a far younger woman trying to sexually arouse him (see on :1). The whole situation is indeed tragic, and the outcome of not going God's way in moral matters.</p>


text:
<p>Bathsheba bowed, and showed respect to the king. The king said, What would you like?- </p><p>The single Hebrew word "what?" could suggest he was indeed so frail he could hardly speak beyond single words.</p>


text:
<p>She said to him, My lord, you swore by Yahweh your God to your handmaid, ‘Assuredly Solomon your son shall reign after me, and he shall sit on my throne’-</p><p>See on :13. She obediently repeats verbatim the words Nathan had put in her mouth. This continues the theme of David being manipulated by people and people being used as puppets by others.</p>


text:
<p>Now, look, Adonijah reigns; and you, my lord the king, don’t know it- </p><p>She calls David "lord" many times. We get the impression of deep and rightful respect for him, despite his failures. Perhaps this is intended to be another example of how faithful women like Sarah called their husbands "lord" (<a href='B:670 3:6'>1Pe 3:6</a>).</p>


text:
<p>He has killed cattle, fatlings and sheep in abundance, and has called all the sons of the king, and Abiathar the priest, and Joab the captain of the army; but he hasn’t called Solomon your servant- </p><p>David's heart must have slumped as he heard these words. He died with the pain of betrayal by Adonijah, Joab and Abiathar. It would be wrong to imagine him dying a happy man at peace. His life indeed had been full of such traumas ever since his sin of passion with Bathsheba. How bitterly he must have regretted it.</p>


text:
<p>You, my lord the king, the eyes of all Israel are on you, that you should tell them who shall sit on the throne of my lord the king after him- </p><p>David apparently had not made any public pronouncement about his intentions for Solomon, although he had done so privately to Bathsheba and Nathan, the prophet who had first given him the promises about his "son".</p>


text:
<p>Otherwise it will happen, when my lord the king shall sleep with his fathers, that I and my son Solomon shall be counted offenders- </p><p>Heb. "sinners". The idea may be that Bathsheba's marriage would be declared void because of David's sin with her, and therefore Solomon pronounced an illegitimate son. David died with this reminder of that sin of passion which would have seemed so long ago, and, to the human mind, dealt with by the passage of time and the grief over Absalom.</p>


text:
<p>Behold, while she still talked with the king, Nathan the prophet came in-</p><p>Again, without invitation; David would have guessed this had all been set up. David makes no recorded response to Bathsheba's words, possibly because he was so frail (see on :16).</p>


text:
<p>They told the king, saying, Here is Nathan the prophet! When he had come in before the king, he bowed down before the king with his face to the ground- </p><p>Whilst this may have been mere formality, we do have the overall impression of deep respect towards David by his inner circle. They were mature enough to realize he had indeed been a man after God's own heart, despite major failings which they accepted as out of character with him; and they did not focus upon those failures, but upon his overall life and character. And therefore respected him still very deeply. This is a good pattern for us in our attitudes to others. See on :26.</p>


text:
<p>Nathan said, My lord, king, have you said, ‘Adonijah shall reign after me, and he shall sit on my throne?’- </p><p>Perhaps Adonijah was falsely claiming this, abusing his father's frail state. Or maybe this was a device by Nathan to get the king to mutter some response, to provoke him to mental awareness in his weak state; see on :16,22.</p>


text:
<p>For he is gone down this day, and has killed cattle and fatlings and sheep in abundance, and has called all the king’s sons, and the captains of the army, and Abiathar the priest. Even now they are eating and drinking before him and saying, ‘Long live king Adonijah!’-</p><p>To eat and drink before a king was a sign of support for him and his acceptance; and there is something of this in the meaning of the breaking of bread service.</p>


text:
<p>But he hasn’t called me, even me your servant, nor Zadok the priest, nor Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, nor your servant Solomon-</p><p>Nathan's respect of David comes out strongly- "me, even me your servant". See on :23.</p>


text:
<p>Is this thing done by my lord the king, and you haven’t shown to your servants who should sit on the throne of my lord the king after him?-</p><p>Again this may be a device by Nathan to provoke the frail minded king to speak forth. Or perhaps indeed he had not openly stated his desire for Solomon to be king. "After him" again alludes to the promises about the "son" which Nathan had given David, and it seems he is again implying that David is to state now who is going to fulfil them. Again, as discussed on :13, their conditional nature is being ignored by everyone. And it led Solomon to do the same.</p>


text:
<p>Then king David answered, Call to me Bathsheba. She came into the king’s presence, and stood before the king- </p><p>Perhaps Nathan left the room at this point (:32). "Call me Bathsheba" would have inevitably recalled to his mind how he had said those fateful words to his servants decades previously, and now he was still suffering the result of that sin.</p>


text:
<p>The king swore and said, As Yahweh lives, who has redeemed my soul out of all adversity-</p><p>Earlier, David in the Psalms had so often asked God to redeem him, e.g. in <a href='B:230 69:18'>Psa 69:18</a>: "Draw near to my soul, and redeem it. Ransom me because of my enemies". God had already forgiven David, ransoming and redeeming him. But he was left to suffer the consequences of those sins, and because of that, in crisis he starts to wonder whether he has indeed been forgiven. And we can do the same so easily. The consequence of sin is death, and we can squirm against this when we or others face it... forgetting the wonder of the fact that we are indeed redeemed and ransomed from the power of the grave, although we must still take the consequences:&nbsp; At the very end of his life, David realized that he had in fact been redeemed (s:w. <a href='B:110 1:29'>1Ki 1:29</a>). He could give up his spirit to God in death, knowing that He was redeemed from the power of the grave (s:w. <a href='B:230 31:5'>Psa 31:5</a>; <a href='B:230 49:15'>Psa 49:15</a>). His sure hope in the resurrection of the body looked ahead to the attitude with which the Lord Jesus died.</p><p>These are the words of Jacob in <a href='B:10 48:16'>Gen 48:16</a> and also of David earlier, at <a href='B:100 4:9'>2Sa 4:9</a>. What Jacob only learnt at the end of his life, David learnt and applied during his life. And we should likewise not be experiential learners, but learn instead from Jacob:&nbsp;David stresses that Yahweh had redeemed him, and he had not needed to take vengeance himself. He repeats this in now; he was deeply aware of Yahweh's redemption of him by grace right to his last days.</p>


text:
<p>most certainly as I swore to you by Yahweh the God of Israel, saying, ‘Assuredly Solomon your son shall reign after me, and he shall sit on my throne in my place;’ most certainly so will I do this day- </p><p>As discussed on :13, he wrongly assumes that he can pronounce Solomon as the fulfilment of the promises made to him. For he speaks in the language of the promises of 2 Samuel 7; and this refusal to accept their conditionality, and fulfilment by grace rather than his pronouncement, was what led Solomon to spiritual disaster in the longer term.</p>


text:
<p>Then Bathsheba bowed with her face to the earth, and showed respect to the king, and said, Let my lord king David live forever!- </p><p>To say this to a man on his deathbed is perhaps consciously intended to show the meaningless nature of this common phrase.</p>


text:
<p>King David said, Call to me Zadok the priest, Nathan the prophet, and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada. They came before the king- </p><p>Perhaps Nathan had left the bedroom when Bathsheba was summoned back (:28). Or perhaps this is yet another indication of the very weak mental state of David.</p>


text:
<p>The king said to them, Take with you the servants of your lord, and cause Solomon my son to ride on my own mule, and bring him down to Gihon-</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>Let Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet anoint him there king over Israel. Blow the trumpet, and say, ‘Long live king Solomon!’-</p><p>This anointing ought to have been done earlier, as it was with David. We wonder whether David had some slight doubts about Solomon's suitability, hence his lack of public pronouncement about Solomon being his chosen successor. Or perhaps David just wanted to hold on to personal power to the bitter end, and hadn't wanted to appoint anyone in his place through a public proclamation. There had not yet been any anointing or trumpet blowing for Adonijah, so this was in order to upstage that happening.</p>


text:
<p>Then you shall come up after him- </p><p>Just as men had followed after Adonijah (:7).</p><p>And he shall come and sit on my throne; for he shall be king in my place. I have appointed him to be prince over Israel and over Judah- </p><p>On one hand we could read the usage of the word "prince" as reflecting how Yahweh was the ultimate king of Israel. Or we could read it as reflecting David's dogged desire, typical of an old man, to hold on to his own kingly power until his last breath. Or we could see it as a Messianic term, as it is in <a href='B:340 9:25'>Dan 9:25</a>, again showing that David thought he could make Solomon the fulfilment of the promises of a Messianic seed just by pronouncing it from his deathbed- ignoring all the conditional clauses which accompanied those promises.</p>


text:
<p>Benaiah the son of Jehoiada answered the king and said, Amen. May Yahweh, the God of my lord the king, say so too-</p><p>This is a clear example of the meaning of the word "Amen". It is a statement that we believe in faith that God also wills to be so what we have said Amen to. His "Amen" is therefore our "Amen". There is a similar example in <a href='B:300 28:6'>Jer 28:6</a>.</p>


text:
<p>As Yahweh has been with my lord the king, even so may He be with Solomon, and make his throne greater than the throne of my lord king David-</p><p>Benaiah too is alluding to the promises to David, and stating his belief that they are to be fulfilled through Solomon- again ignoring all the conditional clauses which accompanied those promises. "So may He be" is Heb. "so shall He be".</p>


text:
<p>So Zadok the priest, Nathan the prophet, Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, and the Cherethites and the Pelethites, went down and caused Solomon to ride on king David’s mule, and brought him to Gihon- </p><p>"Pelethite" is arguably a form of the word "Philistine". There is a theme in David's life of his former enemies, even Gentiles against whom he had fought and slain their families, became his most loyal supporters and servants, right to the end of his days. This loyalty is a reflection not only of their respect of his personal integrity, despite some out of character failures; but especially of their conversion to Yahweh, David's God.</p>


text:
<p>Zadok the priest took the horn of oil out of the tabernacle, and anointed Solomon. They blew the trumpet; and all the people said, Long live king Solomon!- </p><p>The horn of oil refers to the specific horn from which the holy anointing oil was poured upon the priests. 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>). Using this oil to anoint a king would therefore have presented Solomon as a king-priest.</p>


text:
<p>All the people came up after him, and the people piped with pipes, and rejoiced with great joy, so that the earth shook with their sound- </p><p>We can assume that there was mass popular support for Solomon, far greater than for Adonijah.</p>


text:
<p>Adonijah and all the guests who were with him heard it as they finished eating. When Joab heard the sound of the trumpet he said, Why is this noise of the city being in an uproar?-</p><p>The feast would have taken some days; for the horn of priestly anointing oil had to be fetched from Gibeon (:39).</p>


text:
<p>While he yet spoke, behold, Jonathan the son of Abiathar the priest came: and Adonijah said, Come in; for you are a worthy man, and bring good news-</p><p>The record here repeats the coming in of messengers to David earlier in this chapter. Despite his revolt against his father David, he perhaps unconsciously repeats his father's very words as he awaited news of the battle with Absalom. He could not ultimately throw off the ties that bind. We note that Jonathan had earlier run messages for David in the time of Absalom's revolt (<a href='B:100 17:17'>2Sa 17:17</a>); now he does so for Adonijah, and was perceived as a "worthy man", on Adonijah's side. All these things have the ring of psychological credibility to them. This is how life goes.</p>


text:
<p>Jonathan answered Adonijah, Most certainly our lord king David has made Solomon king- </p><p>The hint could be that "most certainly" he did carry good news, that Solomon had been made king. Already even the messenger was seeking to cover himself against the inevitable repercussions of a failed power grab. Hence he calls David "our lord king David".</p>


text:
<p>The king has sent with him Zadok the priest, Nathan the prophet, Benaiah son of Jehoiada, and the Cherethites and the Pelethites; and they have caused him to ride on the king’s mule- </p><p>Jonathan is careful to report things exactly as they were and as had observed them in Jerusalem. He is bravely giving no intimation of continued loyalty to Adonijah and his own father Abiathar who was his main support.</p>


text:
<p>Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet have anointed him king in Gihon. They have come up from there rejoicing, so that the city rang again. This is the noise that you have heard- </p><p>Again we see that there was mass popular support for David's choice of Solomon, and not so much for Adonijah.</p>


text:
<p>Also, Solomon sits on the throne of the kingdom- </p><p>Solomon had literally been sat upon David's throne, and Jonathan had seen it.</p>


text:
<p>Moreover the king’s servants came to bless our lord king David saying, ‘May your God make the name of Solomon better than your name, and make his throne greater than your throne’; and the king bowed himself on the bed- </p><p>Again "our lord king David" shows that Jonathan's loyalties were now with David and Solomon again. The fickleness of human loyalty is a great theme of the records of David's life.</p>


text:
<p>Also thus said the king, ‘Blessed be Yahweh, the God of Israel, who has given one to sit on my throne this day, my eyes even seeing it’- </p><p>These words of David aren't recorded but there is no reason to doubt Jonathan's account of them. Those words are clearly allusive to the promises in 2 Samuel 7 that David's eyes would see his Messianic son / seed enthroned, implying David's resurrection. LXX adds "one of my seed", confirming this. But David instead assumed that they were true in his lifetime, and that Solomon was indeed the Messianic seed promised. By this wrong assumption, David was ignoring the conditional aspects to the promises- that Solomon had to prove himself obedient to Yahweh. By doing so, David set Solomon up for spiritual failure, through merely assuming his acceptability to God regardless of his lifestyle; see on :13.</p>


text:
<p>All the guests of Adonijah were afraid, and rose up, and each man went his way-</p><p>Again we see the fickleness of human loyalty, which is such a great theme of the records of David's life.</p>


text:
<p>Adonijah feared because of Solomon; and he arose, and went, and caught hold on the horns of the altar-</p><p>He must have somehow smuggled himself into the sanctuary, otherwise he would have been arrested and charged with treason well beforehand. He was treating the altar as a kind of talisman, just as the surrounding religions did. The horns of the altar were smeared with the blood of atonement (<a href='B:20 29:12'>Exo 29:12</a>; <a href='B:20 30:10'>Exo 30:10</a>), so he may have been assuming that he would somehow get forgiveness by doing this.</p>


text:
<p>It was told Solomon saying, Behold, Adonijah fears king Solomon; for, behold, he has laid hold on the horns of the altar, saying, ‘Let king Solomon swear to me first that he will not kill his servant with the sword’- </p><p>The idea was that if God had atoned for his sin of rebellion (see on :50), then Solomon should not carry out the death penalty. The whole process of reasoning was very twisted, and are in fact the words of an equally twisted Jacob to Esau in <a href='B:10 25:31'>Gen 25:31</a>; <a href='B:10 25:33'>Gen 25:33</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Solomon said, If he shows himself a worthy man, not a hair of him shall fall to the earth; but if wickedness be found in him, he shall die- </p><p>Solomon is intentionally vague. Not a hair falling to the earth could be read as meaning that an intended punishment would not be carried out (<a href='B:90 14:45'>1Sa 14:45</a>; <a href='B:100 14:11'>2Sa 14:11</a>). "But if wickedness be found..." could be read as meaning 'If there is any more of this in future', or 'We will investigate the matter by judgment and the just penalty will be given in future'.</p>


text:
<p>So king Solomon sent, and they brought him down from the altar. He came and bowed down to king Solomon; and Solomon said to him, Go to your house-</p><p>This was not real forgiveness, because Solomon evidently considered it not politic to immediately slay Adonijah, but that was his intention. Perhaps he was reasoning that Adonijah's support base would be encouraged to repent if they saw that they were not going to all be slain. And Solomon probably didn't feel he had the political strength at that point to slay men like Joab and Abiathar. And we must examine our own apparent forgiveness of others, to determine whether it is really just a matter of politics and prudence rather than true forgiveness.</p>


text:
<p>Now the days of David drew near that he should die; and he commanded Solomon his son saying- </p><p>According to Josephus (Antiquities 7:14,7) the events of 1 Chronicles 28, 29 happened in the interval between the first anointing of Solomon and the death of David.</p>


text:
<p>I am going the way of all the earth- </p><p>This is quoting the words of Joshua, as do the second part of the verse. David has Joshua in mind because he considers that Solomon is going to now inherit the Kingdom.</p><p>Be strong therefore, and show yourself a man- </p><p>As noted above, this is the language of Joshua (<a href='B:50 31:7'>Deu 31:7</a>; <a href='B:50 31:23'>Deu 31:23</a>; <a href='B:60 1:6-7'>Jos 1:6-7</a>). See on :3. "Show yourself a man" may refer to the fact Solomon was very young (<a href='B:110 3:7'>1Ki 3:7</a>) and needed to quickly act as an adult.</p><p>David seems to have theoretically recognized that the building of the temple was conditional on Solomon's spirituality, but he overlooked this in his enthusiasm for Solomon to be the Messiah, who may be the reference of "a man". He tells Solomon to show himself a man, and goes on in :4 to speak of how “a man” would eternally reign on his Messianic throne. He was encouraging Solomon to be and act like Messiah. Psalms 127 is "For Solomon" (<a href='B:230 127:2'>Psa 127:2</a> "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>and keep the instruction of Yahweh your God, to walk in His ways, to keep His statutes, His commandments, His ordinances and His testimonies, according to what is written in the law of Moses, that you may prosper in all that you do, and wherever you turn yourself- </p><p>In <a href='B:240 29:14'>Pro 29:14</a> “The king that faithfully judges the poor, his throne shall be established for ever”, Solomon is clearly referring to the promises to David, which he assumed were about him. He thought that because he had judged the poor harlots wisely, therefore he would be the promised Messiah. And this was just what David his father had hoped and expected of him. David had even asked Solomon to “do wisely” i:e. to show wisdom, in order that the promises to him about Messiah would be fulfilled (<a href='B:110 2:3'>1Ki 2:3</a> RVmg:). So this was surely one of Solomon’s motives in giving them justice and being ‘wise’; he sought to live out his father’s expectations and to fulfil the requirements of the Messiah figure.</p><p>"That you may prosper" is s:w. "to make one wise" (<a href='B:10 3:6'>Gen 3:6</a>). David's desire was that Solomon would be "wise" just as David had been "wise / prospered" (<a href='B:90 18:5'>1Sa 18:5</a>; <a href='B:90 18:14-15'>1Sa 18:14-15</a>), and so Solomon asked God for wisdom and wanted to be wise. But his subsequent life showed this was because he wanted to live out parental expectation rather than be personally wise. And so he later turned away from that wisdom in his personal life. The language of prospering continues the Joshua allusions (see on :2; <a href='B:60 1:7-8'>Jos 1:7-8</a>).</p>


text:
<p>This is so that Yahweh may establish His word which He spoke concerning me saying, ‘If your children take heed to their way, to walk before Me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul, there shall not fail you’, He said, ‘a man on the throne of Israel’- </p><p>David wanted Solomon to be that "man" (:2). 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 or observe them (<a href='B:110 11:10-11'>1Ki 11:10-11</a>); despite David praying that Solomon would be given a heart to observe them (<a href='B:130 29:19'>1Ch 29:19</a>). We can pray for God to work upon the hearts of others, but He will not force people against their own deepest will and heart position. Solomon stresses overmuch how God would keep or preserve the righteous (<a href='B:240 2:8'>Pro 2:8</a>; <a href='B:240 3:26'>Pro 3:26</a>), without recognizing the conditional aspect of this. Why did Solomon go wrong? His Proverbs are true enough, but he stresses that obedience to his wisdom and teaching would preserve his hearers (<a href='B:240 4:4'>Pro 4:4</a>; <a href='B:240 6:22'>Pro 6:22</a>; <a href='B:240 7:1'>Pro 7:1</a>; <a href='B:240 8:32'>Pro 8:32</a>; <a href='B:240 15:5'>Pro 15:5</a>), preservation was through following the example of the wise (<a href='B:240 2:20'>Pro 2:20</a>); rather than stressing obedience to God's ways, and replacing David his father's simple love of God with a love of academic wisdom: "Yahweh preserves all those who love Him" (<a href='B:230 145:20'>Psa 145:20</a>).</p><p>Another example of Solomon misquoting God is in <a href='B:140 6:6'>2Ch 6:6</a>. Solomon claims that God said: “I have chosen Jerusalem, that my name might be there”. God had chosen no resting place, although it would have been politically convenient for Solomon if the city of Jerusalem as a city was where God had chosen to dwell. And so he kept thinking that way until he persuaded himself that in fact this was what God had said. David had charged Solomon with the words which God had spoken to him about Solomon: “If thy children take heed to their way, to walk before me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul” (<a href='B:110 2:4'>1Ki 2:4</a>). But Solomon subtly changes this when he reminds God of how He had supposedly told David: “There shall not fail thee a man to sit on the throne of Israel; so that they children take heed to their way, that they walk before me as thou hast walked before me” (<a href='B:110 8:25'>1Ki 8:25</a>). Two things become apparent here:</p><p>-&nbsp;The conditionality of the promise to David about Solomon is totally overlooked:&nbsp; “If thy children…” becomes “so that…”, with the implication that David would always have descendants on the throne who would walk obediently before God. The possibility of personal failure had been removed by Solomon from his own perception of God.</p><p>-&nbsp;God’s desire that Solomon should “walk before me in truth” was changed to “walk before me as thou [David] hast walked before me”. This defined walking before God personally as having the relationship with God which your father had. And so often we have made the same mistake. The call to personally follow the Lord has become displaced by a following Him through others.</p><p>Notice how Solomon says these words to God Himself. Solomon had persuaded himself that this truly was what God had asked of David and himself, and so he comes out with these words to God.</p><p>There was no sense in Solomon that he might have the possibility of failure, of rejection by God. The promises to David were conditional- David pointed this out to Solomon in <a href='B:110 2:4'>1Ki 2:4</a>: "If thy children take heed to their way...". But Solomon misquotes this in <a href='B:110 8:25'>1Ki 8:25</a>: "Now therefore, O LORD, the God of Israel, keep with thy servant David my father that which thou hast promised him, saying, There shall not fail thee a man in my sight to sit on the throne of Israel; so that thy children take heed to their way to walk before me as thou hast walked before me". Some translations offer paraphrases of the difficult "so that" phrase. But there's no getting around it. Solomon is saying 'Give me what you promised me, without conditions, so that I will fulfil those conditions... it's not possible for anyone to fulfil those conditions unless you first give them what you conditionally promised'. The logic is all upside down, and is very demanding upon God, implying that any failure to "take heed to the way" would be because God hadn't given what He promised. It's a telling insight into Solomon's mind. It was all about him, rather than all about God and glorifying Him.</p><p>Note that all this happened at the very start of Solomon's reign; it seems to me that he was always on the wrong track, rather than as it were 'going wrong' later on.</p>


text:
<p>Moreover you know also what Joab the son of Zeruiah did to me and what he did to the two captains of the armies of Israel, to Abner the son of Ner, and to Amasa the son of Jether, whom he killed, and shed the blood of war in peace, and put the blood of war on his sash that was about his waist, and in his shoes that were on his feet- </p><p>The only person in David's life whose belt is noted is Joab (<a href='B:100 20:8'>2Sa 20:8</a>; <a href='B:110 2:5'>1Ki 2:5</a>). But <a href='B:230 109:8'>Psa 109:8</a>; <a href='B:230 109:19'>Psa 109:19</a> wish curses upon the man who was well known for his belt. See notes there for the extent of David's anger with Joab and his desire for the man's condemnation because of it- even though David was not himself perfect:&nbsp;Solomon's comment that Joab shed the blood of war in peace, perhaps meaning 'in the name of peace', may allude to how Joab killed Amasa whilst asking him whether "Is all well with you?", using the word shalom, "peace".</p>


text:
<p>Do therefore according to your wisdom, and don’t let his gray head go down to Sheol in peace- </p><p>Solomon alludes to this in <a href='B:240 19:5'>Pro 19:5</a>; <a href='B:240 19:9'>Pro 19:9</a>: "A false witness shall not be unpunished; he who utters lies shall perish". See on :5. Solomon is alluding to his father David's parting commandments to him to destroy all the opposition to him (<a href='B:110 2:6'>1Ki 2:6</a>; <a href='B:110 2:9'>1Ki 2:9</a>). So whilst what Solomon writes is true, he is harnessing Divine truth to his own agenda of self justification. And we who claim to hold His truths must take warning.</p><p>Joab was David's cousin, who had shown David a lifetime of loyalty. But we sense a personality conflict between the two of them, and indeed it seems that originally Joab had supported Absalom's idea of seizing power, but then fell out with him; and he supported Adonijah's. David held Joab as too hard a man, not understanding grace; whereas Joab held David to be far too soft, and increasingly lacking strong leadership skills in his old age. The support for Adonijah was perhaps more because of disillusion with David than because Adonijah personally had much to offer. Yet to order his death seems to me absolutely lacking in grace.</p>


text:
<p>But show kindness to the sons of Barzillai the Gileadite, and let them be of those who eat at your table; for so they came to me when I fled from Absalom your brother- </p><p>On balance, over a lifetime, Joab had shown David far more kindness than Barzillai. So it is so sad that David, who had experienced so much grace, at the end of his life was so lacking in it and so short termist in his view. After Solomon's ascension, there was judgment and reward; in the form of being able to eat at his table (<a href='B:110 2:7'>1Ki 2:7</a> cp. <a href='B:100 9:7'>2Sa 9:7</a>; <a href='B:100 9:10'>2Sa 9:10</a>; <a href='B:100 19:28'>2Sa 19:28</a>):&nbsp; After Christ's return, the reward is to break bread with Him (<a href='B:490 14:15'>Luk 14:15</a>; <a href='B:490 22:30'>Luk 22:30</a>). Breaking bread with Him now is a sign of joyful fellowship with Him in anticipation of that; it shouldn’t therefore be a scary, worrying experience.</p>


text:
<p>Behold, there is with you Shimei the son of Gera, the Benjamite of Bahurim, who cursed me with a grievous curse in the day when I went to Mahanaim; but he came down to meet me at the Jordan, and I vowed to him by Yahweh saying, ‘I will not put you to death with the sword’- </p><p>David earlier forgave Shimei for cursing him. But he tells Solomon to bring down that old man’s white hairs to the grave with blood on them- a crude image for the murder of an old man (:9). And he uses the same awful turn of phrase to ask Solomon to do this also to his lifelong friend Joab (<a href='B:110 2:6'>1Ki 2:6</a>; <a href='B:110 2:9'>1Ki 2:9</a>). Surely grace would’ve found another way? He was therefore barred from building the temple because of the amount of blood he had shed (<a href='B:130 22:8'>1Ch 22:8</a>).</p><p>David graciously overlooked Shimei's cursing, promising him that he would not die because of it (<a href='B:100 16:10-11'>2Sa 16:10-11</a>; <a href='B:100 19:23'>2Sa 19:23</a>). But he didn't keep up that level of grace to the end: he later asked Solomon to ensure that Shimei&nbsp; was killed for that incident (<a href='B:110 2:8-9'>1Ki 2:8-9</a>). And one wonders whether it was Shimei’s words which so broke David’s heart that he later wrote: “Because that he remembered not to shew mercy, but persecuted the poor and needy man…as he loved cursing, so let it come unto him; as he delighted not in blessing, so may it be far from him. He clothed himself also with cursing as with a garment…” (<a href='B:230 109:16-18'>Psa 109:16-18</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore don’t hold him guiltless, for you are a wise man- </p><p>It&nbsp;is&nbsp;significant&nbsp;that Solomon's&nbsp; spiritual life&nbsp; has&nbsp; more appearance&nbsp;of&nbsp;spirituality&nbsp;the closer we get back to David's death:&nbsp;David had asked for wisdom (<a href='B:230 119:34'>Psa 119:34</a>), and even Solomon’s request for wisdom can be seen as rooted in a desire to live out parental expectation more than purely from his own volition. For David had told him: “You are a wise man” (<a href='B:110 2:9'>1Ki 2:9</a>), and Solomon wanted to live up to that expectation. In&nbsp; other words, David's influence was extremely strong, but&nbsp; it&nbsp; decreased over the years. Yet even at the end, Solomon’s wisdom stayed with him in that some aspects of his upbringing stayed with him- he could never escape from it. When he says that he has never found a truly wise woman, but he did know one wise man (<a href='B:250 7:28'>Ecc 7:28</a>) he may well have had David in mind.</p><p>And you will know what you ought to do to him, and you shall bring his gray head down to Sheol with blood- </p><p>Solomon alludes to this in <a href='B:240 21:11'>Pro 21:11</a>: "When the mocker is punished, the simple gains wisdom. When the wise is instructed, he receives knowledge". This seems to be justifying David's command for Solomon to punish the mocker Shimei, who had cursed him at the time of Absalom's rebellion. At the time, David had forgiven Shimei and forbidden his men to kill him. But at the end of his life, David didn't maintain that level of grace, and commanded Solomon to ensure that he brought Shimei's grey hairs down to the grave with blood. And Solomon justified this collapse of forgiveness and grace by saying that it would give wisdom to others and instruct the wise.</p><p>Shimei was a wicked man who hated God's servant David. God told him to curse David (<a href='B:100 16:10'>2Sa 16:10</a>). Afterwards, Shimei repents and acknowledges that by doing so he sinned (<a href='B:100 19:20'>2Sa 19:20</a>). And although David recognized that God had told Shimei to curse him (<a href='B:100 16:10'>2Sa 16:10</a>), David tells Solomon not to hold Shimei "guiltless" for how he had cursed him (<a href='B:110 2:9'>1Ki 2:9</a>). As with the evil spirit from Yahweh working upon Saul, a man is encouraged by God to do the sinful act in which he has set his heart.</p><p><a href='B:230 7:16'>Psa 7:16</a> had been David's commentary about Shimei: "The trouble he causes shall return upon his own head, his violence shall come down on the crown of his own head". In the context of Shimei, whose cursing was the initial context of this Psalm (see on <a href='B:230 7:1'>Psa 7:1</a>), David sought himself to bring this about. He told Solomon to ensure that Shimei's head and grey hairs should be brought down with blood to the grave by him (<a href='B:110 2:8-9'>1Ki 2:8-9</a>). This unspiritual attitude of David was rooted in the way that at the earlier point, here in <a href='B:230 7:16'>Psa 7:16</a>, David rejoiced in the thought that Shimei would be condemned by God; and sets about to bring that condemnation about himself. This surely was a case of taking Divine judgment into his own hand in a way he should not have done, and quite overlooking the Divine desire for repentance (<a href='B:330 33:11'>Eze 33:11</a>).</p>


text:
<p>David slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David- </p><p>This idiom is clear evidence that the distinction in reward between good and evil people is not made at the point of death. Death is unconsciousness, and the eternal outcome of our lives will be at the resurrection and day of judgment.</p>


text:
<p>The days that David reigned over Israel were forty years; he reigned seven years in Hebron, and he reigned thirty-three years in Jerusalem-</p><p>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>). 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:&nbsp; And <a href='B:110 7:23'>1Ki 7:23</a> gives the circumference of the laver as “thirty cubits”, although it was ten cubits broad. Taking ‘pi’ to be 3:14, it is apparent that the circumference would have been 31:4 cubits; but the Spirit says, summing up, “thirty”.</p>


text:
<p>Solomon sat on the throne of David his father; and his kingdom was firmly established- </p><p>The language continues to allude to that of the promises to David in 2 Samuel 7. But the fulfilment of those promises was conditional; so we are being given here the impression which was externally given, and how Solomon himself perceived things. For Solomon and his kingdom were not the ultimate fulfilment of those promises. But God did establish his kingdom, and potentially enabled him to be that Messiah figure. And so his kingdom appears to be a type of that of the Lord Jesus. But in reality I would rather express it as saying that he was given the potential to have the Messianic kingdom, but only achieved a dim image of it.</p>


text:
<p>Then Adonijah the son of Haggith came to Bathsheba the mother of Solomon. She said, Do you come peaceably? He said, Peaceably- </p><p>She feared for her life, using the same term as in <a href='B:90 16:4'>1Sa 16:4</a>.</p>


text:
<p>He said moreover, I have something to tell you. She said, Say on- </p><p>He had come not only to ask for the hand of Abishag in marriage, but also to tell her something (:15). We can understand that Solomon therefore interpreted Adonijah's actions as a desire to usurp him.</p>


text:
<p>He said, You know that the kingdom was mine, and that all Israel set their faces on me, that I should reign. However the kingdom is turned around, and has become my brother’s; for it was his from Yahweh- </p><p>This is a typical mixture of truth and untruth. Indeed the kingdom was Solomon's "from Yahweh" in that David had made that decision and sworn by Yahweh. It is however not so true that "all Israel" wanted him to be king, for when Solomon was pronounced king, there was ecstatic rejoicing amongst the people. And "the kingdom was mine" only in that he was the eldest surviving son of David; but being the eldest son didn't at all mean that the throne was passed on to him, because kings typically chose one of their sons to reign rather than the throne passing automatically to the eldest son. And he quite overlooks the promises to David, which make being the true son of David conditional upon obedience to Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>Now I ask one petition of you. Don’t deny me. She said to him, Say on- </p><p>This again is manipulative. Perhaps "Say on" was too close to agreeing to grant a petition she had not yet heard; for perhaps from pride she asks Solomon to grant the petition, even though it was highly dubious.</p>


text:
<p>He said, Please speak to Solomon the king (for he will not tell you ‘no’), that he give me Abishag the Shunammite as wife- </p><p>Again Adonijah is playing with words and logic, arguing that Solomon cannot say no to his mother, and she cannot say no to him, Adonijah.</p>


text:
<p>Bathsheba said, Alright. I will speak for you to the king- </p><p>Either she was naive, or she felt bound to ask because of her unwise response to him in :16.</p>


text:
<p>Bathsheba therefore went to king Solomon, to speak to him for Adonijah. The king rose up to meet her, and bowed himself to her, and sat down on his throne, and caused a throne to be set for the king’s mother; and she sat on his right hand- </p><p>We sense here and in 1 Kings 1 the deep sense of respect for David and Bathsheba. Solomon speaks so highly of his mother in Proverbs, apparently modelling the "virtuous woman" of Proverbs 31 upon her. To sit on the right hand means to be second in command of power, so we can assume Bathsheba was a powerful political individual as David's favourite surviving wife and mother of the son he had chosen as king.</p>


text:
<p>Then she said, I ask one small petition of you; don’t deny me. The king said to her, Ask on, my mother; for I will not deny you- </p><p>He repeats the same error she had made in :16, agreeing to a petition before knowing what it was. This seems a theme the Bible likes to raise, for we think of king Darius with Daniel, and Herod and the daughter of Herodias. She considers it a "small petition", but it was a very large petition because of its major political ramifications, which Solomon immediately perceived. We wonder therefore whether she was being simply naive rather than feeling railroaded because of her response in :16. </p>


text:
<p>She said, Let Abishag the Shunammite be given to Adonijah your brother as wife- </p><p>Perhaps she thought that Adonijah's only motive was his desire to marry a beauty queen. But as suggested on <a href='B:110 1:1'>1Ki 1:1</a>, Abishag was more than a carer for a man in a geriatric ward. She had had intimate sexual contact with David, although he had not succeeded in achieving intercourse with her. He was therefore to be considered as at least one of his concubines, and whoever married her was thereby strengthening their connection with David's throne.</p>


text:
<p>King Solomon answered his mother, Why do you ask Abishag the Shunammite for Adonijah? Ask for him the kingdom also; for he is my elder brother; even for him, and for Abiathar the priest, and for Joab the son of Zeruiah- </p><p>Solomon may well have been correct. But there is also the possibility that he wildly extrapolated from the fact Adonijah wanted to marry thus beautiful woman, and refused to give him credit for accepting that Solomon rather than himself was Yahweh's choice for the throne (:15). And from that, Solomon creates a conspiracy theory about Joab and Abiathar. He had threatened Adonijah that he had as it were a suspended death sentence which would be triggered if he committed any more "wickedness" (<a href='B:110 1:52'>1Ki 1:52</a>). Adonijah's motives are left intentionally unclear in the record, to provoke our reflection. Whatever, it seems to me that Solomon was eager to perceive Adonijah as having broken the conditions of <a href='B:110 1:52'>1Ki 1:52</a> so that he could kill him.</p>


text:
<p>Then king Solomon vowed by Yahweh saying, God do so to me, and more also, if Adonijah has not spoken this word against his own life- </p><p>If Adonijah realized how Solomon would react, he surely wouldn't have gone ahead as he did in trying to marry Abishag. And as noted on :14-17, his reasoning was less than honest and deceitful, but again, we could put this down to his simple desire to marry the beautiful Abishag. It seems a rather strict interpretation of <a href='B:110 1:52'>1Ki 1:52</a> to claim that the request for Abishag was "wickedness".</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore as Yahweh lives, who has established me, and set me on the throne of David my father, and who has made me a house, as He promised, surely Adonijah shall be put to death this day- </p><p>David's belief that Psalms 72 applied totally to Solomon would have encouraged him Solomon to feel that the fact that he was the great Son of David and had had the promises made to him justified all his actions. This is an example. For as discussed on :22,23, his desire to murder Adonijah was not on any very Biblical basis from the law of Moses.</p><p>"Established" is the word used in the promises of the eternal establishment of David's throne (<a href='B:100 7:12-13'>2Sa 7:12-13</a>; <a href='B:100 7:16'>2Sa 7:16</a> etc:), and Solomon wrongly assumed that the conditional nature of the promises concerning the seed were just irrelevant to him as he had wisdom. Therefore he uses the word of how his kingdom has been "established" (<a href='B:110 2:24'>1Ki 2:24</a> s:w:). Solomon's contenders for the throne were all stopped by God, they tried to prepare or establish themselves but it never worked out (<a href='B:100 15:1'>2Sa 15:1</a>; <a href='B:110 1:5'>1Ki 1:5</a>); and so surely Solomon has the idea in mind that he has been established as the promised Messianic seed of David with an eternally "established" throne and kingdom. This leads him to the conclusion that the outcome of wisdom and folly is in this life, and he has no perspective of a final day of judgment and eternal establishment of God's Kingdom on earth. This is why the simplistic dichotomies he presents in Proverbs between the blessed and wise, and the cursed and foolish, are not always true to observed experiences in this life. For it is the future Kingdom which puts them in ultimate perspective.</p><p>He felt that God “has made me an house, as he promised” to David. He felt that he was the fulfillment of the promises, and therefore the Kingdom had come; he failed to be awed by the greatness of the Christ to come, and abstracted and reduced His coming Kingdom into an effective nothingness. By doing so, he totally overlooked the highly conditional nature of the promises, and forgot his own proneness to failure, and the weakness of his nature. 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>).</p>


text:
<p>King Solomon sent by Benaiah the son of Jehoiada; and he fell on him, so that he died- </p><p>Benaiah must now have been an old man, so perhaps he arranged the murder through a proxy.</p>


text:
<p>To Abiathar the priest the king said, Go to Anathoth, to your own fields; for you are worthy of death. But I will not at this time put you to death, because you carried the ark of the Lord Yahweh before David my father, and because you were afflicted in all in which my father was afflicted- </p><p>As discussed on :22,23, there was no specific evidence that Abiathar had done anything worthy of death, nor that he was actually involved in any plot to establish Adonijah as king again. Perhaps it was as simple as Adonijah being in love with a beautiful woman and wanting to marry her. And Adonijah is being dogmatically condemned on the basis of conspiracy theory alone. We note that Abiathar carried the ark at the time of Absalom's rebellion (<a href='B:100 15:24'>2Sa 15:24</a>); but it is hard to prove that he was from the line of Levites who were allowed to do this. David had been taught through the death of Uzzah that the ark must be carried only according to the specific Mosaic legislation. But he apparently was so close to the spirit of the law that he realized even after that, that the letter of that law could be broken.</p>


text:
<p>So Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being priest to Yahweh, that he might fulfil the word of Yahweh, which He spoke concerning the house of Eli in Shiloh- </p><p>But we get the impression God didn't want that prophecy to have to come true. All Abiathar's family had been slain by Saul and Doeg for their loyalty to David. But Abiathar had been preserved, presumably because God hoped that somehow He would not have to fulfil that prophecy of destruction. For He hopes against hope, in the gap between the statement of condemnation and fulfilling it, for human repentance and persuasion of Him to change His mind. But Solomon knew none of that, and just wanted Abiathar destroyed because he was potentially disloyal to him. We may well enquire what right Solomon had to thrust out Abiathar from the priesthood; surely only God could ultimately do that. Perhaps Solomon quoted God's words about the house of Eli. But his murder of Abiathar was inappropriate; for on that logic, David should have murdered Abiathar long ago just for who he was, a descendant of Eli. Solomon's spirituality was highly flawed and biased towards his own self justification, right from the beginning of his reign.</p>


text:
<p>The news came to Joab; for Joab had turned after Adonijah, though he didn’t turn after Absalom. Joab fled to the tabernacle of Yahweh, and caught hold on the horns of the altar- </p><p>This was a sad end for Joab, who was by now elderly. It seems David had a personality clash with Joab, frustrated at his refusal to understand grace and complaining that Joab was "too hard" for him. But it ended up with David's son Solomon ordering Joab to be slain, despite all his loyalty, and I would consider this as the supreme example of intolerance of intolerance, showing a lack of grace to someone because they had not understood grace. David in the later part of his life had always refused to carry out legitimate death sentences, e.g. as demanded by the behaviour of Amnon and Absalom. But Solomon lacked that grace, because he failed to perceive his own sins and need for grace himself.</p>


text:
<p>It was told king Solomon, Joab has fled to the tabernacle of Yahweh, and behold, he is by the altar. Then Solomon sent Benaiah the son of Jehoiada saying, Go, fall on him- </p><p>It seems that Solomon didn’t really reflect on who his father really was. He had an ideal image of him, choosing to overlook his failures with women. David committed the sin of presumption with Bathsheba, and yet Solomon judges Joab for committing presumptuous sin without mercy (<a href='B:110 2:29'>1Ki 2:29</a> cp. <a href='B:20 21:14'>Exo 21:14</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Benaiah came to the tabernacle of Yahweh and said to him, Thus says the king, ‘Come forth!’. He said, No; but I will die here. Benaiah brought the king word again saying, Thus said Joab, and thus he answered me- </p><p>Perhaps Joab said this to still try to avoid death, reasoning that surely Solomon would have more respect for the tabernacle than to order him to be slain on the altar. Or perhaps Joab's spiritual side was eager to die as a sacrifice upon God's altar. Or maybe he wanted to make Solomon unpopular with the people by ordering him slain on the altar. The narrative is purposefully open ended to provoke our reflections.</p>


text:
<p>The king said to him, Do as he has said, and fall on him, and bury him; that you may take away the blood which Joab shed without cause, from me and from my father’s house- </p><p>Solomon's reasoning was wrong in so many ways. To murder someone on the horns of the altar showed a lack of respect for Yahweh's holiness. Joab could easily have been removed and executed elsewhere. The blood shed by Joab "without cause" was no reason for his death at this stage; David himself had shed much blood without good cause. And Joab's guilt did not pass to David and Solomon. And murdering Joab did not somehow cleanse Solomon from some imagined guilt by association with Joab. Solomon wanted Joab dead because his father had told him to eliminate him. And so he was using any quasi spiritual reasoning which came into his head to justify it.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh will return his blood on his own head, because he fell on two men more righteous and better than he, and killed them with the sword, and my father David didn’t know it: Abner the son of Ner, captain of the army of Israel, and Amasa the son of Jether, captain of the army of Judah- </p><p>This may have been true on one level. But David had slain men like Uriah who were more righteous and better than himself. And been forgiven by grace. The reasons given by Solomon are in fact a condemnation of his father rather than a justification of him. We note already an effective distinction between Israel and Judah; the division which was to come was only bringing into the open what had historically been developing for generations. God confirms men in the divisions they themselves wish to happen, and binds together those who wish to unify.</p>


text:
<p>So shall their blood return on the head of Joab, and on the head of his seed forever. But to David, and to his seed, and to his house, and to his throne, there shall be peace forever from Yahweh- </p><p>Solomon here states dogmatically that he is the eternally blessed seed of David, and his house and throne are to blessed with eternal peace with God. But those promises were conditional upon his obedience, and he ignored those conditions. He was led into this by the assumptions and parental obsessions of his father, but all the same, it was this which led him to make shipwreck of his faith. This assumption that the Davidic promises were fulfilled in him led him to a lack of self examination and no humility arising from a sense of the eternal future he might miss if he turned away. See on :45.</p><p>Solomon may be alluding to how "it will go well with you" if the shedder of innocent blood is condemned to death (<a href='B:50 19:13'>Deu 19:13</a>). But he fails to realize that David was in exactly that situation, and had been saved by Divine grace alone. And he ought to have reflected that grace, even if David didn't.</p>


text:
<p>Then Benaiah the son of Jehoiada went up and fell on him, and killed him; and he was buried in his own house in the wilderness- </p><p>The 'going up' would have been by the steps which led up to the altar; unless the reference is to 'going up' to the mount Zion where the temple was.</p>


text:
<p>The king put Benaiah the son of Jehoiada in his place over the army; and the king put Zadok the priest in the place of Abiathar- </p><p>Benaiah surely did the wrong thing by slaying Joab, without evidence for his wrongdoing, by the altar. Yet he is rewarded for his conscienceless behaviour by political promotion. All this doesn't sound the stuff of God's Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>The king sent and called for Shimei and said to him, Build yourself a house in Jerusalem, and dwell there, and don’t go out anywhere from there- </p><p>The intention of making him move to Jerusalem from Bahurim (<a href='B:110 2:8'>1Ki 2:8</a>) was surely in order to set him up to be murdered. Solomon reveals a very calculating and callous side, typical of a man who (unlike David) had never been personally spiritually desperate, and had not known grace.</p>


text:
<p>For on the day you go out, and pass over the brook Kidron, know for certain that you shall surely die: your blood shall be on your own head- </p><p>Solomon may well have been present that terrible night when David and his family passed over the brook Kidron, and then encountered Shimei's cursing. And he therefore built this memory in to his punishment of Shimei. The Kidron was the river he would have had to cross were he to return to his home town of Bahurim, from whence he had been summoned to live in Jerusalem (<a href='B:110 2:8'>1Ki 2:8</a>). See on :40. We sense Solomon's playing of God by the manner in which he alludes to the curse in Eden, that "in the day" the brook was crossed, "you shall surely die"; see on :44.</p>


text:
<p>Shimei said to the king, The saying is good. As my lord the king has said, so will your servant do. Shimei lived in Jerusalem many days- </p><p>The description of the length of time periods in the Bible is relative; "many days" is three years (:39).</p>


text:
<p>It happened at the end of three years, that two of the servants of Shimei ran away to Achish, son of Maacah, king of Gath. They told Shimei saying, Behold, your servants are in Gath- </p><p>These slaves may have been Philistines who ran back home. David had twice fled to Achish king of Gath (<a href='B:90 21:10'>1Sa 21:10</a>; <a href='B:90 27:2'>1Sa 27:2</a>). But Solomon is unmoved by these associations with his father's days of desperation and a life preserved by Divine grace.</p>


text:
<p>Shimei arose, saddled his donkey, and went to Gath to Achish, to seek his servants; and Shimei went, and brought his servants from Gath- </p><p>The road to Gath would not have involved crossing the Kidron; it was in the opposite direction. For Solomon to insist that Shimei had broken the spirit of his commandment about not crossing the Kidron was therefore very legalistic, and not a very solid basis upon which to murder a man whom David had assured of forgiveness.</p>


text:
<p>It was told Solomon that Shimei had gone from Jerusalem to Gath, and had come again- </p><p>Shimei surely did this assuming that he was not liable for the death penalty because he had not crossed the Kidron (:37), as Gath was in the opposite direction; and he had kept the spirit of the agreement in that he had returned. Solomon comes over as very much lacking in integrity in now killing him.</p>


text:
<p>The king sent and called for Shimei, and said to him, Didn’t I adjure you by Yahweh and warn you, saying, ‘Know for certain, that on the day you go out, and walk abroad any where, you shall surely die?’. You said to me, ‘The saying that I have heard is good’- </p><p>There is no reference in the narrative to any such oath by Yahweh. This is not to say no such reference to Yahweh was made, but it also rather supports the impression we have of Solomon's lack of integrity and willingness to tell untruths; see on :40.</p>


text:
<p>Why then have you not kept the oath of Yahweh, and the commandment that I have instructed you with?- </p><p>Solomon is condemned for not keeping the covenant / oath of Yahweh and His commands (s:w. <a href='B:110 11:10-11'>1Ki 11:10-11</a>, which implies he was guilty of not doing so from his youth). His hypocrisy and lack of grace is so marked.</p>


text:
<p>The king said moreover to Shimei, You know all the wickedness which your heart knows full well, what you did to David my father. Therefore Yahweh shall return your wickedness on your own head- </p><p>Again, Solomon is playing God, as we saw him doing on :37. It was not Yahweh who was returning his wickedness upon him, but Solomon doing so. Shimei had apologized for his words of cursing, and David had forgiven him and given him assurances. Solomon's attitude is very wrong, and there was no Mosaic legal justification for the death penalty for cursing a man. And Shimei's stoning of David and calling him a "man of blood" had been justified, in that indeed David was worthy of death by stoning and was indeed a man of blood. To slate this as "wickedness" worthy of the death penalty is very severe judgment. And Solomon is choosing to respect his father's senile words spoken from his deathbed, rather than his father's earlier gracious forgiveness of Shimei.</p>


text:
<p>But king Solomon shall be blessed, and the throne of David shall be established before Yahweh forever- </p><p>Solomon saw himself as the Messianic Son of David, therefore he felt his kingdom was the Messianic Kingdom; and he here states dogmatically that he is the eternally blessed seed of David. But those promises were conditional upon his obedience, and he ignored those conditions. And in all this, of course, we see our warning. This may explain why he built his own house as a replica of God's house - he felt that in fulfillment of the Davidic covenant his house was God's house:&nbsp;Solomon's attitude to the Kingdom was that it was all here and now, and it was not so much the Kingdom of God as the Kingdom of Solomon:&nbsp; In this Solomon may seem far removed from our experience:&nbsp; But with eyes half closed, discerning only the general outline, Solomon is surely in a mind-set analogous to many of us:&nbsp; Solomon was so sure that because of his father’s righteousness, therefore God would establish him. “Mercy and truth preserve the king, and he upholdeth his throne by mercy” (<a href='B:240 20:28'>Pro 20:28</a> RVmg:) says as much- the promises (“mercy and truth” usually refer to God’s promises) had been given to David and just because of that, Solomon was sure that his throne and kingdom would thereby be upheld.</p>


text:
<p>So the king commanded Benaiah the son of Jehoiada; and he went out, and fell on him, so that he died. The kingdom was established in the hand of Solomon- </p><p>Clearly the kingdom was established in a secular sense, by Solomon's brutal murder of potential contenders for the throne. But this was not the same as the promised eternal establishment of David's kingdom in the hands of his Messianic seed.</p>


text:
<p>Solomon made affinity with Pharaoh king of Egypt, and took Pharaoh’s daughter, and brought her into the city of David, until he had made an end of building his own house, and the house of Yahweh, and the wall of Jerusalem all around- </p><p>Solomon's failure with Gentile women therefore began right at the start of his reign. "Made affinity" doesn't have to mean this was because of an alliance, but the phrase can just mean 'became son in law to'. It is the word used in <a href='B:150 9:14'>Ezr 9:14</a> of how such "affinity" with Gentiles provoked God's wrath. Rehoboam's mother was from Ammon, so the Egyptian wife was not his only Gentile woman. However we note that there are no Egyptian gods listed amongst those whom Solomon later worshipped. Perhaps Solomon justified this marriage by a legalistic reading of the verses which condemned marriage with Canaanite women; and Solomon may have argued that Egyptians weren't Canaanites (<a href='B:20 34:16'>Exo 34:16</a>; <a href='B:50 7:3'>Deu 7:3</a>). The fact he only allowed her to live in the city of David for a time could mean that he realized there was something wrong in having a Gentile wife living in David's city. We get the impression that he gingerly committed this sin; but soon became used to it, and went on to marry hundreds of such women. Or the hint could be that after he had built his own house, which took 13 years, he then parted company with her. The Song of Solomon could be about his relationship with this Egyptian woman, and it ends in an unsatisfactory way with the couple splitting up:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>At that time the people sacrificed in the high places, because there was no house built for the name of Yahweh-</p><p>This surely reflects Solomon’s perspective- for God Himself didn’t need a built house in which sacrifice could be offered. The temple became such an obsession with Solomon that he came to think that no really acceptable worship could occur outside of the idea which he had so developed in his own mind. It’s rather like thinking that one must have a physical church building in which to be an ecclesia of the living God- who doesn’t dwell in buildings made with hands.</p><p>"Only" the people sacrificed in high places... and Solomon loved the Lord... only &nbsp;he sacrificed... in high places" (<a href='B:110 3:2-3'>1Ki 3:2-3</a>), highlights the contradiction between Solomon's love for God and his willingness to sacrifice in the "high places" which God detested - for the Law clearly spelt out that sacrifice could only be offered in the tabernacle, at the place where Yahweh's Name was placed (<a href='B:50 12:5-8'>Deu 12:5-8</a>; <a href='B:50 14:23-25'>Deu 14:23-25</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Solomon loved Yahweh, walking in the statutes of David his father: only he sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places-</p><p>The&nbsp;Divine&nbsp;assessment&nbsp;of&nbsp;Solomon's&nbsp; spirituality&nbsp; makes&nbsp; no reference&nbsp; to&nbsp;his&nbsp;obedience to God's commands; rather "Solomon loved&nbsp;Yahweh (in that he) walked in the statutes of David his father"-&nbsp; rather&nbsp; than&nbsp; God's&nbsp; statutes:&nbsp; This perfectly&nbsp; explains &nbsp;why Solomon blandly disobeyed God's word in the&nbsp; very ways his father David did. Again, there are unpleasant similarities with our own position. Weaknesses&nbsp;which&nbsp;our forefathers&nbsp; and&nbsp; community&nbsp; have&nbsp; accepted&nbsp;without comment for generations are&nbsp;tolerated&nbsp; without&nbsp; a quibble; there are other issues,&nbsp;equally&nbsp;contrary&nbsp; to&nbsp; Divine principles, over which we create great&nbsp;complaint- simply because this is what parentally and communally&nbsp; we&nbsp; have&nbsp;been taught to react against. Yet the Gospel&nbsp;should&nbsp;&nbsp; be&nbsp;making&nbsp;us&nbsp;a&nbsp;new creation,&nbsp;standing independently&nbsp; of tradition and background conditioning. Knowing others&nbsp; who&nbsp; are&nbsp; doing&nbsp; the&nbsp; same&nbsp; should&nbsp; be&nbsp; the basis of our fellowship,&nbsp; rather&nbsp; than&nbsp; just&nbsp; belonging to the same community with the same background.</p>


text:
<p>The king went to Gibeon to sacrifice there; for that was the great high place. Solomon offered a thousand burnt offerings on that altar- </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>In Gibeon Yahweh appeared to Solomon in a dream by night; and God said, 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, You have shown to Your servant David my father great grace, according as he walked before You in truth, righteousness and in uprightness of heart with You. You have kept for him this great grace, that You have given him a son to sit on his throne, as it is this day- </p><p>Thus the eternity of God's truth is paralleled with the eternity of His righteousness (as in <a href='B:230 119:142'>Psa 119:142</a>; <a href='B:230 119:160'>Psa 119:160</a>). David walked / lived "in truth and righteousness" (s:w. <a href='B:110 3:6'>1Ki 3:6</a>; <a href='B:230 15:2'>Psa 15:2</a>), because this was how God is. The Messianic seed of David was to have this characteristic, ruling on David's throne in truth and righteousness (s:w. <a href='B:290 16:5'>Isa 16:5</a>).</p><p>But 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. 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 mercy 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"). 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 my God- </p><p>See on :10.</p><p>You have made Your servant king instead of David my father. I am but a little child. I don’t know how to go out or come in- </p><p>Alluded to in <a href='B:470 18:3-4'>Mat 18:3-4</a>; become a child so you can rule the Kingdom; Christ was the greatest child as he will be the greatest ruler. This sets Solomon up as our example in this aspect. Notice how Sarah’s unspiritual comments “cast out the bondwoman…” and “my Lord being old…”are interpreted positively in the NT.</p><p>Ecclesiastes is in many ways Solomon's self-examination; and it was accurate. He indicates that the temple had actually made him stumble,&nbsp;and&nbsp;that&nbsp;his&nbsp;numerous sacrifices&nbsp;had&nbsp;been&nbsp;the sacrifices&nbsp;of&nbsp;a fool, rather than the wise man he had appeared to&nbsp; be (<a href='B:250 5:1'>Ecc 5:1</a>); and surely he was casting a sideways glance at himself when he spoke of the wise child (cp. Solomon initially, <a href='B:110 3:7'>1Ki 3:7</a>) being greater than the old and foolish king who would no&nbsp; longer&nbsp;be&nbsp;admonished&nbsp; (<a href='B:250 4:13'>Ecc 4:13</a>;&nbsp;even&nbsp;though Solomon had advisers,&nbsp; <a href='B:110 12:6'>1Ki 12:6</a>). Yet he chose to do absolutely nothing about this; once again, his accurate spiritual knowledge had no real practical influence upon him.</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>


text:
<p>Your servant is in the midst of Your people which You have chosen, a great people, that can’t be numbered nor counted for 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>Give Your servant therefore an understanding heart to judge Your people, that I may discern between good and evil; for who is able to judge this Your great people?- </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>The speech pleased the Lord, that Solomon had asked this thing- </p><p>See on :11. We may wonder why adonai is here used for "Lord", and elohim in :11, rather than Yahweh. It could well be that this reflects the fact that Solomon was not really in covenant relationship with Yahweh, from His viewpoint. Although Solomon certainly speaks of "Yahweh my God" in :7, it could be that this was mere language he had picked up from David. For his subsequent life shows him to have been a man who acted as if he were outside of covenant relationship with Yahweh. But that is not to say that his choice was not deeply pleasing to Yahweh, and He wanted to work further with Solomon to bring him to Himself.</p>


text:
<p>God said to him, Because you have asked this thing, and have not asked for yourself long life, neither have asked riches for yourself, nor have asked the life of your enemies, but have asked for yourself understanding to discern justice- </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>


text:
<p>therefore I have done according to your word. 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- </p><p>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.</p>


text:
<p>I have also given you that which you have not asked- </p><p>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>Both riches and honour, so that there shall not be any among the kings like you, all your days- </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>If you will walk in My ways, to keep My statutes and My commandments as your father David walked, then I will lengthen your days- </p><p>God counted David as having observed His statutes, even though he laments that he doesn't observe them as he wished (s:w. <a href='B:230 119:5'>Psa 119:5</a>; <a href='B:230 119:9'>Psa 119:9</a>). His desire to observe them was counted finally as if he had done so. Solomon was commanded to personally keep or watch over [s:w:] the commandments (<a href='B:110 3:14'>1Ki 3:14</a> and often); but he seemed to think that possession of intellectual understanding would keep / watch over him and of itself keep him in the way (<a href='B:240 2:11'>Pro 2:11</a>). This is the temptation for all who pride themselves on possession of academic knowledge of Divine truth. God is here warning him against this, and reminding him of the conditional nature of the promises to him.</p>


text:
<p>Solomon awoke; and behold, it was a dream- </p><p>We wonder why this detail is added, when it seems obvious. Perhaps later in the nihilism of Ecclesiastes he would come to think that he had merely had a dream about wisdom. For he reasons as if his wisdom is purely of himself, and acts and reasons as if he has had no relationship with Yahweh. Or maybe it is to highlight the fulfilment of <a href='B:230 127:2'>Psa 127:2</a>: "He gives to His beloved (Jedidiah) in sleep".</p><p>Then he came to Jerusalem, and stood before the ark of the covenant of Yahweh, and offered up burnt offerings, offered peace offerings, and made a feast to all his servants-</p><p>Solomon had just offered before the sanctuary in Gibeon, and now he does so at Jerusalem, perhaps to indicate that he considered both shrines equally valid.</p>


text:
<p>Then two women who were prostitutes came to the king, and stood before him- </p><p>The whole situation spoke of the kind of shameless prostitution which the Mosaic Law demanded should be punished by death. But the way of Divine wisdom in this case was not to automatically apply Divine law in condemning sinners. Instead, by cutting to the conscience within those women, and appealing to it, they were led to at least the possibility of repentance, transformation, salvation. Solomon’s wisdom was given him in order to know how to guide God’s great people. The way of wisdom is therefore sometimes not to press a point when someone’s in the wrong. We see this in all levels of relationships. There are weak points in relationships, fissure lines, which when pressed or brought under tension will cause earthquakes and destruction. It’s best not to press on them; and yet if they are ignored, then the quality of relationship suffers and descends into interacting only over ‘safe’ matters. So what are we to do? By not raising the obvious issue- you’re whores and must be put to death- Solomon showed grace, but he showed it in such a way that those women surely couldn’t have felt the same again; rather like the woman taken in adultery. The very fact she was not condemned by the One who could condemn her- meant that she went away indeed vowing to “sin no more”.</p>


text:
<p>The one woman said, Oh my lord, I and this woman live in one house. I gave birth with her in the house- </p><p>Solomon alludes to himself at this point in <a href='B:240 18:17'>Pro 18:17</a>: "He who pleads his cause first seems right; until another comes and questions him". This is the language of the courtroom, and is advice to judges. But the average Israelite was not a courtroom judge. And so Solomon, as so often, has himself in view as the parade example of what he means. And the implication is that his judgments were perfect and beyond question, apart from by fools.</p>


text:
<p>It happened the third day after I gave birth, that this woman gave birth also. We were together. There was no stranger with us in the house, just us two in the house- </p><p>Neither woman had assistance in giving birth. No family were present- they were prostitutes, the very lowest of Hebrew society, cut off from their extended families. See on :16.</p>


text:
<p>This woman’s child died in the night, because she lay on it- </p><p>"This woman..." enables us to play Bible television with the record, and imagine it all happening right before our eyes. See on :22.</p>


text:
<p>She arose at midnight, and took my son from beside me, while your handmaid slept, and laid it in her bosom, and laid her dead child in my bosom- </p><p>The story lacks credibility, although they both apparently repeated it. If the other woman was awake at midnight and saw the guilty woman arising, then why did she allow her to swap over the babies? But the way of wisdom and justice (see on :28) is not to always point out the glaring inconsistencies within the narrative or beliefs of others. But to act on a higher level. We see this kind of thing so often in the way the Lord responded to questions.</p>


text:
<p>When I rose in the morning to nurse my child, behold, it was dead; but when I had looked at it in the morning, behold, it was not my son, whom I bore- </p><p>The first "morning" would be the twilight of dawn, but then when the sun arose she realized it was not her son. As noted on :20, the story line of both women has internal contradictions. But the way of wisdom and justice was not to point these out.</p>


text:
<p>The other woman said, No; but the living is my son, and the dead is your son. The other said, No; but the dead is your son, and the living is my son. Thus they spoke before the king- </p><p>The repetition of the phrase "the other" invites us to first listen and look at one woman making her case, and then swivel our attention to the other. See on :19.</p>


text:
<p>Then the king said, The one says, ‘This is my son who lives, and your son is the dead’; and the other says, ‘No; but your son is the dead one, and my son is the living one’-</p><p>As noted on :20,21, there were internal contradictions in their stories which a judge would typically have picked up on and explored further, in order to elicit whose story was more credible. The women come over as simple, and it would not have been hard through a series of questions to get closer to the truth. But the way of wisdom and justice (:28) is not like this nor does it treat people in that forensic manner. And it was this which so impressed the observing audience.</p>


text:
<p>The king said, Get me a sword. They brought a sword before the king-</p><p>The phrase for bringing a sword is that used of the punishment for breaking the covenant (<a href='B:30 26:26'>Lev 26:26</a>; <a href='B:30 26:36'>Lev 26:36</a>). Solomon was aware that his parents' first child had died as a result of judgment upon their immorality, and that God had earlier summoned a sword upon David's family because of it. It is as if he is saying that judgment was appropriate upon these prostitutes. But the way of true wisdom and justice was not to do so. And he had learned that by observing how God's sword of judgment had now been withdrawn from his own family, by grace.</p>


text:
<p>The king said, Divide the living child in two, and give half to the one, and half to the other- </p><p>This was not Solomon's intention, as he stresses "in no way kill it" (:27). It was done to elicit the psychological reaction of the women, and this was to be the basis of discerning truth. Likewise truth is arrived at in ways other than forensic examination of evidence and argumentation. This is the way of the Spirit and true wisdom.</p>


text:
<p>Then the woman whose the living child was spoke to the king, for her heart yearned over her son, and she said, Oh my lord, give her the living child, and in no way kill it! But the other said, It shall be neither mine nor yours. Divide it- </p><p>The instinctive gut reaction of the true mother said it all and showed her for who she was. It may be that when the one said "Let (the baby) be neither mine nor yours, but divide it", this is the Spirit's description of her inner attitude, rather than the literal words she spoke. But her inner thoughts were counted as her words (careful re-reading and reflection make this seem most likely here).</p>


text:
<p>Then the king answered, Give her the living child, and in no way kill it. She is its mother- </p><p>The law's requirement that he whore be put to death is shown to be inappropriate as we imagine the poor infant in the presence of these low life women. To save its life but then execute its mother would have been wrong. True wisdom and justice (:28) saw far beyond this letter of the law. And this is&nbsp; pattern for us today.</p>


text:
<p>All Israel heard of the judgment which the king had judged; and they feared the king: for they saw that the wisdom of God was in him, to do justice- </p><p>But as noted on :16, that "justice" was not the judgment which the law required for prostitutes. "The wisdom of God was in the midst of him" (<a href='B:110 3:28'>1Ki 3:28</a> AVmg) looks ahead to the description of the Lord Jesus in <a href='B:580 2:3'>Col 2:3</a>. On one hand Solomon was a type of Christ, but in reality it was rather that he had been potentially empowered to be the Messianic seed, but he failed. And the Lord Jesus fulfilled the potentials of the seed perfectly, leaving Solomon a failed, marred reflection of Him.</p>


text:
<p>King Solomon was king over all Israel-</p><p>The unity of Israel is associated with its glory. Israel's maximum point of glory under Solomon was also its historically most united period.</p>


text:
<p>These were the princes whom he had: Azariah the son of Zadok, the priest-</p><p>Azariah was therefore a king-priest (cp. <a href='B:730 5:10'>Rev 5:10</a>). The kingdom of Solomon can indeed be viewed as a type of the future kingdom of the Lord Jesus. The twelve deputy rulers (:7) correspond with <a href='B:470 19:28'>Mat 19:28</a>; the provision of food each month (:27) corresponds with <a href='B:290 66:23'>Isa 66:23</a>; <a href='B:330 47:12'>Eze 47:12</a> and <a href='B:730 22:2'>Rev 22:2</a>. But in reality it was rather that Solomon had been potentially empowered to be the Messianic seed with a Messianic kingdom as promised to David, but he failed. And the Lord Jesus fulfilled the potentials of the seed perfectly, leaving Solomon and his kingdom as a failed, marred reflection of Him.</p>


text:
<p>Elihoreph and Ahijah, the sons of Shisha, scribes; Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud, the recorder- </p><p>Shisha was the Shavsha of <a href='B:130 18:16'>1Ch 18:16</a>, the Sheva of <a href='B:100 20:25'>2Sa 20:25</a> and the Seraiah of <a href='B:100 8:17'>2Sa 8:17</a>. Jehoshaphat would have now been elderly (<a href='B:100 8:16'>2Sa 8:16</a>; <a href='B:100 20:24'>2Sa 20:24</a>); see on :4.</p>


text:
<p>Benaiah the son of Jehoiada was over the army; Zadok and Abiathar were priests-</p><p>This is only a description of things as they initially were. For Abiathar was soon deposed by Solomon, and Benaiah was by now an old man who would not have lived long into Solomon's reign.</p>


text:
<p>Azariah the son of Nathan was over the officers; Zabud the son of Nathan was chief officer, the king’s friend- </p><p>Solomon alludes to this in <a href='B:240 27:9'>Pro 27:9</a>: "Perfume and incense bring joy to the heart; so does earnest counsel from a man’s friend". This is true, but Solomon may be using Divine truth to justify himself; for he had appointed the son of Nathan the prophet, loyal to David his father, as "the king's friend".</p>


text:
<p>Ahishar was over the household; and Adoniram the son of Abda was over the men subject to forced labour- </p><p>The emphasis upon the forced labour brigades is significant (<a href='B:110 5:13-14'>1Ki 5:13-14</a>; <a href='B:110 12:18'>1Ki 12:18</a>), and it was Solomon's brutal treatment of his people which led to the complaint after his death that he had whipped the people and abused them. This was exactly as Samuel had warned the people would happen if they chose a human king rather than God as their king; for God is kinder than men. We see therefore that Solomon was no better than Saul. All his wisdom failed to make him value the meaning f the human person. It was therefore only held by him in theory not in practice.</p>


text:
<p>Solomon had twelve officers over all Israel, who provided food for the king and his household: each man had to make provision for a month in the year-</p><p>See on :2. This implies a huge amount of food was required by Solomon to feed his extended family. His 700 wives and 300 concubines would have produced many children who all required feeding. Solomon's indulgence of every sexual whim came at a cost, which he forced his people to meet; and it gave him no family happiness, but rather led him to the cynical reflection of <a href='B:250 5:11'>Ecc 5:11</a>.</p>


text:
<p>These are their names: Ben Hur, in the hill country of Ephraim- </p><p>It could be argued that Solomon's taxation system was effectively taxing the other tribes apart from Judah. For the twelve administrative districts exclude Judah:</p><p>1. Mount Ephraim </p><p>2. Makaz </p><p>3. Arubboth </p><p>4. Naphath-dor </p><p>5. Taanach and Megiddo </p><p>6. Ramoth-gilead </p><p>7. Mahanaim </p><p>8. Naphtali </p><p>9. Asher and Zebulun </p><p>10. Issachar </p><p>11. Benjamin </p><p>12. The land of Gad (<a href='B:110 4:7-19'>1Ki 4:7-19</a>) </p><p>This organization was not strictly according to the tribal divisions but was more geographically based. Thus group 2 was from both Dan and Ephraim; group 3 from both Manasseh and Ephraim. Perhaps this was an intentional attempt to undermine tribalism, which Solomon saw as a potential threat to his power base. If he had been obedient to God, he could have been quietly assured that God and not his cunning would establish and eternally maintain his kingdom. And yet the regional governors imposed by Solomon were largely from Judah or somehow related to David's "old guard". This group 9 was ruled by the son of David's advisor Hushai (<a href='B:100 15:32-37'>2Sa 15:32-37</a>). Group 8 by Solomon's son in law Ahimaaz (<a href='B:110 4:15'>1Ki 4:15</a>). Group 5 was ruled by a connection with the priest Zadok, and possible by the brother of David, and Solomon's scribe Jehoshaphat (<a href='B:110 4:3'>1Ki 4:3</a>). Abinadab of group 7 was probably the son of Iddo who had been one of David's men (<a href='B:130 27:21'>1Ch 27:21</a>). Abinadab who ruled Group 4 was Solomon's son in law (<a href='B:110 4:11'>1Ki 4:11</a>).</p><p>All this was an attempt by Solomon to establish the kingdom in his own strength. The regional governors were not locals, but rather under the direct control of Solomon in Jerusalem and appointed on the basis of loyalty to him. No wonder that after his death, the other tribes wanted to break free from Judah.</p>


text:
<p>Ben Deker, in Makaz, and in Shaalbim, and Beth Shemesh, and Elon Beth Hanan- </p><p>These were in Dan (<a href='B:70 1:35'>Jdg 1:35</a>). Beth Shemesh was a priestly city (<a href='B:60 21:16'>Jos 21:16</a>), but Solomon still required them to pay taxes to him in Jerusalem, contrary to the spirit of the Mosaic law.</p>


text:
<p>Ben Hesed, in Arubboth (to him belonged Socoh, and all the land of Hepher)- </p><p>I suggest this Socoh is the one in Manasseh and not the one in Judah; see on :8.</p>


text:
<p>Ben Abinadab, in all the height of Dor (he had Taphath the daughter of Solomon as wife)- </p><p>- See on :8.</p>


text:
<p>Baana the son of Ahilud, in Taanach and Megiddo, and all Beth Shean which is beside Zarethan, beneath Jezreel, from Beth Shean to Abel Meholah, as far as beyond Jokmeam-</p><p>The brother of Jehoshaphat (:3), again reflecting how the rulers of the regions were not local men but part of Solomon's inner circle, or their relatives. See on :8.</p>


text:
<p>Ben Geber, in Ramoth Gilead (to him belonged the towns of Jair the son of Manasseh, which are in Gilead; to him belonged the region of Argob, which is in Bashan, sixty great cities with walls and bronze bars)- </p><p>They had begun as small towns (<a href='B:40 32:41'>Num 32:41</a>) but had grown since then. But they were all to pay their taxes to Jerusalem; see on :8.</p>


text:
<p>Ahimaaz, in Naphtali (he also took Basemath the daughter of Solomon as wife)- </p><p>- See on :8.</p>


text:
<p>Shimei the son of Ela, in Benjamin- </p><p>Although Judah and Benjamin were always connected, as explained on :8, Solomon expected Benjamin to pay taxes to him in Jerusalem. We note at this point the clear omission of Judah as a taxable area.</p>


text:
<p>Geber the son of Uri, in the land of Gilead, the country of Sihon king of the Amorites and of Og king of Bashan; and he was the only officer who was in the land- </p><p>"Only" could mean "the greatest", and "the land" may refer to the territory on the east of Jordan. "Officer" translates a military term; the idea may be that he was the only garrison officer stationed in that area, which had many Gentiles in it.</p>


text:
<p>Judah and Israel were many as the sand which is by the sea in multitude, eating and drinking and making merry- </p><p>This is alluded to by Solomon in <a href='B:240 14:28'>Pro 14:28</a> GNB: "A king's greatness depends on how many people he rules; without them he is nothing". Solomon is again justifying himself, for the people at his time are described as very many at his time (<a href='B:110 4:20'>1Ki 4:20</a>). Solomon is harnessing Divine truth to his own agenda of self justification. And we who claim to hold His truths must take warning.</p><p>We must remember that baptism means that we are now the seed of Abraham, and the blessings of forgiveness, of all spiritual blessings in heavenly places, and God's turning us away from our sins are right now being fulfilled in us (<a href='B:550 3:27-29'>Gal 3:27-29</a>). Israel were multiplied as the sand on the sea shore (<a href='B:100 17:11'>2Sa 17:11</a>; <a href='B:110 4:20'>1Ki 4:20</a>), they possessed the gates of their enemies (<a href='B:50 17:2'>Deu 17:2</a>; <a href='B:50 18:6'>Deu 18:6</a>)- all in antitype of how Abraham's future seed would also receive the promised blessings in their mortal experience, as well as in the eternal blessedness of the future Kingdom.</p><p>"Judah and Israel were many, as the sand which is by the sea in multitude, eating and drinking and making merry" combines allusions to two different passages:&nbsp;Clearly there is reference to the fact that the Abrahamic promises had a primary fulfillment at this time:&nbsp; But the final phrase refers back to Israel's idolatry with the golden calf:&nbsp; It is as if the dualism within Solomon at this time - in being the primary fulfillment of the seed, and yet also being apostate - was fulfilled in Israel. We see elsewhere several indications that Solomon and Israel were closely connected (cp. Christ and the church).</p>


text:
<p>Solomon ruled over all the kingdoms from the River to the land of the Philistines, and to the border of Egypt: they brought tribute, and served Solomon all the days of his life- </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 and the nations brought "presents" (s:w. sacrifices) to him&nbsp; (<a href='B:110 4:21'>1Ki 4:21</a>). All this looked ahead to the Messianic Kingdom; but see on :25.</p>


text:
<p>Solomon’s provision for one day was thirty measures of fine flour, and sixty measures of meal- </p><p>Solomon in <a href='B:240 23:3'>Pro 23:3</a> warned not to desire huge meals. But Solomon clearly revelled in his food, and speaks in Ecclesiastes of how he tried to find fulfilment in gluttony. He knew God's truth, but "it was far from me" personally, as he laments in Ecclesiastes. There mere possession of Divine truth can in fact lead a man to think it doesn't apply to him. This is why the word must be made flesh in us, as it was in the Lord.</p>


text:
<p>ten head of fat cattle, twenty head of cattle out of the pastures, one hundred sheep, besides harts, gazelles, roebucks and fattened fowl- </p><p>"Fattened fowl" has been translated as geese or swans. Not all these animals were clean food, but Solomon (according to Ecclesiastes) wanted to experiment with all human experience.</p>


text:
<p>For he had dominion over all on this side of the River, from Tiphsah even to Gaza, over all the kings on this side of the River: and he had peace on all sides around him-</p><p>In the context of this chapter, the "dominion" in view may mean that all had to pay taxes to Solomon.</p>


text:
<p>Judah and Israel lived safely, every man under his vine and under his fig tree, from Dan even to Beersheba, all the days of Solomon-</p><p>Clearly this language, and the great fertility of the land implied by :22-28, is the language of the Messianic kingdom (<a href='B:400 4:4'>Mic 4:4</a>; <a href='B:330 34:28'>Eze 34:28</a>; <a href='B:290 35:1-2'>Isa 35:1-2</a>). But in reality it was rather that Solomon had been potentially empowered to be the Messianic seed with a Messianic kingdom as promised to David, but he failed. And the Lord Jesus fulfilled the potentials of the seed perfectly, leaving Solomon and his kingdom as a failed, marred reflection of Him.</p>


text:
<p>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>


text:
<p>Those officers provided food for king Solomon, and for all who came to king Solomon’s table, every man in his month- </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><p>They let nothing be lacking- </p><p>Heb. ‘they let nothing be missing'. This is in the context of describing the taxation system, whereby taxation was enforced and the taxes were indeed gathered to Solomon.</p>


text:
<p>Barley also and straw for the horses and swift steeds brought they to the place where the officers were, each man according to his duty-</p><p>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. 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>


text:
<p>God gave Solomon great wisdom and understanding, and very great perception, according to the sand which is on the seashore- </p><p>His wisdom was to guide Israel, but it concerned the natural creation; as if his expositions concerning this were teaching spiritual lessons (<a href='B:110 4:29'>1Ki 4:29</a>; <a href='B:110 4:32-33'>1Ki 4:32-33</a>)- as the Lord's parables. The "largenss of heart" (AV) was to be experienced by all Israel, whose largeness of heart was to lead to the Gentiles flowing to them (<a href='B:290 60:5'>Isa 60:5</a>). Paul's appeal to allow the Holy Spirit to enlarge our hearts could be seen as alluding to the gift given Solomon (<a href='B:540 6:11'>2Co 6:11</a>; <a href='B:540 6:13'>2Co 6:13</a>).</p><p>The description of the "largeness" of heart in <a href='B:110 4:29'>1Ki 4:29</a> uses the&nbsp; same word used about the largeness of the land of Israel in <a href='B:20 3:8'>Exo 3:8</a>; <a href='B:160 9:35'>Neh 9:35</a>; his wisdom was "as the sand that is on the sea shore",&nbsp; as Israel were described in <a href='B:10 22:17'>Gen 22:17</a>. He wanted wisdom, but so as to teach it to others, not to personalize it. Even&nbsp;in&nbsp;his&nbsp;spiritual&nbsp; collapse&nbsp; at the time of Ecclesiastes, Solomon still&nbsp; taught&nbsp; Israel&nbsp; true&nbsp; wisdom,&nbsp; and organized his wisdom into more accessible books (<a href='B:250 12:9-12'>Ecc 12:9-12</a>), giving himself the title koheleth (‘the preacher’). And yet he himself tried alcohol, wealth, women, indeed every addiction, in order to “see what was that good for the sons of men, which they should do under the heaven” (<a href='B:250 2:3'>Ecc 2:3</a>). And yet he knew from childhood the conclusion of the matter- man’s duty is to fear God and be obedient (<a href='B:250 12:13'>Ecc 12:13</a>). He who had been given wisdom started out in a search for it… showing clearly enough that what he knew was so much theory, but never touched his own heart. Solomon taught wisdom to the youngsters, but he gave himself over to search for some kind of vague philosophical truth outside of God.</p>


text:
<p>Solomon’s wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east, and all the wisdom of Egypt- </p><p>If this is simply God's comment, then it would be axiomatic that Solomon's Divinely given wisdom was better than that of the Gentiles. So we should rather read this as stating how his wisdom was perceived amongst the Gentiles.</p>


text:
<p>For he was wiser than all men; than Ethan the Ezrahite, Heman- </p><p>Ethan and Heman are mentioned together in <a href='B:110 4:31'>1Ki 4:31</a> as men whom Solomon's wisdom exceeded; and in <a href='B:130 15:19'>1Ch 15:19</a> they are both singers whom David appointed. We can assume that they were famed for their wisdom; but Solomon's wisdom exceeded theirs.</p><p>Calcol, Darda, the sons of Mahol: and his fame was in all the nations all around-</p><p>Calcol and the other names mentioned in <a href='B:110 4:31'>1Ki 4:31</a> as wise men are all mentioned in <a href='B:130 2:6'>1Ch 2:6</a> as sons of Zerah, men of Judah. The idea of <a href='B:110 4:30-31'>1Ki 4:30-31</a> is that Solomon's wisdom exceeded that of famous Gentile wise men, and also of the wise men of Judah:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>He spoke three thousand proverbs; and his songs were one thousand and five- </p><p>LXX says 5000 songs. David was famed as Israel's psalmist, and his songs were distributed to the surrounding nations, appealing for them to turn to Israel's God. Solomon's obsession with writing songs can be seen as an attempt to live out his father's image.</p>


text:
<p>He spoke of trees, from the cedar that is in Lebanon even to the hyssop that springs out of the wall; he spoke also of animals, birds, creeping things and fish- </p><p>The greatest of trees in Palestine, the cedar, is contrasted with the smallest, the hyssop; the idea being that Solomon spoke of the entire range of plant life. But later Solomon sadly reflects in <a href='B:250 1:8'>Ecc 1:8</a> LXX that "a man will not be able to speak of them". And yet Solomon had spoken of all things by the wisdom given him (<a href='B:110 4:32-33'>1Ki 4:32-33</a>), but now he says that the vanity of all human experience is beyond speaking of. Whilst Solomon retained his wisdom, he felt that it was not the full answer to the mystery of life; and the answer was, so far as he could see it, that all things are vain and wearisome. Life is not therefore particularly worth living. This is the attitude which arises when we fail to personalize wisdom, and refuse to accept that this life is not God's Kingdom; that is yet to come. This wisdom about plants and animals was given Solomon for the sake of God's people Israel. It was intended to boost their agriculture. See on <a href='B:110 5:6'>1Ki 5:6</a>.</p>


text:
<p>There came of all peoples to hear the wisdom of Solomon, from all kings of the earth, who had heard of his wisdom- </p><p>The repetition of the two phrases gives the impression that they heard of his wisdom, and so they came to hear his wisdom. As exemplified by the visit of the Queen of Sheba, it is one thing to hear wisdom; but there is a natural desire to hear the word made flesh. This principle is so true for our witness today. The presentation of God's truth as words on a screen is far less persuasive than hearing them as a word made flesh, from a live person. And that is why God did not leave His word as it was, but made it flesh in the Lord Jesus; so that He speaks to us "in His Son".</p>


text:
<p>Hiram king of Tyre sent his servants to Solomon; for he had heard that they had anointed him king in the place of his father: for Hiram had always admired David- </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. <a href='B:110 3:7'>1Ki 3:7</a>). 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 God does Solomon make reference to David; for example: "Thou hast&nbsp;showed unto thy servant&nbsp; David&nbsp; my&nbsp; father great mercy, according as he walked before&nbsp; thee&nbsp; in&nbsp; truth, and in righteousness, and in uprightness of heart with thee; and thou hast 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>


text:
<p>Solomon sent to Hiram saying- </p><p>As noted on :1, 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>You know how that David my father could not build a house for the name of Yahweh his God for the wars which were about him on every side, until Yahweh put his enemies under the soles of his feet-</p><p>Solomon had a way of spinning things, even God’s word, in his own selfish way. David had insisted that God had told him that he couldn’t build the temple because he had shed so much blood in war (<a href='B:130 22:8'>1Ch 22:8</a>). But Solomon just slightly spins this when he asks Hiram to come and help him build the temple, because, he says, his father David hadn’t had the time to get around to the job because of being busy fighting wars (<a href='B:110 5:3'>1Ki 5:3</a>). He says nothing about David shedding blood; the moral aspect of it all is nicely ignored by Solomon.</p>


text:
<p>But now Yahweh my God has given me rest on every side. There is no adversary nor any evil occurrence- </p><p>Solomon imagines that his kingdom is the promised "rest" of the Messianic kingdom promised to David. But his degree of "rest" was only in his imagination. For he had various adversaries on the borders, Hadad, Rezon and others (<a href='B:110 11:14'>1Ki 11:14</a>; <a href='B:110 11:23'>1Ki 11:23</a>; <a href='B:110 11:25'>1Ki 11:25</a>). So again, Solomon is spinning things to fit his narrative.</p><p>The Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament uses the Greek word diabolos to translate the Hebrew 'Satan'. Hence Devil and Satan are effectively parallel in meaning. Thus we read in the Septuagint of David being an adversary [Heb. Satan, Gk. diabolos] in <a href='B:90 29:4'>1Sa 29:4</a> ["turns against us"]; the sons of Zeruiah (<a href='B:100 19:22'>2Sa 19:22</a>), Hadad, Rezon and other opponents to Solomon (<a href='B:110 5:4'>1Ki 5:4</a>; <a href='B:110 11:14'>1Ki 11:14</a>; <a href='B:110 11:23'>1Ki 11:23</a>; <a href='B:110 11:25'>1Ki 11:25</a>). We face a simple choice- if we believe that every reference to 'Satan' or 'Devil' refers to an evil cosmic being, then we have to assume that these people weren't people at all, and that even good men like David were evil. The far more natural reading of these passages is surely that 'Satan' is simply a word meaning 'adversary', and can be applied to people [good and bad], and even God Himself- it carries no pejorative, sinister meaning as a word. See on :18.</p>


text:
<p>Behold, I purpose to build a house for the name of Yahweh my God, as Yahweh spoke to David my father saying, ‘Your son, whom I will set on your throne in your place, he shall build the house for My name’- </p><p>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>Now therefore command that they cut me cedar trees out of Lebanon. My servants shall be with your servants; and I will give you wages for your servants according to all that you shall say. For you know that there is not among us any who knows how to cut timber like the Sidonians- </p><p>Perhaps this was connected with the Divine wisdom about cedar trees which God had given Solomon (<a href='B:110 4:33'>1Ki 4:33</a>).</p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p>King Solomon raised a levy out of all Israel; and the levy was thirty thousand men- </p><p>Solomon's lack of sensitivity to God's word led him to be tragically insensitive to people; in short, he showed no love. The way Solomon raised a "levy" or tribute from Israel, whereby the men of Israel had to serve him one month out of three and 'bear burdens', with 3,300 taskmasters over them (<a href='B:110 5:13-15'>1Ki 5:13-15</a>), who 'bore rule' over (Heb. 'trampled down') the people (<a href='B:110 5:16'>1Ki 5:16</a>)... is all reminiscent of Samuel's warning about the kind of King which Israel would have. And the language also recalls their bondage in Egypt; note that the levy was also in order to build treasure cities for Solomon, just as Pharaoh did (<a href='B:110 9:19'>1Ki 9:19</a>). The Hebrew word for "levy" in <a href='B:110 5:13'>1Ki 5:13</a> strictly means 'a burden causing to faint', and is rendered "taskmaster" in the record of Israel's suffering in Egypt (<a href='B:20 1:11'>Exo 1:11</a>). One even wonders if Solomon's father-in-law- who also happened to be a Pharaoh of Egypt- influenced him (consciously or unconsciously) to act like the Exodus Pharaoh.</p>


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


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


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


text:
<p>The king commanded, and they cut out great stones, costly stones, to lay the foundation of the house with worked stone- </p><p>But <a href='B:110 9:15'>1Ki 9:15</a> says that all this labour regarding quarrying was not simply for the temple; but also for his own house, which was far larger than God's house, and took nearly twice as long to build. He justified his own serving of his own desires under the guise of serving God.</p>


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


text:
<p>&nbsp; It happened in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel had come out of the land of Egypt-</p><p>LXX gives the 440th year. Sometimes the Biblical record is vague, other times exact. This reflects how God is not seeking to cover His back against critics. He is of an altogether higher nature than that. There are times when the Spirit uses very approximate numbers rather than exact ("about the space of four hundred and fifty years", <a href='B:510 13:20'>Act 13:20</a> cp. <a href='B:110 6:1'>1Ki 6:1</a>). As noted on :38, the temple was built in seven and a half years, but this is summarized as seven years. The reference to "seventy" in <a href='B:70 9:56'>Jdg 9:56</a> also doesn't seem exact. Seven and a half years (<a href='B:100 2:11'>2Sa 2:11</a>) becomes "seven years" (<a href='B:110 2:11'>1Ki 2:11</a>); three months and ten days (<a href='B:140 36:9'>2Ch 36:9</a>) becomes "three months" (<a href='B:120 24:8'>2Ki 24:8</a>). And <a href='B:110 7:23'>1Ki 7:23</a> gives the circumference of the laver as “thirty cubits”, although it was ten cubits broad. Taking ‘pi’ to be 3:14, it is apparent that the circumference would have been 31:4 cubits; but the Spirit says, summing up, “thirty”.</p><p>In the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month Ziv, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of Yahweh- </p><p>The note in the LXX at the end of 1 Kings 5 says that the preparation of the materials took three years. Which would mean that Solomon began the project immediately he came to the throne, wrongly seeing the building of the temple as some kind of proof that he was indeed the Messianic son of David promised in 2 Samuel 7:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>The house which king Solomon built for Yahweh, its length was sixty cubits, and its breadth twenty, and its height thirty cubits- </p><p>This was twice the size of the tabernacle. 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 before the temple of the house, twenty cubits was its length, according to the breadth of the house. Ten cubits was its breadth before the house- </p><p>The height of the porch was 120 cubits, or 180 feet (<a href='B:140 3:4'>2Ch 3:4</a>). This is out of proportion to the length and breadth. Perhaps what is meant is that the height of each of the four walls has been added together, which would give a height of 30 cubits. This style is to be found in <a href='B:140 3:11'>2Ch 3:11</a>, where the length of the wings of the cherubim is given as 20 cubits, but this was a way of saying that each of the four wings was five cubits long. We have another example in the way that the two pillars are said to be 18 cubits high (<a href='B:110 7:15'>1Ki 7:15</a>), but in <a href='B:140 3:15'>2Ch 3:15</a> they are 35 cubits high. What that means is that there were two cubits of 17:5 cubits high each, summarized as 18 cubits high in <a href='B:110 7:15'>1Ki 7:15</a>.</p>


text:
<p>He made windows of fixed lattice work for the house- </p><p>"Windows broad within and narrow without" (AVmg:). They were for ventilation, not for light. There was no natural light in the temple just as there wasn't in the tabernacle. The hope was that it would be lit by the light of God's glory; and likewise there is no natural light in the spiritual temple, only that of God's glory.</p>


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


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


text:
<p>The house, when it was in building, was built of stone prepared at the quarry; and there was neither hammer nor axe nor any tool of iron heard in the house, while it was in building- </p><p>This was perhaps an attempt to follow the spirit of the law which commanded that no iron tool should be used in the shaping of stones for an altar (<a href='B:20 20:25'>Exo 20:25</a>; <a href='B:50 27:5'>Deu 27:5</a>). But typical of Solomon, it is a getting around of God's law; because all the same, iron tools were used in preparing the stones. The Lord Jesus is presented as the builder of the spiritual temple, in which the stones should fit together without strife (<a href='B:560 2:21'>Eph 2:21</a> alludes to <a href='B:110 6:7'>1Ki 6:7</a>). This means that we as the stones are being prepared in this life; every knock and blow we receive is intended to shape us to fit next to other stones, eternally. And the final assembly of the stones at the day of judgment will not be the time for shaping; that is going on now.</p>


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


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


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


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


text:
<p>Concerning this house which you are building, if you will walk in My statutes, and execute My ordinances, and keep all My commandments to walk in them; then will I establish My word with you, which I spoke to David your father- God constantly warned Solomon about the conditionality of the promises, before the building started (<a href='B:100 7:14'>2Sa 7:14</a>), during it (<a href='B:110 6:11-13'>1Ki 6:11-13</a>) and immediately after completing it (<a href='B:110 9:2-9'>1Ki 9:2-9</a>).</p><p>Thanks to Solomon’s prayer, and if he had been obedient, all Israel would have been blessed and experienced Yahweh dwelling amongst them (<a href='B:110 6:12-13'>1Ki 6:12-13</a>). Moses prayed for God to forgive Israel; and He responded: “I have pardoned, according to your word” (<a href='B:40 14:20'>Num 14:20</a>)- rather than according to their repentance and prayer. Indeed it would seem from <a href='B:650 11:28'>Heb 11:28</a> that Israel were delivered from the Egyptians due to Moses’&nbsp; faith in the Christ whom the sprinkled Passover blood pointed forward to. And so Israel's blessing was dependent on Solomon's obedience (<a href='B:110 6:12-13'>1Ki 6:12-13</a>); their joy was because of the honour God had given Solomon (<a href='B:140 7:10'>2Ch 7:10</a>). The blessing of others can be dependent upon a third party (e.g. <a href='B:480 2:5'>Mar 2:5</a>).</p>


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


text:
<p>So Solomon built the house, and finished it- </p><p>There appears no particular need for the phrase "Concerning this house which you are in building" in :12- it appears somewhat redundant, until we realize that God is saying 'OK I see you are building this house, thinking you are so obedient to my word; well, get on and keep my word in reality, and then the promises to David will apply to you'. Activity supposedly in God's service can lead us to think that of course we are being obedient to His word... when the very obsession of the activity may be blinding us to the fact that we aren't at all. There's no record that Solomon responded positively to God's warning words- <a href='B:110 6:14'>1Ki 6:14</a> states that "So Solomon built the house, and finished it". We are expecting to hear Solomon respond to God- but instead, he gets on with building again.</p>


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p>Within the inner sanctuary was twenty cubits in length, and twenty cubits in breadth, and twenty cubits in its height; and he overlaid it with pure gold: and he covered the altar with cedar- </p><p>The idea is that within the inner sanctuary there was a space of 20 cubits length. The altar within the Most Holy was the altar of incense. The altar is described in some manuscripts as "made" with cedar, and this surely must be the case. It was the cedar which was overlaid with pure gold as in <a href='B:20 25:11'>Exo 25:11</a>.</p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p>The floor of the house he overlaid with gold, inside and outside- </p><p>David had perceived that "Holiness adorns Your house, Yahweh, forever" (<a href='B:230 93:5'>Psa 93:5</a>). David realized in that Psalm that if God's throne was David's throne, then David's house was to as Yahweh's house, adorned with holiness. Solomon interpreted this in physical terms, adorning the temple with symbols of holiness (the cherubim) and gold; but the real adornment was of personal holiness, which Solomon failed in ultimately because of his obsession with the external and material.</p>


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


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


text:
<p>In the same way he also made for the entrance of the temple door posts of olive wood, out of a fourth part of the wall- </p><p>The wall was 20 cubits high, so the length and breadth of the door posts / lintel were 5 x 5 cubits. "The entrance" in view is that into the holy place from the porch.</p>


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p>Solomon was building his own house thirteen years, and he finished all his house-</p><p>The record of Solomon's building of his own house is clearly framed to reveal the sad fact that his zeal for God's house was only an outcome of his own natural zeal and passion for building which he comments upon in Ecclesiastes;&nbsp;but that tremendous energy was given far more scope in achieving his own ends:&nbsp;So often apparently active brethren are only so because the Truth is only compounding their own naturally active characters. For example, those who naturally like travelling can seem zealous Gospel missionaries. The style of the record makes this clear of Solomon:</p>&nbsp;&nbsp;<p> "So was he seven years in building (God's house)...</p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<p>but &nbsp;Solomon was building his own house thirteen years" (<a href='B:110 6:38'>1Ki 6:38</a>; <a href='B:110 7:1'>1Ki 7:1</a>).</p><p>His own house (cp. our family and mortgage) assumed almost double the importance of God's house. In this we see Solomon's apostacy:&nbsp; The architectural detail given concerning Solomon's house and "the house of the forest of Lebanon" seems to be given in such a format as to compare with that concerning God's house.</p>


text:
<p>For he built the house of the forest of Lebanon; its length was one hundred cubits, and its breadth fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits, on four rows of cedar pillars, with cedar beams on the pillars- </p><p>The Temple was smaller than Solomon's house; he took nearly twice as long to build it. Clearly he spent more effort at housing his own glory than he did housing God's. The comparisons are intended to show this. The following comparisons put the temple first, and then Solomon's house.</p><p>Length: 60 cubits, breadth 20, height 30 (<a href='B:110 6:2'>1Ki 6:2</a>)cp:Length: 100 cubits, breadth 50, height 30 (<a href='B:110 7:2'>1Ki 7:2</a>)</p><p>Used cedar pillars and beams (<a href='B:110 6:9-10'>1Ki 6:9-10</a>) cp. <a href='B:110 7:2'>1Ki 7:2</a></p><p>Inner court built with three rows of hewn stone and a row of cedar beams (<a href='B:110 6:36'>1Ki 6:36</a> RV) cp. “The great court round about had three rows of hewn stones, and a row of cedar beams, like as the inner court of the house of the Lord” (<a href='B:110 7:12'>1Ki 7:12</a>)</p><p>Hiram called in to build it (<a href='B:110 5:1-5'>1Ki 5:1-5</a>)cp. <a href='B:110 7:13'>1Ki 7:13</a></p><p>The Most Holy within God's house (<a href='B:110 7:8'>1Ki 7:8</a>)cp:The "another court within the porch" in his house seems to have been a replica of the Most Holy within God's house. Here Solomon’s wives worshipped their idols.</p><p>Built on large foundation stones cp. The record of the foundation stones (7:10) is similar to that of the temple foundations.</p><p>The temple had a “porch” (<a href='B:330 8:7'>Eze 8:7</a>; <a href='B:330 8:16'>Eze 8:16</a>) cp. The porch of Solomon's house matches that of the temple (<a href='B:330 8:7'>Eze 8:7</a>; <a href='B:330 8:16'>Eze 8:16</a>), which in Ezekiel's time was a place of apostacy.</p><p>Open flowers design of the temple&nbsp;cp. The two pillars with their pomegranates and lily-work seem to have matched the open flowers of the temple, and they have ominous connections with Absalom's pillar of self-glorification (<a href='B:100 18:18'>2Sa 18:18</a>).</p><p>The way the record of Solomon's house follows straight on from that of God's house (1 Kings 6, 7) seems to highlight the similarity between them:&nbsp;&nbsp; The house of Yahweh and Solomon's house are often spoke of together (e.g. <a href='B:140 7:11'>2Ch 7:11</a>; <a href='B:140 8:1'>2Ch 8:1</a>; <a href='B:140 9:11'>2Ch 9:11</a>) to make us reflect on this. Indeed, the record of Solomon's house in <a href='B:110 7:1-12'>1Ki 7:1-12</a> is a parenthesis out of historical sequence;&nbsp; 5:2-6:38 and 7:13-9:9 are about the temple;&nbsp; 7:1-12 is a clear parenthesis to demonstrate Solomon's weakness.</p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p>Above were costly stones, cut stone, according to measure, and cedar wood- </p><p>That is, above the foundation stones of :10. The stones built upon them were "cut stones", implying they were smoothed. Again as noted on :10, more effort was put into Solomon's own house than God's house.</p>


text:
<p>The great court around had three courses of cut stone, and a course of cedar beams; like the inner court of the house of Yahweh, and the porch of the house-</p><p>Again we see Solomon playing God. His house was a conscious replica of the temple, the house of Yahweh, but to a grander scale and with far more effort put into it.</p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p>The capitals that were on the top of the pillars in the porch were of carved lilies, four cubits- </p><p>Again, this reflects Egyptian influence on Solomon, rather than any great spiritual symbolism. For "the capitals of Egyptian pillars took the form of the lotus", and here he uses carved lilies, although they may effectively be the same as the lotus motif of Egyptian architecture. It seems that this refers to another capital superimposed upon those we have just had described (:20). Again, we see how more effort was put into Solomon's own house than God's house.</p>


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


text:
<p>He set up the pillars at the porch of the temple: and he set up the right pillar- </p><p>I suggest there were two sets of pillars, one before Solomon's house and another before the temple. Now the focus of the record returns to the temple, as now we will also read of the huge laver Solomon built before the temple. But pillars before a temple was a reflection of pagan influence. "The Phoenicians used isolated metal columns as sacred ornaments, so that Hiram would be familiar with such a mode of ornamentation" (Rawlinson). "Whenever in coins or histories we get a representation of a Phoenician temple, it always has a pillar or pillars standing within or before it" (Stanley). It seems that the contact with Tyre had resulted in their religion coming to influence Solomon's design of the temple. And so it happens when we claim to serve God according to the religious ideas of pagans. This is another reason why I query whether in fact he did receive the designs of the temple from God as he claimed.</p><p>And called its name Jachin; and he set up the left pillar, and called its name Boaz- </p><p>"Jachin" means "He will establish", and Boaz "in Him [God] is strength", which is the idea in <a href='B:290 45:24'>Isa 45:24</a>. They were a statement that God would establish the line of Solomon, and perhaps Boaz is also a reference to his ancestor of that name. But that establishment of the Kingdom was conditional upon Solomon's obedience, according to the promises to David in 2 Samuel 7. But Solomon liked to think that by building these pillars, he had himself established his dynasty, and shown it to be established. Putting the two names together, we have 'He will establish by strength’, and this seems to be deconstructed by the restoration prophecy of <a href='B:450 4:6'>Zec 4:6</a>, given after these two pillars had been removed, never to be restored.</p>


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


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


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


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


text:
<p>It was a handbreadth thick: and its brim was worked like the brim of a cup, like the flower of a lily: it held two thousand baths- </p><p>We several times read of the lily motif in Solomon's building. But the word can as well refer to the lotus. And "the lotus was the religious flower of the Indian and Egyptian religions". So we have a case of Solomon allowing himself to be influenced by the pagan religions of his wives and those he traded with, and importing it into his own version of Yahweh worship.</p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p>On the plates of its stays, and on its panels, he engraved cherubim, lions, and palm trees, according to the space of each, with wreaths all around- </p><p>Perhaps the reference was to David's imagery of the righteous flourishing like the palm tree (<a href='B:230 92:12'>Psa 92:12</a>). But Solomon had likened his Egyptian lover to a palm (<a href='B:260 7:7-8'>Son 7:7-8</a>), and the palm and open flowers feature in Egyptian architecture. See on <a href='B:110 6:18'>1Ki 6:18</a>. Seeing that Solomon had married an Egyptian, and the Song of Solomon reflects Solomon's deep admiration for things Egyptian, it seems likely that even in the temple, Solomon allowed Gentile influence, although mixing it with the imagery of the cherubim of Yahweh's manifestation. And that was to be a sad theme of this temple until its destruction.</p>


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


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


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


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


text:
<p>the two pillars, and the two bowls of the capitals that were on the top of the pillars; and the two networks to cover the two bowls of the capitals that were on the top of the pillars- </p><p>We now have a summary of all the work done, as if Solomon itemized it all and boasted in the inventory. This glorification of human works and achievement revealed so much about his lack of true spiritual perception; see on :40.</p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p>and the cups, and the snuffers, and the basins, and the spoons, and the fire pans, of pure gold; and the hinges, both for the doors of the inner house, the most holy place, and for the doors of the house, of the temple, of gold- </p><p>The inventory here is similar in style to that of the vessels of the tabernacle on Exodus 25-30. It seems Solomon wished to present what he had done in terms of building a new tabernacle, with himself thereby presented as Moses. And yet we have seen hints throughout the record that he built it with pagan influences throughout it.</p>


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


text:
<p>Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel, and all the heads of the tribes, the princes of the families of the people of Israel, to king Solomon in Jerusalem, to bring up the ark of the covenant of Yahweh out of the city of David, which is Zion-</p><p>Solomon imitated David's bringing up of the ark to Zion (<a href='B:100 6:2'>2Sa 6:2</a>) in <a href='B:110 8:1'>1Ki 8:1</a>; <a href='B:110 8:4'>1Ki 8:4</a>. He lived out his father's faith and devotion, but only on an external level. He in due course was to turn away from Yahweh to idols, and descend into the nihilism of Ecclesiastes:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>All the men of Israel assembled themselves to king Solomon at the feast, in the month Ethanim, which is the seventh month- </p><p>This would have been the feast of tabernacles, which began on the 15th day of the seventh month and lasted seven days (<a href='B:30 23:34'>Lev 23:34</a>). The building finished in the eighth month of Solomon's 11th year of reigning (<a href='B:110 6:37'>1Ki 6:37</a>), so he waited almost a year before this ceremony of dedication. Perhaps for some reason he wanted to combine it specifically with the feast of tabernacles. See on :36.</p>


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


text:
<p>They brought up the ark of Yahweh, and the Tent of Meeting, and all the holy vessels that were in the Tent; all these the priests and the Levites brought up- </p><p>The priests took these things on the final part of their journey, into the most holy place; as the Levites were forbidden from doing so (<a href='B:40 4:20'>Num 4:20</a>). But the Levites took them the first part of their journey; see on :3.</p>


text:
<p>King Solomon and all the congregation of Israel who were assembled to him, were with him before the ark, sacrificing sheep and cattle, that could not be counted nor numbered for multitude- </p><p>He offered huge numbers of sacrifices when the ark was brought into the temple (<a href='B:110 8:63'>1Ki 8:63</a>), just as David had sacrificed as the ark was brought to Zion (<a href='B:100 6:13'>2Sa 6:13</a> = <a href='B:110 8:5'>1Ki 8:5</a>). Yet he failed to feel and know the truth of David’s conclusion that God doesn’t essentially want sacrifice (<a href='B:230 40:6'>Psa 40:6</a>). David had been forced to learn that lesson through the shame of his sin with Bathsheba- Solomon was so sure of his own righteousness that he never was driven to see the inadequacy of animal sacrifice in itself, and the need in the end for the direct receipt of God’s grace.</p><p>Solomon offered sacrifices “that could not be told nor numbered for multitude”. This is evidently to be connected with the language of the promises to Abraham about the multiplication of the seed of Israel. It could be that Solomon thought that his generosity in giving of his wealth was what had brought about the fulfilment of these promises- he almost forced God to fulfil them, at least in his own mind, by his generosity.</p>


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


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


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


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


text:
<p>When the priests had come out of the holy place, the cloud filled the house of Yahweh- </p><p><a href='B:20 40:34-35'>Exo 40:34-35</a> uses the same terms for God's acceptance of and dwelling in the tabernacle. For all the pagan undertones in the temple, and Solomon's unspirituality, God was eager to still dwell within this structure; even though it was not what He wanted. Just as He had used the human kingship, when it was deeply offensive to Hm.</p>


text:
<p>so that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud; for the glory of Yahweh filled the house of Yahweh-</p><p>This was as at the erection of the tabernacle. The idea was that Yahweh's glory was far above the mere religion of the temple system.</p>


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


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


text:
<p>The king turned his face about- </p><p>From God to the people. The rest of this chapter is therefore Solomon praying facing the people rather than God. He was effectively praying to himself, praying to be seen of men. The Lord's criticism of such prayers seems to have in mind Solomon's example here.</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 is Yahweh, the God of Israel, who spoke with His mouth to David my father, and has with His hand fulfilled it, saying- </p><p>As discussed on :13, the promises to David were not at all totally fulfilled at that point, just because Solomon had built a temple. They were conditional upon Solomon's obedience to the law, which from a young man he had not shown. We think of his marriage to Rehoboam's Ammonitess mother, and to Pharaoh's daughter</p>


text:
<p>‘Since the day that I brought My people Israel out of Egypt, I chose no city out of all the tribes of Israel to build a house that My name might be there; but I chose David to be over My people Israel’- </p><p>This is a typical misrepresentation of God's word. What God had said through Nathan was that He had not chosen anywhere for a temple to be built, but had lived as it were a mobile life in the tent of the tabernacle. And therefore, God would build David a house in the sense of a family of believers sharing David's faith.</p>


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


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


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


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


text:
<p>There I have set a place for the ark, in which is the covenant of Yahweh which He made with our fathers when He brought them out of the land of Egypt-</p><p>By saying this, Solomon was careful to omit mentioning that the pit of manna and Aaron's rod were now no longer within the ark. See on :9.</p><p>“There was nothing in the ark except the two tablets of stone which Moses put there at Horeb ... the ark, in which is the covenant of the Lord” (<a href='B:110 8:9'>1Ki 8:9</a>; <a href='B:110 8:21'>1Ki 8:21</a>). Those tablets, on which were the ten commandments, were the covenant. The old covenant is therefore the ten commandments, including the Sabbath- and this has been replaced by the new covenant, which does not require Sabbath keeping.</p>


text:
<p>Solomon stood before the altar of Yahweh in the presence of all the assembly of Israel, and spread forth his hands toward heaven- </p><p>Solomon was hardly praying in his closet!&nbsp;It seems the Lord was alluding to Solomon in <a href='B:470 6:6'>Mat 6:6</a>, interpreting what he does here in a very negative light, and a reflection of Solomon's pride rather than his spirituality.</p>


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


text:
<p>who has kept with Your servant David my father that which You promised him. Yes, You spoke with Your mouth, and have fulfilled it with Your hand, as it is this day- </p><p>He failed to meditate upon the promises beyond what they seemed to offer him in the here and now; and the result was that he felt they were totally fulfilled in him (<a href='B:110 8:20'>1Ki 8:20</a>; <a href='B:110 8:24'>1Ki 8:24</a>). He dogmatically declared to Shimei: “And King Solomon shall be blessed, and the throne of David shall be established before the Lord for ever” (<a href='B:110 2:45'>1Ki 2:45</a>). And in all this, of course, we see our warning.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore, may Yahweh, the God of Israel, keep with Your servant David my father that which You have promised him saying, ‘There shall not fail you a man in My sight to sit on the throne of Israel, if only your children take heed to their way, to walk before Me as you have walked before Me’- </p><p>The promises to David originally focused upon one individual, whom the New Testament interprets as the Lord Jesus. But David here in <a href='B:230 89:30'>Psa 89:30</a>; <a href='B:230 132:12'>Psa 132:12</a> and Solomon in <a href='B:110 8:25'>1Ki 8:25</a> chose to understand the "seed" as the Davidic dynasty down the generations. This loss of focus upon the future Lord Jesus was what led David and Solomon to focus instead upon their own dynasty, rather than upon the future individual son of David who would reign eternally upon David's throne. His personal&nbsp; immortality came to be interpreted as the eternal continuance of the Davidic dynasty as kings of Israel throughout future generations.</p><p>Another example of Solomon misquoting God is in <a href='B:140 6:6'>2Ch 6:6</a>. Solomon claims that God said: “I have chosen Jerusalem, that my name might be there”. God had chosen no resting place, although it would have been politically convenient for Solomon if the city of Jerusalem as a city was where God had chosen to dwell. 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 therefore, God of Israel, please let Your word be verified, which You spoke to Your servant David my father- </p><p>Solomon keeps saying that his zealous&nbsp; work&nbsp; for the temple was the result of God's promise to David&nbsp; having&nbsp; fulfillment&nbsp; in him (<a href='B:110 8:24-26'>1Ki 8:24-26</a>), and to some extent&nbsp; this&nbsp; was true. David earnestly prayed for Solomon to be the Messianic King (e.g. Psalms 72), and therefore David asked for Solomon to be given a truly wise heart (<a href='B:130 29:19'>1Ch 29:19</a>). These prayers were answered in a very&nbsp; limited&nbsp; sense-&nbsp; in&nbsp; that Solomon was given great wisdom, and his Kingdom was one of the greatest&nbsp; types&nbsp; of&nbsp; Christ's&nbsp; future&nbsp; Kingdom:&nbsp; Our prayers for others really can have&nbsp; an&nbsp; effect upon them, otherwise there would be no point in the&nbsp;&nbsp; concept&nbsp;&nbsp; of&nbsp; praying&nbsp; for&nbsp; others:&nbsp; But&nbsp; of&nbsp; course&nbsp; each individual&nbsp; has&nbsp; an&nbsp; element&nbsp; of&nbsp; spiritual&nbsp; freewill;&nbsp; we can't force&nbsp; others&nbsp; to&nbsp; be&nbsp; spiritual&nbsp; by&nbsp; our&nbsp; prayers;&nbsp; yet&nbsp; on the other&nbsp; hand,&nbsp; our&nbsp; prayers&nbsp; can&nbsp; influence&nbsp; their&nbsp; spirituality. David's&nbsp; prayers&nbsp; for&nbsp; Solomon&nbsp; is&nbsp; the classic example of this. Those&nbsp; prayers&nbsp; were&nbsp; heard&nbsp; most definitely, in that God helped Solomon&nbsp; marvellously, giving him every opportunity to develop a superb&nbsp; spirituality; but he failed to have the genuine personal desire to be like this in his heart, in his heart he was back in Egypt, and therefore ultimately David's desire for Solomon to be the wondrous Messianic King of his dreams had to go unfulfilled.</p>


text:
<p>But will God in very deed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens can’t contain You; how much less this house that I have built!- </p><p>It was exactly because of this that God didn't want a physical house built for Him. Yet Solomon has misrepresented God as saying He did want such a house. So these words are fake humility from Solomon, seeking to cover his proud obsession with building projects beneath an appearance of humility.</p>


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


text:
<p>that Your eyes may be open toward this house night and day toward the place of which You have said, ‘My name shall be there;’ to listen to the prayer which Your servant shall pray toward this place- </p><p>God never said that. It is Solomon's twist of the word of promise to David, that if his son / seed were obedient, then "He shall build an house for My Name". But that house was to be built up from persons, and had no reference to any physical building; indeed, the very opposite. God's eyes are open upon His children wherever they are, as David had learned whilst far from the sanctuary and on the run from Saul. Nehemiah felt God's eyes were open upon him even when the temple was in ruins (<a href='B:160 1:6'>Neh 1:6</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Listen to the supplication of Your servant, and of Your people Israel, when they shall pray toward this place. Yes, hear in heaven, Your dwelling place; and when You hear, forgive- </p><p>The temple and ark are sometimes referred to as the heavens (<a href='B:100 15:25'>2Sa 15:25</a> cp. <a href='B:110 8:30'>1Ki 8:30</a>; <a href='B:140 30:27'>2Ch 30:27</a>; <a href='B:230 20:2'>Psa 20:2</a>; <a href='B:230 20:6'>Psa 20:6</a>; <a href='B:230 11:4'>Psa 11:4</a>; <a href='B:650 7:26'>Heb 7:26</a>). The church is the new temple, and is therefore at times referred to as the heavenlies in the New Testament. But Solomon was not reasoning on this level at this point. Rather was he claiming that the temple building would somehow make prayer more powerful before God. But that is simply untrue; no physical building can act as some kind of mediator between God and man. This is not to say that the faithful did not later pray toward the temple; for both Daniel and Jonah did. But it was not because they thought the temple somehow gave their prayers more power and standing before God because of its existence. For in Daniel's time, and perhaps Jonah's, the temple was in ruins.</p>


text:
<p>If a man sins against his neighbour, and an oath is laid on him to cause him to swear, and he comes and swears before Your altar in this house- </p><p>God's awareness of who was telling the truth was not, however, predicated upon the altar being situated within a physical building. God's presence and omniscience is not somehow from then on conditional upon the temple.</p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p>then hear in heaven their prayer and their supplication, and maintain their cause- </p><p>"Maintain their cause" is the same phrase translated "do judgment / justice". But Israel were to do justice (<a href='B:30 18:4'>Lev 18:4</a> and often, as David did, <a href='B:100 8:15'>2Sa 8:15</a>), and in response, Yahweh would do justice for them (<a href='B:50 10:18'>Deu 10:18</a>). But Solomon overlooks this conditional aspect in Israel's relationship with God, as he did in his own life. He thought that merely praying to a temple would somehow obligate God to 'do judgment' for His people. This is the mentality of mere religion, and not of relationship with God.</p>


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


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


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


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


text:
<p>and forgive Your people who have sinned against You, and all their transgressions in which they have transgressed against You; and give them compassion before those who carried them captive, that they may have compassion on them- </p><p>God's giving of compassion to His people depended upon their holiness before Him (s:w. <a href='B:50 13:17'>Deu 13:17</a>). But Solomon implies that it will be predicated upon the temple he had built. Form was replacing content, external religion was trumping true spirituality, physical symbolism was obscuring true repentance.</p>


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p>Blessed be Yahweh, who has given rest to His people Israel, according to all that He promised. There has not failed one word of all His good promise, which He promised by Moses His servant- </p><p>God's words not falling / failing means that they were fulfilled (<a href='B:90 3:19'>1Sa 3:19</a>). Solomon is making the same mistake as preterism, claiming that all the prophetic word had been fulfilled. He decided this on the mere basis that he had built a temple, which he wished to see as the fulfilment of the promises to David, which he now wished to understand as meaning the promises to Moses had been totally fulfilled as well. It was this lack of any perspective of future fulfilment, of the Messianic Kingdom to come and the resurrection of the dead, which led Solomon to fail to appreciate God's grace. He also therefore had no sense of personal failure and the wonder of acceptance by grace, because he thought he had been given full acceptance right now.</p>


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


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


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


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


text:
<p>Let your heart therefore be perfect with Yahweh our God, to walk in His statutes and to keep His commandments, as you do at this day-</p><p>Solomon considered that the fulfilment of the promises to Moses and David (which he was mistaken in thinking had fully happened just because he had built a temple) was because Israel "at this day" had a perfect heart with Yahweh. They didn't, but just as he assume his own perfect obedience, so he assumed theirs. Unlike David, he had not been forced by God to engage with the issues of his own sinfulness.</p>


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


text:
<p>Solomon offered for the sacrifice of peace offerings, which he offered to Yahweh, twenty two thousand head of cattle, and one hundred and twenty thousand sheep. So the king and all the children of Israel dedicated the house of Yahweh- </p><p>The usual pattern of sacrifice was sin offering (obtaining forgiveness), burnt offering (promising complete dedication to God) and then peace offering, celebrating the resultant peace with God then experienced. But Solomon has no sense of personal sin (see on :61), and considered himself dedicated to Yahweh by reason of being David's son. And so he only offers the peace offerings. The huge numbers of sacrifices were not at all what God wanted. But unlike David, he had not been brought to realize that God wants broken, repentant hearts and not offerings (<a href='B:230 51:16'>Psa 51:16</a>). <a href='B:400 6:7'>Mic 6:7</a> perhaps references Solomon's huge numbers of offerings, again commenting that God doesn't want them; just as He didn't want a physical temple. And yet God went along with Solomon, as He does with us so often, even on the basis of our misplaced idealism. For His glory appeared within the temple and He in that sense agreed to dwell there, just as He agreed to work through a human kingship, even though it meant a degree of rejection of Him as Israel's king.</p>


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


text:
<p>So Solomon held the feast at that time, and all Israel with him, a great assembly, from the entrance of Hamath to the brook of Egypt, before Yahweh our God, seven days and seven days, even fourteen days- </p><p>The dedication coincided with the seven day feast of tabernacles (see on :1), and to that was added this seven day feast of dedication. There were representatives from the very borders of the land promised to Abraham, implying these areas had been settled by Israelites; or perhaps those who attended from those places were Gentile proselytes.</p>


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


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


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


text:
<p>Yahweh said to him, I have heard your prayer and your supplication, that you have made before Me. I have made this house holy, which you have built, to put My name there forever; and My eyes and My heart shall be there constantly- </p><p>It has been argued that the Hebrew olahm, "forever", really means 'a period'. But I am unpersuaded of that argument in every case. Rather I would think that the context in this case requires that we understand God to be saying that He would indeed dwell in the temple "forever", and His particular sensitivity would be found in that place, His eyes and heart. But as He makes clear in :4-7, that was all conditional upon obedience. This highlights the tragedy- that eternity was at stake. So much depends upon human freewill decisions; for that is how much He respects us and our freedom of choice.</p>


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


text:
<p>then I will establish the throne of your kingdom over Israel forever, according as I promised to David your father saying, ‘There shall not fail you a man on the throne of Israel’- </p><p>This is the same quotation made in <a href='B:230 132:12'>Psa 132:12</a>. But God is picking up on Solomon's claim in <a href='B:110 8:24'>1Ki 8:24</a> that God had already fulfilled this. He is pointing out that this promise was conditional, and Solomon had overlooked that. The promise of "a man" suggests one individual; but Solomon was wrong in assuming this referred to himself.</p>


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


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


text:
<p>Though this house is so high, yet shall everyone who passes by it be astonished, and shall hiss; and they shall say, ‘Why has Yahweh done thus to this land, and to this house?’- </p><p>This is God's commentary upon the implications in Solomon's prayer that the temple and God's presence within it was to be eternal (see on <a href='B:110 8:34'>1Ki 8:34</a>; <a href='B:110 8:48'>1Ki 8:48</a>). Solomon had willfully misinterpreted the promises to David to mean that the temple was the fulfilment of the promise that the seed would build an eternal house. That house David had built was not the house in view, and could easily be destroyed and even become a curse rather than a blessing- if Solomon were disobedient.</p>


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


text:
<p>It happened at the end of twenty years, in which Solomon had built the two houses, the house of Yahweh and the king’s house-</p><p>Psalms 127 is prefaced with the information that it is a Psalm for Solomon- perhaps given by some nameless prophet (Gad? Nathan?) to warn him of where he was going. Verse 1 reminds him that God must be the builder of any house, or else the builders labour in vain. There is good reason to think that Solomon utterly failed to appreciate this. The records stress time and again that Solomon&nbsp; built the temple (<a href='B:110 6:2'>1Ki 6:2</a>; <a href='B:110 6:14'>1Ki 6:14</a>; <a href='B:110 9:10'>1Ki 9:10</a>; <a href='B:110 9:25'>1Ki 9:25</a>; <a href='B:110 10:4'>1Ki 10:4</a>; <a href='B:130 6:10'>1Ch 6:10</a>; <a href='B:130 6:32'>1Ch 6:32</a>; <a href='B:140 8:1'>2Ch 8:1</a>; <a href='B:140 8:12'>2Ch 8:12</a>; <a href='B:140 9:3'>2Ch 9:3</a>; <a href='B:510 7:47'>Act 7:47</a>); yet the house referred to in the Davidic promises was to be built by God, through David's Messianic Son, the Lord Jesus. Zechariah prophesied at the time of the rebuilding of the physical temple. It is significant, in this context, that <a href='B:450 6:12'>Zec 6:12</a> reminds Israel that the true temple of God will be built by the Branch, the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>(now Hiram the king of Tyre had supplied Solomon with cedar trees and fir trees, and with gold, according to all his desire), that then king Solomon gave Hiram twenty cities in the land of Galilee- </p><p>As noted on :1, all this building work was Solomon's "desire" or will, not necessarily God's; and he was really doing what he wanted in his fulfilment of his architectural fantasies, as he admits in Ecclesiastes, rather than serving God's will. For God had made it clear to David that a fancy temple with gold and cedar was not at all His will or desire. The gift of Israelite cities to a Gentile was not what a true king of Israel should have done, who valued the promises of Israel's eternal inheritance of the promised land. Solomon had come to see all God's promises as fulfilled in him and his amazing city and temple in Jerusalem. And so he devalued the rest of the promises, especially their future, eternal dimension.</p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p>When the queen of Sheba heard of the fame of Solomon concerning the name of Yahweh, she came to test him with hard questions- </p><p>As explained on <a href='B:110 9:28'>1Ki 9:28</a>, she would have first encountered Solomon's servants when they came to Sheba in search of gold, for which Sheba was famous. "Hard questions" is the word for "riddle". And it seems Solomon answered her riddles using his book of Proverbs. For he uses the word in <a href='B:240 1:5-6'>Pro 1:5-6</a> about how his Divinely inspired Proverbs were the answers to such "riddles" of the wise: "These proverbs can even add to the knowledge of the wise and give guidance to the educated,&nbsp;so that they can understand the hidden meanings of proverbs and the problems [s:w. "riddles", "hard questions"] that the wise raise" (GNB). He may have this wise queen of Sheba in mind, as it was her who raised these "riddles" / "problems" with him.</p>


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


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


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


text:
<p>and the food of his table, and the sitting of his servants, and the attendance of his ministers, and their clothing, and his cup bearers, and his ascent by which he went up to the house of Yahweh; there was no more spirit in her- <a href='B:60 2:11'>Jos 2:11</a>; <a href='B:60 5:1'>Jos 5:1</a></p><p>The way the Queen of Sheba was given a guided tour of Solomon's wealth makes ominous connection with Hezekiah's proud parading of his blessings to the Babylonian ambassadors. I noted another connection with Hezekiah on :2. The "ascent" was the king's personal entry into the temple (<a href='B:120 16:18'>2Ki 16:18</a>) and Hezekiah is also associated with this in that he wrote the songs of degrees after his healing. They allude to how the sun went back on the sundial of Ahaz, which appears to have been a development of these grandiose steps of the king's entrance to the temple into a sundial. It is this very striking "ascent" which is described in :12.</p>


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


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


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


text:
<p>Blessed is Yahweh your God, who delighted in you, to set you on the throne of Israel. Because Yahweh loved Israel forever, therefore He made you king, to do justice and righteousness- </p><p>These are identical words as in <a href='B:110 5:7'>1Ki 5:7</a>, of Hiram's response. We are given the impression that they became proselytes because they used the Yahweh Name; although polytheists could take the name of other gods, such as Yahweh, without it meaning they had accepted them as their own gods.</p><p>Because of God's enthusiasm for human response to His ways, the exalted language in which He describes believers, even in their weakness, is a further essay in His humility. The way the Father runs to the prodigal and falls on his neck in tears is a superb essay in this (<a href='B:490 15:20'>Luk 15:20</a>). Thus God "delighted" in Solomon (<a href='B:110 10:9'>1Ki 10:9</a>)- translating a Hebrew word meaning literally 'to bend down to'. It's used about men in love (<a href='B:10 34:19'>Gen 34:19</a>; <a href='B:50 21:14'>Deu 21:14</a>; <a href='B:50 25:7'>Deu 25:7</a>), and about Jonathan's deferential attitude to David (<a href='B:90 19:2'>1Sa 19:2</a>).</p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p>The horses which Solomon had were brought out of Egypt; and the king’s merchants received them in droves, each drove at a price- </p><p>Solomon&nbsp;started off as a middleman in the horse trade, buying&nbsp;horses&nbsp;from Egypt&nbsp;and selling them to the Hittite and Syrian&nbsp;kings (2&nbsp; Chron. 1:16,17; <a href='B:110 10:25'>1Ki 10:25</a>; <a href='B:110 10:29'>1Ki 10:29</a>); but he was playing with fire, and&nbsp; he&nbsp;soon came to flout the spirit of the command not to buy horses from&nbsp; Egypt. It’s rather like the brother who works in a video store starting to watch the blue movies which he handles daily. Solomon would&nbsp;have&nbsp; justified it initially by saying&nbsp; that&nbsp; the horses were not for himself; just as we saw he justified&nbsp; his&nbsp; Egyptian&nbsp; wife&nbsp; by&nbsp; the thought that Joseph also married&nbsp; an Egyptian girl.</p>


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


text:
<p>Now king Solomon loved many foreign women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians, and Hittites- </p><p>Yet at the very time he was marrying them, he wrote in his wisdom that the words of wisdom would preserve / keep / defend a Jewish man from being damaged by them (<a href='B:240 2:16'>Pro 2:16</a>; <a href='B:240 6:24'>Pro 6:24</a>; <a href='B:240 7:5'>Pro 7:5</a>). The connection would seem to suggest that Solomon reasoned that because he had wisdom, because he had 'the truth', he could therefore enjoy these "strange women" without them corrupting his heart; because he had wisdom. Thus he thought that mere possession of Divine truth was some kind of insurance policy against moral sin being counted to him. And so many have gone down this road; so many who knew more true theology than many have at the same time made an awful mess of their personal lives, just as Solomon did. This is why the higher one goes in the echelons of Christian organizations, the greater the learning and knowledge a person has, the more powerful is the tendency towards gross hypocrisy in moral terms. The point is, of course, that all the knowledge of God which we quite rightly seek after must be personally applied. The very possession of it and teaching of it to others can of itself make a man or woman demotivated to personally apply it.</p>


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


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


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


text:
<p>For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites- </p><p>Solomon went off to other gods because his heart was not "perfect", not at peace [Heb:- not at shalom] with the one true God- so says <a href='B:110 11:4-5'>1Ki 11:4-5</a>. We see here the upward spiral of spirituality- knowing we are forgiven, being comfortable and at peace with God, means we will not go after the idols of this world. For there is an endless searching for peace in the human heart. If we don't accept the forgiveness and peace that can from God alone, we will seek peace in false ways. And that's just what Solomon did- for all his wisdom, he didn't personally know peace with God. Head knowledge doesn't give peace- for that is experiential.</p>


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


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


text:
<p>So he did for all his foreign wives, who burnt incense and sacrificed to their gods-</p><p>I suggest on <a href='B:250 5:1-2'>Ecc 5:1-2</a> that we are reading there Solomon's regret that David had taken the oath about building the temple, because he is now rejecting the temple cult. He built "houses" of worship for the gods of his wives, and worshipped them instead of Yahweh (<a href='B:110 11:4-8'>1Ki 11:4-8</a>), worshipping in those temples rather than in Yahweh's temple. So we can understand his reflections in Ecclesiastes 5 as meaning that he was regretting David had vowed to build the temple, leaving him to fulfil it; and his references there to Yahweh dwelling in the temple are therefore to be read as sarcastic.</p>


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


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


text:
<p>Therefore Yahweh said to Solomon, Because this is done by you, and you have not kept my covenant and my statutes, which I have commanded you, I will surely tear the kingdom from you, and will give it to your servant- </p><p>The same punishment which came upon Saul was to come upon Solomon (s:w. <a href='B:90 15:28'>1Sa 15:28</a>). And yet Solomon's Proverbs are full of indirect allusions to Saul, presenting him as the archetypical fool. Now, Solomon is told that he will suffer the same fate as Saul.</p><p>Solomon's prophetic sonship of David was conditional upon him preserving or observing Yahweh's ways (<a href='B:110 2:4'>1Ki 2:4</a>; <a href='B:130 22:13'>1Ch 22:13</a>; <a href='B:140 7:17'>2Ch 7:17</a>); but he didn't preserve of observe them (<a href='B:110 11:10-11'>1Ki 11:10-11</a>); despite David praying that Solomon would be given a heart to observe them (<a href='B:130 29:19'>1Ch 29:19</a>). We can pray for God to work upon the hearts of others, but He will not force people against their own deepest will and heart position. Solomon stresses overmuch how God would keep or preserve the righteous (<a href='B:240 2:8'>Pro 2:8</a>; <a href='B:240 3:26'>Pro 3:26</a>), without recognizing the conditional aspect of this. Why did Solomon go wrong? His Proverbs are true enough, but he stresses that obedience to his wisdom and teaching would preserve his hearers (<a href='B:240 4:4'>Pro 4:4</a>; <a href='B:240 6:22'>Pro 6:22</a>; <a href='B:240 7:1'>Pro 7:1</a>; <a href='B:240 8:32'>Pro 8:32</a>; <a href='B:240 15:5'>Pro 15:5</a>), preservation was through following the example of the wise (<a href='B:240 2:20'>Pro 2:20</a>); rather than stressing obedience to God's ways, and replacing David his father's simple love of God with a love of academic wisdom: "Yahweh preserves all those who love Him" (<a href='B:230 145:20'>Psa 145:20</a>).</p>


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


text:
<p>However I will not tear away all the kingdom; but I will give one tribe to your son, for David My servant’s sake, and for Jerusalem’s sake which I have chosen-</p><p>The extent of grace explains countless apparent contradictions and paradoxes throughout God's relationships with men- e.g. God repeatedly said that He would leave David with “one tribe” (<a href='B:110 11:13'>1Ki 11:13</a>). But actually by grace He gave David and Judah two and a half tribes. As discussed on :12,&nbsp; Solomon's reaping the results of his sins was ameliorated for him in this life, because of his father. The 'choosing' of Jerusalem doesn't simply mean God chose it in the sense of selecting it from all the other cities of the earth. For <a href='B:450 1:17'>Zec 1:17</a>; <a href='B:450 2:12'>Zec 2:12</a> speak of God choosing Jerusalem again at the restoration, implying His choice of it had somehow been annulled. So we need to understand 'choosing' as meaning 'choosing to manifest His presence there'.</p>


