IS THERE SOMETHING IN THE BIBLE THAT PUZZLES YOU?
If so please EMail us with your question and we will do our best to give you a satisfactory answer.EMailus. (But preferably not from aol.com, for some reason they do not deliver our messages).
FREE Scholarly verse by verse commentaries on the Bible.
THE PENTATEUCH --- GENESIS ---EXODUS--- LEVITICUS --- NUMBERS --- DEUTERONOMY --- THE BOOK OF JOSHUA --- THE BOOK OF JUDGES --- THE BOOK OF RUTH --- SAMUEL --- KINGS --- EZRA---NEHEMIAH--- ESTHER--- PSALMS 1-58--- PROVERBS---ECCLESIASTES--- SONG OF SOLOMON --- ISAIAH --- JEREMIAH --- LAMENTATIONS --- EZEKIEL --- DANIEL --- --- HOSEA --- --- JOEL ------ AMOS --- --- OBADIAH --- --- JONAH --- --- MICAH --- --- NAHUM --- --- HABAKKUK--- --- ZEPHANIAH --- --- HAGGAI --- ZECHARIAH --- --- MALACHI --- THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW ---THE GOSPEL OF MARK--- THE GOSPEL OF LUKE --- THE GOSPEL OF JOHN --- THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES --- READINGS IN ROMANS --- 1 CORINTHIANS --- 2 CORINTHIANS ---GALATIANS --- EPHESIANS--- PHILIPPIANS --- COLOSSIANS --- 1 THESSALONIANS --- 2 THESSALONIANS --- 1 TIMOTHY --- 2 TIMOTHY --- TITUS --- PHILEMON --- HEBREWS --- JAMES --- 1 & 2 PETER --- JOHN'S LETTERS --- JUDE --- REVELATION --- THE GOSPELS & ACTS
By Dr Peter Pett BA BD (Hons) DD
SECTION 1. The Commencement Of Solomon’s Reign, His Receipt Of Wisdom From God, The Commencement Of His Flirtation With Egypt, And The Building Of The Temple With Pagan Hands (1.1-5.1).
In section 1 we have seen how Solomon commenced his reign by worshipping and making offerings on the true Mosaic altar in the true Mosaic Tabernacle, and how his submission to God resulted in his receiving the gift of God-given wisdom which would enable him to rule wisely.
We then learned how he flirted with Egypt contrary to God’s command in Deuteronomy 17.16, and how he built the Temple using pagan expertise and labour. It was the beginning of a life of compromise. But at this stage his heart was fixed on God, and these errors merely brought out his weakness, and to some extent his spiritual superficiality. He could still pray to God with genuine humility. As He does with us God accepted him in his imperfections, recognising at this stage his underlying desire to be pleasing to Him.
As with Rehoboam and Abijah who follow, his gross sin of idolatry (1 Kings 11.1-8), and of allowing idolatry (14.3; 1 Kings 11.8a), are unmentioned, whilst his failures in other ways are made clear. It is significant that the Chronicler leaves it until 14.3 to bring out the idolatry that in each case underlay their rule. He wanted the initial impression concerning the house of David to be that it was free of such things. This method of leaving until a following reign the failures of a previous king was already illustrated with regard to Solomon in 10.4. But in all these cases we are soon able to see that they were but a shadow of the expected coming king promised to David. Even though outwardly Solomon’s start was promising, none of them lived up to expectation.
This second section deals with the height of Solomon’s true greatness in the commencement of true spiritual worship in the presence of the Ark of the Covenant which was accompanied by the presence of His NAME. It was a height which he was never able to achieve again.
SECTION 2. The Bringing Up Of The Ark Of YHWH To The Temple With The Result That The Glory Of YHWH Descends On The Temple And The People Worship (5.2-7.11).
We now come to the moment for which Solomon and the people had waited. With the Temple almost completed the Ark of YHWH was brought up from its Tent in Jerusalem into the Holiest Place and united with the Tabernacle which had also been brought up to the Temple. The holiest objects of Israel’s faith, which indicated the presence of God’s NAME with His people, were as one again. As a consequence the glory of YHWH filled the Temple. Note the clear connection between the bringing in of the Ark and the descent of the glory of YHWH (emphasised twice). It is not so much the Temple that is being approved of (although that can be seen as included) but that we have here an indication of God’s close connection with the Ark. Here was the sign of His invisible Presence which now reposed in the new Temple, and was sealed by the glory of God in the cloud. This was why the Temple and its worship, with all its imperfection, was therefore accepted.
The account in 5.1-7.11 is presented chiastically as follows:
Central to the chiasmus in H is Solomon’s claim to have built the Temple in accordance with what he saw as God’s will. This is contained within two prayers of Solomon to YHWH, which themselves are contained within two descriptions of the descent of the glory of YHWH on the Temple. There was, however, only one descent. The descent in F followed the entering of the Ark into the Temple. The descent in the parallel follows a call for the Ark to enter into the Temple. The passage is not chronological but chiastic.
It is natural for us to read this chronologically, and to some extent that is justified, but there are certain aspects of the passage which are not chronological. Chronology was not seen as so important in Biblical times as it is now, what mattered to them was content, and that was often presented chiastically in order to centre on what was important. In this case what was of primary importance was the descent of the glory of YHWH as it was related to Solomon’s own words.
To the casual reader we appear here, at first glance, to have a chronological progression with the whole centring around a double descent of the glory of YHWH in a cloud. But 1 Kings knows of only one descent, and that is what we would expect to find, (and do find), here. Central to this chiasmus are the prayers and speech of Solomon, underlining their huge covenant importance, and these are enclosed within the equally important envelope of the descent of the glory of God, indicating thereby that YHWH was accepting the covenant that Solomon was making with Him. The Chronicler was doubly confirming that whenever Israel truly repented and prayed towards the Temple containing the Ark of His Presence He would forgive.
This repetition of the descent of the glory of YHWH was accomplished by the second of Solomon’s prayers ending with a flashback to the entry into the Temple of the Ark. In that ending we have a recapitulation of the entry of the Ark in a call to YHWH to ‘arise --- into His resting place, both YHWH and the Ark of His strength’ (6.41), and the descent of the glory of YHWH in 7.1 then reflects this call. Thus it is a description of the same descent of the glory of YHWH as was described in 5.14, which also followed the entry of the Ark. The aim of this dual presentation was to emphasise emphatically the significance of that descent. It was not so much to validate the Temple as to indicate the acceptance by God of Solomon’s words and to assure him and them of His willingness to hear His people when they prayed towards the Temple where the Ark was situated. It was the presence of the Ark that validated the Temple.
We must now look at the whole passage in more detail:
The Ark Of The Covenant Of YHWH Is Installed In The New Temple (5.2-14).
Once the Temple had been completed the Ark of the Covenant of YHWH was installed in the Temple and YHWH graciously accepted the Temple on the basis of it, in response to His people’s worship. He accepted it in spite of its imperfections, and descended on it in a cloud. Whilst He would not have been pleased at idolatrous hands being involved in its construction, and at the syncretistic furniture which had been introduced into the Temple, (for He knew the dangers that this could bring and that it depreciated His holiness in men’s eyes), He recognised the genuineness of what Solomon had sought to do, and recognised that he was still a young man who had much to learn. He also recognised the heartfelt worship of the people. Thus He met them there. It is a reminder to us that God does not wait for us to get everything right before He is willing to bless us (if He did few of us would ever be blessed). He blesses us in covenant mercy when our hearts are right towards Him and we approach Him in the right way in spite of our faults.
But to the Chronicler and the returnees from Exile the connection of the building of the Temple with idolatrous hands and with idolatrous patterns was a partial explanation of why the Temple had failed and had had to be destroyed. It had not been built in accordance with His requirements.
All but verses 11-13 in this chapter is paralleled in 1 Kings 8. The Chronicler either took it from there, or from a record which the writer of Kings had also copied.
The Bringing Up Of The Ark Into The Temple (5.2-10).
We now have described the bringing up of the Ark of the Covenant of YHWH from its Tent in Jerusalem and its setting in the Holiest Place.
Note that in A the purpose was to bring the Ark of the Covenant of YHWH out of the city of David (to Mount Moriah), and in the parallel the Ark in which was the covenant was established in the Holiest Place. In B all the men of Israel assembled at the feast (of Tabernacles) and in the parallel all were assembled, sacrificing sheep and oxen in readiness for the feast. In C the Levites took up the Ark, and in the parallel the Levitical priests bore the holy vessels. Centrally in D the holy Ark, the holy Tabernacle and the holy vessels were brought up.
2.5.2-3 ‘Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel, and all the heads of the tribes, the princes of the fathers’ houses of the children of Israel, to Jerusalem, to bring up the ark of the covenant of YHWH out of the city of David, which is Zion. And all the men of Israel assembled themselves to the king at the feast, which was in the seventh month.’
When the Feast of Tabernacles came Solomon took the opportunity presented by the Feast and assembled all Israel together for the dedication of the new Temple, even though the final touches had not yet taken place (it was finally completed on the following month - 1 Kings 6.38). These included the leading elders, the heads of the tribes, and the heads of the clans and sub-clans, as well as all the men of Israel. His purpose was to bring the Ark of the Covenant of YHWH out of the city of David and into the Holiest Place in the new Temple, and to conjoin the ancient Tabernacle with the Temple. And he wanted all the men of Israel present in order to witness the event. (They would never see the Ark again because it would be in the Holiest Place).
2.5.4-5 ‘ And all the elders of Israel came, and the Levites took up the ark, and they brought up the ark, and the tent of meeting, and all the holy vessels which were in the Tent. These did the priests the Levites bring up.’
So all the elders of Israel gathered, and in accordance with the requirements of the Law, the Levites brought up the Ark into the Temple. They also brought up the Tent of Meeting. This term indicated the Tabernacle of Moses, which would be brought from Gibeon. And together with it the Levitical priests brought up the holy vessels which were in the Tent. These were presumably stored in the Sanctuary which only the priests could enter. There is no mention of what happened to the other Tabernacle furniture. All those ancient and revered articles had been replaced.
Note the mention of ‘the priests the Levites’, that is the Levitical priests. They would be required to take items into the Sanctuary itself.
2.5.6 ‘And king Solomon and all the congregation of Israel, who were assembled to him, were before the ark, sacrificing sheep and oxen, which could not be counted nor numbered for multitude.’
In view of the quantity of the offerings this probably refers to what took place once the Ark was set in the Holiest Place (verse 7). The king and the whole of Israel brought offerings and sacrifices which were so numerous that they could not be counted. They sacrificed them on the bronze altar which was ‘before the Ark’, that is in the courtyard in front of the doors of the Sanctuary (although consider 7.7 which suggests that a larger area was used). Their thoughts were towards the Ark where YHWH’s Name was. It was not, however, on the original bronze altar, which, as the Chronicler has indirectly stressed (1.5), still existed.
2.5.7 ‘And the priests brought in the ark of the covenant of YHWH to its place, into the oracle of the house, to the most holy place, even under the wings of the cherubim.’
The final movement of the Ark into the Holiest Place was carried out by the priests. They alone could enter the Sanctuary. But it was the last time that any of them, apart from the High Priest once a year, would be allowed to enter the Holiest Place, which was called ‘the Oracle’. So they brought the Ark in, very conscious of their privilege, and set it down below the outstretched wings of the Cherubim. They would have been very conscious of entering the Holiest Place, and have been filled with awe. It was as though they were entering the very presence of God. We should have the same sense of awe when we pray.
2.5.8 ‘For the cherubim spread forth their wings over the place of the ark, and the cherubim covered the ark and its staves, above.’
The Ark was settled in its place with the carrying poles still in its rings. And the Cherubim stretched forth their wings over it and covered it. It was seen as under heavenly protection.
2.5.9 ‘And the staves were so long that the ends of the staves were seen from the ark before the oracle, but they were not seen outside, and there it is to this day.’
This probably indicates that the poles were so long that they protruded into the veil which separated the Holiest Place from the Holy Place so that their impression could be seen in the Holy Place. This suggests that the doors into the Holiest Place were kept partially open. And the golden altar of incense was probably placed between the poles. That may well have been why the golden altar of incense, whilst on the side of the veil which was in the Holy Place, was seen as a part of the Holiest Place (e.g. Hebrews 9.4-5). And the staves were still there when the record from which the Chronicler was copying, was written. If he was a priest he would have seen them in the course of his duties. But it is stressed that they were not seen outside, that is by those who could not enter the Holy Place.
2.5.10 ‘There was nothing in the ark apart from the two tables which Moses put there at Horeb, when YHWH made a covenant with the children of Israel, when they came out of Egypt.’
The only things that were found in the Ark were the two tablets of stone which had been placed there by Moses when YHWH made His covenant with His People when they came out of Egypt (Exodus 25.16;40.20). On them was written the covenant including the ‘ten words’. Thus this great dedication service would also be seen as a covenant renewal ceremony. The covenant had been placed within the very heart of the community.
The reason for mentioning this was not necessarily because he thought that anything else had previously been in the Ark, (although there may have been rumours spreading around), but in order to stress that nothing else had ever been there, and to remind His people of the original covenant made with them at Sinai which was still binding on them, and was the one thing in the Ark. This was not simply an historical aside or a list of contents. It was stressing what was in the Ark. In other words it is emphasising that that covenant was central to all their worship, and to all that the Ark stood for. Nothing had been, or was to be, added. (In view of its reputation it must indeed be considered doubtful whether anyone would actually have checked what was in the Ark. Consider what happened to the men who previously looked in the Ark (1 Samuel 6.19). The statement may well simply have been made as a known fact).
Indeed, if anything else ever had been in the Ark, and that is doubtful, it would probably have disappeared when the Philistines captured the Ark and bore it in triumph though the Philistine crowds, or when they placed it in their temples as a trophy (1 Samuel 5). But Aaron’s rod that budded and the vessel containing the manna were probably never placed in the Ark (the rod would be too long) but were placed before or alongside the Ark (Exodus 16.33-34; Numbers 17.10). In Hebrews 9.4 ‘in/by which’ need only indicate connection in some way.
The Musical Welcome Given To The Ark Resulted In The Descent Of The Glory Of YHWH (5.11-14).
The entry of the Ark into the Holiest Place and its resounding welcome by the priests and Levites resulted in the glory of YHWH descending like a cloud on the Sanctuary.
Analysis.
Note that in A all the priests came out of the Holy Place and in the parallel they could not re-enter it because the glory of YHWH had descended on it. In B the Levitical musicians and the priests united in the worship and praise of YHWH, and in the parallel they together (the priestly trumpeters and the Levitical singers) praised and thanked YHWH and declared His covenant goodness.
2.5.11-12 ‘And it came about, when the priests had come out of the holy place - for all the priests who were present had sanctified themselves, and did not keep their courses; also the Levites who were the singers, all of them, even Asaph, Heman, Jeduthun, and their sons and their brothers, arrayed in fine linen, with cymbals and harps and lyres, stood at the east end of the altar, and with them a hundred and twenty priests sounding with trumpets,’
Most of this and the following verse are inserted from the Chronicler’s other source which helps to explain the difficult grammar. They inform us that for this special occasion, having sanctified themselves (including washing their clothes and abstaining from sexual activity), ALL the priests came to the Sanctuary, not just the course for the week. All wanted to participate in this wonderful occasion. Indeed, in view of the unusually huge number of offerings and sacrifices it was possibly a necessity.
And gathered in force were the singers under Asaph, Heman and Jeduthun. They and their ‘sons and brothers’ (learner musicians and mature musicians in their clans) came together, clothed in fine linen (a symbol of righteousness), and with cymbals, harps and lyres, stood at the east end of the altar in the inner court. And with them were one hundred and twenty priests sounding their trumpets. It was a festive and joyous occasion. The one hundred and twenty trumpeters probably consisted of five trumpeters from each of the twenty four courses.
2.5.13 ‘It came about, when the trumpeters and singers were as one, to make one sound to be heard in praising and thanking YHWH, and when they lifted up their voice with the trumpets and cymbals and instruments of music, and praised YHWH saying, “For he is good, for his covenant love endures for ever”
The commencement of the previous verse must be seen as in parallel with the commencement of this verses, thus what happened, (the coming down of the glory of God in a cloud), occurred when the priests as a whole came out of the Holy Place having completed their ministry, and when all the singers, musicians and trumpeters were at one in praising and thanking God. And what they sang was, “For He is good, for His covenant love endures for ever”.’ It is a reminder that God rejoices when we sing His praises.
2.5.13b-14 ‘That then the house was filled with a cloud, even the house of YHWH,
so that the priests could not stand to minister by reason of the cloud. For the glory of YHWH filled the house of God.’
Then the whole House was filled with a cloud, (that is, the House of YHWH), as God manifested His glory within it, and the consequence was that the priests could not enter into the Sanctuary and minister in it because of the thickness of the cloud (in the same way as Moses had been unable to enter the Tabernacle at its dedication for a similar reason - Exodus 40.35). But the cloud was necessary, for it hid the manifestation of God in all His glory, and had it not been for the cloud all would have been struck dead. It was an important experience because it confirmed to all Israel that God was willing for them to worship Him in the Temple containing the Ark.
There is a parallel here in that when the Tabernacle was dedicated God similarly appeared in a cloud (Exodus 40.34-35), the difference lying in the fact that, in the case of the Exodus it was a continuing phenomenon. But what was very different was that when Moses went to meet God in the Tent of Meeting the cloud came down upon it. The same was not true for Solomon. He was not even allowed into the Sanctuary. He was not a new Moses.
The Prayers And Speech Of Solomon (6.1-42).
Solomon was, of course, quite unaware that he had fallen short in the way that he had built the Temple. He no doubt thought that he had followed God’s instructions to the best of his ability, using the finest expertise available. What he lacked was not a genuine desire to do the best for God, but full spiritual discernment. Thrown into a huge project by his father, and no doubt himself feeling inadequate for it, he had looked for expert help from people who knew all about Temple building, and overlooked the fact that they were idolaters. He seemingly did it without even considering the question as to what was right or wrong in the matter. Strictly speaking, of course, he should have known. Moses had known, and the returnees from Exile would know when they built their Temple, and the writer of Kings would know when he wrote his account, that the building of the Sanctuary was a sacred task, and that it should only have been carried out by the holy hands of true believers. But Solomon was not spiritually sensitive enough to discern this. To some extent his kingship had gone to his head, and he thus looked at kings around him rather than looking in God’s Law. Though wrong it was to some extent excusable to one thrust into his position.
Far less excusable, however, was his use of slave labour obtained by a misuse of strangers. That was contrary to the Law of Moses, for he should have remembered that Israel were once strangers in the land of Egypt and have behaved accordingly (Leviticus 19.34). But again he no doubt saw kings round about who used the same tactics and felt himself justified, especially as his father David had given him a bad example (1 Chronicles 22.2), although we do not know how far David intended to go in using strangers on the work, and whether he had intended permanent enslavement.
The truth is that his upbringing and environment had not prepared him for godly kingship based on Deuteronomy 17.14-20. He was clearly satisfied that in his activity he had not sinned by his own lights, and this was no doubt why God could accept his offering, but he had certainly come far short of the Scriptural ideal as the Chronicler has brought out. Furthermore the fact is that he did not have the responsive conscience of David. It was because of his tender conscience that David was so great a king. For in the end it caused him to listen to the voice of God, even when he had erred, and he subsequently knew how to repent. Solomon on the other hand seemingly blundered on without recognising his shortcomings. That is why he has gained the reputation of being ‘the wisest fool in Jewry’.
So in what follows, part of which took place whilst the Ark was finally being brought into the Temple (6.41), it is quite clear that he spoke from a genuine heart. Solomon really did believe that he had done God’s will as best he could, and he prayed accordingly. And his prayer did show that Solomon had come to a deep recognition of what God was, and that he was confident in his own mind that he was fulfilling what God required of him (how wise we are not to be overconfident in ourselves lest we share his spiritual blindness). Indeed, his father’s own desires had left him in no doubt on the matter. That is why God was willing to accept his offering, in spite of its imperfections. Furthermore it was offered not only on his own behalf but on behalf of the people whose hearts in the matter were wholly genuine. For partly through ignorance of what Solomon had done (most seem to have thought that the ancient lampstand and table of showbread and incense altar were still in the Temple - 13.11), and partly through lack of spiritual discernment, and through loyalty to Solomon about what they did know he had done, they accepted it without question. Many a head might have been shaken privately, but if so, none dared to speak against the king. On the other hand it is significant that no later Temple had the freestanding pillars, or the bull-mounted sea, or the ten lampstands, or the ten tables, or the large Cherubim. The lesson had seemingly by then been learned.
The passage divides up into two parts, Solomon’s initial short prayer (6.1-2) and his subsequent words to the people (6.3-11), are followed by a long dedicatory prayer (6.12-42). The initial prayer could have been made any time during the events described, but may well have been after the Ark had been settled in the Holiest Place. The words of Solomon in verses 3-11 were certainly prayed at that time (see verse 11). More doubtful is when the long dedicatory prayer was made. If we see it as divided into two parts, the basic prayer (verses 12-39) which is the same as in 1 Kings 8.22-50a, could have been prayed after the entry of the Ark, with the short prayer that followed being prayed prior to the entry of the Ark (verses 40-42 which are not as in 1 Kings 8), then we could see the basic prayer as following Solomon’s speech with the final three verses being a recapitulation of what Solomon was praying as the Ark approached its resting place (they have been substituted for the ending in 1 Kings 8.50b-53) with a view to describing again the descent of the glory of YHWH following the entry of the Ark.
Solomon’s Initial Prayer And His Words To The Assembled People (6.1-11).
Having prayed a short initial prayer assuring YHWH that he has prepared for Him a suitable earthly habitation (verses 1-2), he then seeks to convince the people of the validity of the Temple as replacing the Tabernacle (3-11).
Analysis.
Note that in ‘A’ Solomon refers to the house that he has built for YHWH to dwell in, and in the parallel declares that he has set the Ark there for that purpose. In ‘B’ he speaks of YHWH having made a covenant with his father and as having fulfilled it, and in the parallel declares that YHWH had performed His word as He had promised. In ‘C’ YHWH stresses that since the day that they had left Egypt He had chosen no city in which to build a house, but rather had chosen David to be over His people, and in the parallel he explains that YHWH has given David permission for the house now to be built in Jerusalem, by his son. Centrally in ‘D’ this is stated to be because He had chosen David, and in the parallel to be something dear to David’s heart. YHWH had wanted to please David Whom He had chosen.
The First Prayer Of Solomon (6.1-2).
In a short prayer Solomon assures YHWH that he has built a suitable House for Him to dwell in ‘for ever’, taking into account what He is. At this important moment he probably believed that it would be so. He was overlooking what might happen due to his own and man’s sinfulness.
2.6.1 ‘Then spoke Solomon, “YHWH has said that he would dwell in the thick darkness.”
The cloud that descended on the Temple was a reminder to Solomon that God ‘dwelt in thick darkness’, for that was how the consequence of the cloud at Sinai was described (Exodus 20.22; compare Deuteronomy 4.11; 5.22-23; 2 Samuel 22.10-12; Psalm 97.2). In other words that His glory was always hidden behind a veil of one kind or another. As the One Who was all-transcending light He dwelt in thick darkness lest that light break through and strike men down. He could never be fully seen or known.
2.6.2 “And I have built you a house of habitation, and a place for you to dwell in for ever.”
So in building a house of habitation for God to dwell in for ever, this principle had been kept in mind. For that was the principle behind the Holiest Place. It was behind the Veil where no light penetrated and which no man could enter except under exceptional circumstances. His presence there was known by faith, but it could never be made visual. When He was manifested there it was in a cloud. And even when the High Priest entered once a year with the atonement offering, he entered a place of darkness. All was a reminder of the mysteriousness and awesomeness of God.
Having prayed these words, Solomon now turned to the people.
Solomon’s Dedicatory Speech (6.3-11).
It is made clear that this speech to the people followed the setting of the Ark in the Holiest Place (verse 11) and therefore included the idea of covenant renewal. There is much about this speech which gives the appearance of an attempt by Solomon to justify his actions in the face of the opposition of some of the people. Many would not be happy at the transfer of worship from the Tabernacle established in an ancient Israelite city to a Temple built on Phoenician lines in a city with pagan connections. It would appear that this was Solomon’s attempt to convince them otherwise. And in order to fulfil his purpose he was, as we shall notice, rather loose with his citations. (Some see the Song of Solomon as being a similar attempt).
2.6.3 ‘And the king turned his face, and blessed all the assembly of Israel, and all the assembly of Israel stood.’
Acting as a ‘priest after the order of Melchizedek’ (Psalm 110.4) Solomon now turned towards the assembly of Israel as they were gathered round the place where he was standing and pronounced a blessing on them, and the whole assembly stood as one man.
As the king of Jerusalem Solomon had inherited from David the ancient priesthood after the order of Melchizedek, which had been the portion of the kings of Jerusalem going back to Melchizedek (Genesis 14) and had become David’s right when he became king of Jerusalem. Of necessity this had had to be transformed into a non-sacrificing priesthood in recognition of the unique rights of the Aaronic priesthood. It was now a priesthood of intercession which was regularly exercised by David’s descendants, and was being exercised here.
So at this point Solomon blessed the people and spoke to them. For David’s similar blessing of the people compare 1 Chronicles 16.2
2.6.4 ‘And he said, “Blessed be YHWH, the God of Israel, who spoke with his mouth to David my father, and has with his hands fulfilled it, saying,”
He prayed that YHWH the God of Israel should be blessed (treated in high esteem), because He had spoken to them through the mouth of David his father, and had then fulfilled His words with His hands (i.e. personally). What follows is Solomon’s interpretation of past history put in the mouth of YHWH and based on previous pronouncements of YHWH as interpreted by Solomon, with the aim of justifying his building of the Temple.
It should in this regard be noted that some of the ideas in verses 5-6 are found nowhere else in the Biblical histories, not even in the mouth of David, and are to some extent contrary to what is written there. Thus, for example, contrary to what Solomon says YHWH did specifically choose Saul earlier to be prince over His people Israel (1 Samuel 10.24 compare 9.16). So what follows is very much Solomon’s loose interpretation of what God had promised, looked at from his own perspective.
2.6.5a “Since the day that I brought forth my people out of the land of Egypt, I chose no city out of all the tribes of Israel to build a house in, that my name might be there.”
This statement is, of course, correct, although is not as God stated it. The basis behind it is almost certainly God’s words in 1 Chronicles 17.5-6 interpreted in the light of Deuteronomy 12.5. Nowhere did God speak of choosing a city out of all the tribes of Israel that His Name might be there. He referred to a ‘place’ (Deuteronomy 12.5). ‘City’ is Solomon’s interpretation.
The phrase ‘since the day that I brought them out of Egypt’ is found in 1 Samuel 8.8 where Israel’s request for a king is in mind. It is incorporated by Solomon here. ‘I have not dwelt in a house since the day that I brought up Israel’ is found in 1 Chronicles 17.5. Combining this with elements in Deuteronomy 12.5, 11, 14, where reference is made of YHWH ‘choosing a place for His Name to dwell there’ (although there there is no mention of a ‘house’. The reference is rather to a ‘place’) we have a fair basis for Solomon’s words. Seeing this in the light of the fact that both David and Solomon had misinterpreted 1 Chronicles 17.12 as referring to Solomon building a physical house, we have the basis for Solomon’s statement. The statement is in fact true, but it is not presented in genuine words of YHWH spoken at a particular time.
2.6.5b “Neither chose I any man to be prince over my people Israel,”
This is not strictly true, and could not therefore have been said by God, for He specifically declared that He had chosen Saul to be prince/king over His people Israel (1 Samuel 10.24). Saul was God’s chosen king, chosen for His people’s sake. We could, of course, argue that He meant that He had not previously freely made such a choice, (although God could hardly be said to have been forced to act), but we have no real Scriptural grounds for arguing that, if He had not originally chosen Saul contrary to His own initial intentions, He would still have chosen David to be king over them, for the whole point of the argument in 1 Samuel was that it was He, YHWH, Who was king over them and should have remained so. Both Saul and David were His concessions to Israel. Solomon is therefore reflecting his own view of the situation based on those early denials and promises. And this is confirmed in what follows.
2.6.6 “But I have chosen Jerusalem, that my name might be there, and have chosen David to be over my people Israel.”
Like YHWH’s willingness for Solomon to build a Temple in view of David’s great desire, this ‘choosing of Jerusalem’ was an aftermath of decisions made by David. God ‘chose’ Jerusalem, because David had first selected it as his capital city and had brought the Ark (on which His Name was called) into it. Out of love for David YHWH then concurred and made it His choice too for David’s sake.
There is no suggestion anywhere prior to this that David took Jerusalem because God had chosen it, nor that YHWH had specifically chosen Jerusalem. In the middle of a section where David regularly ‘enquired of YHWH’ (2 Samuel 2.1; 5.19, 23) there is no suggestion that he enquired of YHWH about taking Jerusalem (2 Samuel 5.6-10). It was clearly a political decision. It removed a Canaanite enclave, and provided him with a base which had belonged to neither Judah nor Israel. So as with the building of the Temple, YHWH’s choice of Jerusalem was based on David’s choice. Solomon then read Deuteronomy 12 into it, and put the idea into the mouth of YHWH. (It was thus his interpretation of what YHWH meant, and not what YHWH actually meant).
That YHWH chose David to be king over Israel, having rejected the king that He had previously chosen, is specifically made clear in 1 Samuel 16.1-13 (compare 1 Chronicles 28.4).
2.6.7 “Now it was in the heart of David my father to build a house for the name of YHWH, the God of Israel.”
This was true. Indeed, it had become a passion with David to build a great house for YHWH. However, that it was initially in David’s heart but not in God’s heart is made clear in 2 Samuel 7.2-7; 1 Chronicles 17.1-6. God’s desire was not that he build a house of cedar but that he build up a godly dynasty. And 1 Chronicles never presents the idea of building a physical house as God’s idea but as David’s, which God acceded to.
2.6.8 “But YHWH 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.”
We have no record of such words in spite of the fact that David’s intention to build a house for YHWH is mentioned a number of times (1 Chronicles 17.4-6; 22.7-8; 28.2-3). Indeed Scripture makes clear that YHWH did not consider that David’s intention to build a physical house for YHWH was to be approved of. He specifically rejected the idea (2 Samuel 7.5-7; 1 Chronicles 17.4-6), only conceding it later because David was so set on it. So this is rather Solomon’s impression gained from the fact that God did finally give David permission to build such a house because he wanted to so much. It is the kind of paraphrasing that we indulge in when trying to declare the mind of God. But the statement is correct that it was well that it was in David’s heart, simply because his motive was good and it resulted from his love for YHWH. He wanted to exalt YHWH. But it was not because YHWH approved of the essence of the idea. His desire was to dwell in the Tabernacle. Strictly speaking if David had done what YHWH wanted he would have placed the Ark in the Tabernacle. Placing it in Jerusalem was his way of ensuring that God blessed Jerusalem, and that Israel looked towards Jerusalem.
2.6.9 “Nevertheless you shall not build the house, but your son who will come forth out of your loins, he will build the house for my name.”
The original command and promise was that David should not even consider building for Him a house of cedar, but rather that YHWH would build for David a dynastic house, which his descendants would continue to build (1 Chronicles 17.1-14). Such a dynastic house was to be built by ‘one who comes from your sons’, i.e. one of the descendants of his sons. It was David’s misunderstanding of these words which made him think that he had permission for his son to build a physical Temple (and this in the context of the misleading activity of Satan as mentioned in 1 Chronicles 21.1). But once his mind had become fixed on such an idea God allowed it on condition that it was built by a man of peace and rest, something which Solomon should have been, but turned out not to be. For Solomon’s lasting legacy was that he made the people so restless that it broke up the kingdom (10.4-16). However, at this stage Solomon was confident that he was the man because that was what his father had declared (1 Chronicles 22.6-10; 28.3-7) and because (unlike the Chronicler) he was oblivious to the suffering that he had caused. The Temple was not thus the consequence of God’s direct will, but of His permissive will.
2.6.10 “And YHWH has performed his word that he spoke, for I am risen up in the room of David my father, and sit on the throne of Israel, as YHWH promised, and have built the house for the name of YHWH, the God of Israel.”
Now Solomon tried to convince his hearers that the building of the Temple was a performance of God’s word. But it was by a careful manipulation of the argument. What YHWH had promised was that he would sit on the throne of David. Solomon tags on the idea that it included the building of the Temple. Solomon was not the first, or the last, to think that he had wholly fulfilled God’s will when what he had done was fulfil his own will as permitted by God. Thus he declared that God had performed the work that He had spoken in that he, Solomon, was now sat on the throne of Israel in the place of his father David as God had promised, which was true, and that he had built the house for the Name of YHWH, the God of Israel (as He had permitted). But note that ‘as YHWH promised’ does not strictly apply to this last clause. Indeed, YHWH’s direct will was that such a house should not be built (1 Chronicles 17.4-6). But He yielded to his servant’s desire to build such a house and gave him permission to do so.
2.6.11 “And there have I set the ark, in which is the covenant of YHWH, which he made with the children of Israel.”
And Solomon then declares that in that house he had set the Ark in which was the covenant of YHWH. It is clear that this meant a lot to Solomon. At this stage it was his desire that he and his people be faithful to the covenant. He was unconscious of how far he had already fallen short of that as a result of the fact that he had been taken up with building work at a heavy cost to his people, and with trading in Egyptian horses (contrary to Deuteronomy 17.16), rather than with building a sound dynasty. And there were hundreds of thousands of scarred backs, and no doubt many deaths, both of strangers and of Israelites (10.4, 11), to prove it. His way of building the Temple had denied the very basis on which he had been chosen to build it, for it had involved the shedding of blood. It was the very opposite of God’s vision that every man have his own land and live under his own vine, and his own fig tree (1 Kings 4.25). These workers were unwillingly dragged away from their own land and vines and fig trees in order to break their backs building the Temple under the lash of the taskmasters. The warning given to Samuel was being fulfilled (1 Samuel 8.11-18), contrary to what the king should have been according to the covenant (Deuteronomy 17.14-20).
It will be noted here that the Chronicler omits the words ‘when He brought them out of the land of Egypt’ (1 Kings 8.21). This is one of three examples in this prayer where he omits reference to the deliverance from Egypt in this prayer (see also 1 Kings 8.51, 53). Perhaps, as with Hosea later (Hosea 11), he wants to draw attention to the fact that they were not fully delivered because of Solomon’s continual flirtation with Egypt (1.14-17; 8.11), and in view of the fact that they were still in bondage (10.4, 11). But note 5.10; 6.5 where the coming out of Egypt is mentioned, although not in Solomon’s direct words. (The first is in the words of the source, the second a citation of YHWH). The Chronicler was not averse to the idea, only of imputing it to Solomon because in his case he saw it as being hypocritical and self-condemnatory.
Solomon’s Dedicatory Prayer (6.12-42).
As we have seen, everything in chapters 5-7 is probably not to be seen as following chronologically, for there is good reason for seeing this prayer, or at least the final part of it, as being made whilst the Ark was finally being brought into the Temple (5.2-14) and therefore prior to 6.1-11. We can say this is so because verse 41 is a plea to YHWH to ‘arise into His resting place’ along with ‘the Ark of His strength’. This suggests that at the time of these words the Ark was still proceeding towards its resting place, and had not as yet ‘risen into its resting place’, (which it had in 5.13b-14), otherwise why call for it to do so?
In contrast in 6.11 Solomon had said, ‘there (in the house of YHWH) have I set the Ark’. If that meant that Solomon had already set it there, the words that that follows (verses 3-10) must have been spoken after the Ark had been set in the Holiest Place.
Thus at least the final three verses of this prayer must be seen as having been prayed prior to the final setting of the Ark in the Temple, placed here so that the Chronicler could again mention the descent of the glory of YHWH.
Analysis.
Note that in ‘A’ he was praying before the altar, and in the parallel he asks YHWH to attend to the prayer which he was praying in this place, and to bring up the Ark into its place. In ‘B’ he stresses the keeping of the covenant and the covenant-keeping nature of God, and in the parallel he considers seven possible breaches of covenant and their possible consequences, and prays that God will hear His people if they truly repent of them, and will forgive. In ‘C’ he calls on YHWH to keep His promises to David, and in the parallel he calls on Him in the same way to listen to the prayers of himself and his people. In ‘D’ he prays that the word of YHWH to David might be verified, and in the parallel he asks YHWH to listen to the prayer that he is praying this day. Centrally in ‘E’ he acknowledges that God will not really dwell on earth, because in the parallel even the Heaven of heavens cannot contain Him.
2.6.12 ‘And he stood before the altar of YHWH in the presence of all the assembly of Israel, and spread forth his hands,’
Whilst these words are almost word for word from 1 Kings 8.22 (omitting the name of Solomon and the words ‘towards Heaven’ at the end, but see verse 13 below), the Chronicler probably intends us to parallel this, and contrast this, with Solomon’s original coming to the brazen altar before YHWH in 1.5b-6 at his initial dedication. Here was a rededication of himself and his people at the same time as he dedicated the Temple as a house of repentance and prayer. And it was also a validation of the new altar (which is called ‘the brazen altar which Solomon had made’ in 7.7) demonstrating the acceptance of it by YHWH (as a fait accompli).
For the phrase ‘the altar of YHWH’ see Leviticus 17.6; Joshua 9.27; 22.28, 29. In contrast, in Deuteronomy it is always ‘the altar of YHWH your God’ (Deuteronomy 12.27; 16.21; 26.4; 27.6).
2.6.13 ‘For Solomon had made a bronze scaffold, five cubits long, and five cubits broad, and three cubits high, and had set it in the midst of the court, and on it he stood, and knelt down on his knees before all the assembly of Israel, and spread forth his hands toward heaven,’
The Chronicler, in words which are not in I Kings 8, now makes clear what Solomon’s intentions were in standing before the altar. His purpose was not in order to offer sacrifices, but to make use of the bronze platform which he had had erected ‘in the midst of the court’ in front of the altar. It was on this that he stood before YHWH and, falling on his knees in the sight of all Israel, spread forth his hands towards Heaven (compare 1 Kings 8.54). At this stage his heart was right towards God, even if his previous activity had been imperfect.
It is interesting that the size of the platform is of the same dimensions as the original brazen altar which Solomon had replaced. Perhaps it was intended to have the symbolic significance of ‘offering up’ the user to YHWH. Such platforms as used for cultic duties were evidenced throughout the Ancient Near East.
These words were possibly not the Chronicler’s own concoction. As in 4.1, 2 the use of qowmah for height and the placing in the Hebrew of cubits after the numeral (contrary to the Chronicler’s usual practise) may suggest the use of a source, possibly the same one as the one from which 1 Kings was taken. Qowmah occurs regularly in Exodus and 1 Kings, but only three times in Chronicles (3.1, 2; 6.12). It is therefore said that neither are in accord with the Chronicler’s usual practise. However, the evidence is not conclusive. The alternative gobahh is only used twice in Chronicles (3.4; 32.26), only one of which strictly means ‘height’. It is hardly an indication of standard use. Thus qowmah may equally have been a term of the Chronicler. However, it is true that his descriptions of measurements may themselves depend on differing sources that he used.
A Prayer That YHWH Will Continue The Davidic Dynasty (6.14-17).
Solomon opened his prayer by calling on YHWH to fulfil His promise to maintain the Davidic dynasty, whilst acknowledging that such a fulfilment required the true cooperation of that dynasty, (which on the whole would turn out to be lacking).
2.6.14 ‘And he said, “O YHWH, the God of Israel, there is no God like you, in heaven, or on earth, who keeps covenant and covenant love with your servants, who walk before you with all their heart,”
He first declared the uniqueness of YHWH as the One Who was utterly faithful to what He had promised. There was no other who was like Him in either Heaven or earth. To those who walked before Him with all their hearts He could be relied on to be true to His covenant, and to show the love which the covenant promised and required. At this stage this was what Solomon was determined to be like himself. He was unaware of the inadequacies already in his life. How easy it is to sing ‘I surrender all’ whilst ensuring that we keep back what we do not want to surrender.
His prayer was firmly based on the covenant that YHWH had made with his father David, which also intimately affected him, although very much as a part of the continuing covenant of Sinai. He addressed Him as ‘the God of Israel’, that is as the God Who had a personal interest in Israel, and yet he immediately expanded the thought to include the idea that YHWH is supreme and unique in Heaven and earth, a supremacy and uniqueness especially revealed in His keeping of His covenant promises. We can compare Exodus 15.11, ‘Who is like to you O YHWH among the gods? Who is like you, glorious in holiness (set-apartness), fearful in praises, doing wonders?’.
‘Who keeps covenant and covenant love with your servants, who walk before you with all their heart’ can only refer to the covenant of Sinai. This combination of ‘covenant’ and ‘covenant love’ is found in Deuteronomy 5.10; 7.9, 12. In keeping His covenant He reveals His covenant love, for otherwise our case would be hopeless. And that covenant love is shown towards those who walk before Him (see Genesis 17.1; 1 Samuel 2.30) ‘with all their hearts’.
Note the idea of the people as ‘YHWH’s servants’. He is their king, and they are in subjection to Him, owning Him as their Overlord.
For the idea of ‘covenant love’ see Genesis 20.13; 24.12, 14, 27; 32.10; 39.2; Exodus 15.13; 20.6; 34.6, 7; Leviticus 20.17; Numbers 14.18, 19. For the combination of covenant and covenant love see Deuteronomy 5.10; 7.9, 12. For the phrase ‘Heaven above’ compare Genesis 49.25. For both ‘Heaven above’ and ‘earth beneath’ see Exodus 20.4; Deuteronomy 4.39; 5.8, but as it is found in part of the ten major requirements of the covenant it would be a commonly used phrase. For ‘walking before God’ see Genesis 17.1; 1 Samuel 2.30. For ‘walking before God with all their hearts’ see 1 Kings 2.4. For ‘fulfilled with your hand’ see 1 Kings 8.15.
2.6.15 “Who have kept with your servant David my father what you promised him. Yes, you spoke with your mouth, and have fulfilled it with your hand, as it is this day.”
He accepted that YHWH’s covenant faithfulness had been shown to his father David. YHWH had spoken it with His mouth and had fulfilled it with His hand. What He had said He would do, He had done, as was apparent at the time of praying.
“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.” Solomon then connected the original covenant up with the matter that was now on their minds, the fulfilment of YHWH’s covenant with David as evidenced in the building of the Temple. He was saying that as recent history had demonstrated, YHWH had kept His promises to David, and that keeping of His promises had now resulted in the building of the Temple. That was, of course, Solomon’s view. The original covenant had been about ‘the house of David’ not about the Temple (2 Samuel 7.4-17).
2.6.16 “Now therefore, O YHWH, the God of Israel, keep with your servant David my father what 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 in my law as you have walked before me’.”
And so he prayed that God would continue to be faithful and keep the promises that He had made to David (1 Kings 2.4), that there would always be before His eye a man from the house of David to sit on the throne of Israel, if only his descendants would walk before Him, taking heed to their way and walking in His Law just as David had done. In other words he was stating his confidence that whilst the kings of Israel proved worthy YHWH would ensure that there was always a Davidide to sit on the throne of Israel, and was praying that YHWH would maintain the Davidic dynasty until the king arose who would rule over the everlasting kingdom.
‘Keep with your servant David my father what you have promised him.’ Note the thought that in some way David was still in a position where the promise could be kept with him. It was therefore being suggested that he had some kind of continuance after death (Psalm 16.10-11; 17.15, an compare Jesus’ argument in Matthew 22.31-32). What Solomon would, of course, sadly overlook was that the promises only applied if David’s sons walked before YHWH as David had in obedience to His Law. But that was something still in the future and not in his purview. At this moment he did not doubt his own heart. Fortunately the promise in 2 Samuel 7.4-17 was absolute and was not dependent on the obedience of David’s sons (there their disobedience would produce chastisement but not rejection) but on the dependability of YHWH.
2.6.17 “Now therefore, O YHWH, the God of Israel, let your word be verified, which you spoke to your servant David.”
So he prayed that God’s word to David would be ‘verified’, demonstrated as reliable and true, by its fulfilment. Thus would both God and David be honoured. Behind the prayer lies the expectation of the coming king who would bring in the everlasting kingdom, the promise that could never be forgotten. Even the finest of Judah’s kings proved insufficient to fulfil that expectation. He remained yet to come.
Note the threefold progression in verses 15-17. ‘You have kept -- and have fulfilled it to this day’, referring to past fulfilment (verse 15). ‘Now therefore keep --’ referring to present fulfilment (verse 16). ‘Let your word be verified --’ (verse 17), looking for final fulfilment. He was basing everything on God’s promise to David, and looking not only for the continuation of his own kingship, but, in the final two statements, for the continuation of the dynasty and for the final everlasting kingdom.
A Prayer That Although YHWH May Not Dwell In His Temple Because He Is Supremely Above All Things He Would Nevertheless Hear Prayers Directed To Him Via The Temple, Especially In The Matter Of Forgiveness (6.18 -21).
Solomon recognised that however great and special his Temple might be it was insignificant in the light of the greatness of God. Even the Heaven of Heavens could not contain Him. How then could any earthly Temple? And so he prays that God will allow the Temple to be a kind of channel of men’s prayers to God.
2.6.18 “But will God in very deed dwell with men on the earth? Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain you; how much less this house which I have built!”
“But will God in very deed dwell with men on the earth?” His question expected a negative answer. God was too great and vast to be contained by any earthly building. Why, He was so great that even the Heaven of Heavens could not contain Him, how much less then could the building that he had built contain Him. His thought was thus not of the Temple as being God’s sole dwelling place, but rather as it being a means of access to the heavenly throne (as the earthly altar would be to the heavenly Temple in Ezekiel 40 onwards).
This was necessarily so for God was after all not a local god but the ‘Creator of Heaven and earth’ (Genesis 1.1), ‘the Judge of all the earth’ (Genesis 18.25), the One Who had a stairway between earth and Heaven and ministered on earth through His angels (Genesis 28.12-17), the One Who ‘will be what He will be’ (Exodus 3.14), the deliverer from and devastater of mighty Egypt (Exodus 20.2), the God of Sinai Who could come and go as He would (Exodus 19.16-18; 24.16-17), God Almighty (Genesis 17.1). How then could such a God be confined to a building on earth?
Indeed he recognised that God was so great that even the extremest Heaven, could not contain Him. He could break out in power wherever He would, whether in Heaven or on earth. How then could He be contained in a man built house? Such a concept was only unique, firstly in its concept of the overall greatness of the One God Who was over all nations, and secondly in that it had as its background the Scriptures, for no nations of that day in fact believed that they could confine their gods to their temples (most gods had several temples), although they did limit them in terms of their idols. The difference lay rather in the fact that they thought that through their temples and their priests they could manipulate their gods, while Solomon was well aware that God could not be manipulated, and instead worked His own will. As He Himself had stated, ‘I will be what I will be’ (Exodus 3.14). He was bound only because of His covenant promises, and even they were largely (although not wholly) dependent on the obedience of His servants. He was the One Who acted as He would, where He would.
That this thought consumed Solomon’s thinking comes out in his repetition of an idea which is also found as expressed to King Hiram in 2.6. There his hope was that the Temple would be a place where sacrifices could be offered to YHWH. Here the emphasis is more on penitential prayer. That these were two aspects of the same response to God comes out in Isaiah 56.7. His House was a house of prayer.
2.6.19-20 “Yet have you respect to the prayer of your servant, and to his supplication, O YHWH my God, to listen to the cry and to the prayer which your servant prays before you, that your eyes may be open toward this house day and night, even toward the place of which you have said that you would put your name there, to listen to the prayer which your servant will pray toward this place.”
Note Solomon’s great emphasis on God as a hearing God. ‘Have respect to the prayer of your servant, and to his supplications’. ‘Listen to the cry and to the prayer which your servant prays before you.’ ‘Listen to the prayer which your servant will pray towards this place.’ He is desperate that God will hear and respond.
So he reminded God that He had promised to put His Name in the place which He chose which would be set aside by Israel for worship (Deuteronomy 12.5). Note his assumption that the Temple was that place, because the Ark of YHWH had been set up in it. The actual promise was not so specific and referred to any place where YHWH chose to reveal His Name. It had been true of the Tabernacle on which God had revealed His glory. But from Solomon’s viewpoint YHWH had promised David ‘he (Solomon) will build a house for My Name’ (1 Chronicles 22.10). And on those grounds he prayed that God would day and night be attentive to any prayers prayed ‘towards’ the Temple and its courts, and would therefore hear His servant when he prayed to Him ‘towards the Temple’. Note the assumption that to pray towards the Temple was as good as praying in it. Men might be far away, but they could still pray towards the Temple (Daniel 6.10). It was to be a channel of prayer. But the later history revealed that this was to put too much of a limitation on prayer, for godly men could pray to God anywhere at any time (e.g. Elijah and Elisha). In the New Testament the Temple was replaced by Jesus Christ, the true Temple of God (John 2.19-21), and prayer was to be directed through Him (John 14.13-14; 16.23-24) as men prayed in Spirit and truth (John 4.24).
For the idea of ‘eyes being opened’ compare Genesis 3.5, 7; Numbers 24.3-4, 15-16. For ‘my Name shall be there’ compare 1 Kings 8.16. For the idea of ‘the Name’ as representing YHWH see Genesis 4.25; Genesis 13.4; Exodus 20.24; 23.21; 34.5; Deuteronomy 12.5 etc. Solomon was drawing widely on the Pentateuch.
2.6.21 “And listen you to the supplications of your servant, and of your people Israel, when they shall pray toward this place. Yes, hear you from your dwelling-place, even from heaven, and when you hear forgive.’
He then conjoined Israel with himself and prayed that YHWH would not only hear Solomon’s prayers on behalf of the people, but would also hear their own prayers as well, when they ‘prayed towards this place’. But whilst men were to pray ‘towards this place’ it was not because God was limited to ‘this place’, for he recognised that His dwelling place was in Heaven. It simply gave them a point of reference to which they could pray knowing that the God Who dwelt in Heaven would then hear them, and when He heard could forgive. Solomon recognised that there could be no answered prayer except to those who were forgiven. In the words of the Psalmist, ‘If I regard iniquity in my heart YHWH will not hear’ (Psalm 66.18). Only one who has been forgiven can truly pray.
And he knew that forgiveness would be needed, for part of YHWH’s covenant with David had included the idea of his sons going astray from YHWH (2 Samuel 7.14). And when that happened they would all need forgiveness, and especially the king himself. This idea of forgiveness is one found in Leviticus and Numbers, but interestingly not in Deuteronomy where the idea is presented in a different way. For this idea of God positively forgiving (salach) see Exodus 34.9; Leviticus 4-5 (eight times); 6.7; 19.22; Numbers 14.19-20; 15.25-28; 30.5, 8, 12, and the Davidic Psalms 25.18; 103.3. In Deuteronomy forgiveness appears only as a negative idea in Deuteronomy 29.20. It is thus not a Deuteronomic concept. And yet forgiveness is to be the very basis of the Temple’s effectiveness at being an instrument for reaching YHWH.
A Prayer That YHWH Will Hear When Men Swear On Oath Before His Altar Concerning Their Ways And Will Requite Them According To Their Deserts (6.22-23).
The settling of disputes by the swearing of an oath before YHWH was a regular means of obtaining justice. Initially it was done before the door of the Tabernacle. Now Solomon wanted the same to apply to the Temple.
2.6.22-23 “If a man sin against his neighbour, and an oath be laid on him to cause him to swear, and he come and swear before your altar in this house, then hear you from heaven, and do, and judge your servants, requiting the wicked, to bring his way on his own head; and accounting as righteous the righteous, to give him according to his righteousness.”
The idea was that one who had in some way offended his neighbour in a serious way should be called on to swear an oath before the altar in the Temple court as to whether he was guilty or not. (This might be required of him by the priestly court). In such a case the prayer was that YHWH would respond justly and hear what was sworn, and act accordingly, condemning the guilty and bringing his judgment on his own head, and declaring the righteous to be righteous because he truly was ‘in the right’. See as examples Exodus 22.11; Numbers 5.19, 21. See also Leviticus 6.3-5. Note that by this prayer the Temple is seen as replacing the regular idea of being brought ‘before YHWH’ in the Tabernacle. Again in the main it is not a Deuteronomic concept. Solomon was drawing on the whole Law.
Prayers That YHWH Will Hear When He Sends Disasters On His People Because They Have Grievously Sinned And They Call On Him For Forgiveness (6.24-31).
There now follow a series of different situations which might be expected to arise as a consequence of YHWH’s warnings to His people in Leviticus 26.14-45 and Deuteronomy 28.15-68. They refer to what were comparatively common problems in that day, invasion by an enemy, being taken captive, fierce drought, famine, pestilence, invasion by locusts, and so on. And these were seen as being a consequence of sin.
It should perhaps be noted here that some of these were strange prayers from a king who was supposed to be ruling over a kingdom of peace and rest. He was anticipating his people being ‘smitten down before their enemies’ (verse 24), being ‘besieged in the land of their cities’ (verse 28), ‘going to battle against their enemies’ (verse 34) and being ‘delivered to their enemies so that they carry them away captive’ (verse 36). Unless he simply intended to leave them to their fate, if these things happened he would have no option but to take up arms on their behalf, thus becoming a ‘man of blood’. His being a king of peace was thus relative, not absolute (see also 8.3). He clearly anticipated trouble. It might be seen as prophesying that in the first stages of the kingdom of the coming Prince of Peace such things could happen, although not once the everlasting kingdom had been established.
Restoration Of Prisoners Of War (6.24-25).
2.6.24-25 “And if your people Israel be smitten down before the enemy, because they have sinned against you, and turn again and confess your name, and pray and make supplication before you in this house, then hear you from heaven, and forgive the sin of your people Israel, and bring them again to the land (or ‘let them remain in the land’) which you gave to them and to their fathers.”
This next scenario was one where Israel were smitten before their enemies because they had sinned against YHWH, in consequence of the warning given in Leviticus 26.17; Deuteronomy 28.25; Joshua 7.1-5. His prayer was that if they then turned again to YHWH (repented), and confessed His Name (believed), and made supplication in the Temple as the place where YHWH had ‘established His Name’, then YHWH would hear from Heaven (not ‘from the Temple’), and forgive their sin, and would either restore them to the land (because they had been taken prisoner), or would allow them to remain in the land which He had promised and given to their fathers (not removing them from it). In other words his prayer was that they might not be finally driven out of their land in the way that YHWH had commanded that they drive the Canaanites out of it. Note the emphasis on ‘hear’ and ‘forgive’ with the resulting consequence. He was asking God to be attentive to their change of heart.
The suggested change from ‘bring them again to the land’ to ‘let them remain in the land’ would not alter the basic Hebrew text. It simply requires a change of pointing (that is, of pronunciation of the original consonants). It is necessary here because if the people were outside the land they would not be able to ‘make supplication before You in this house’. For the phrase ‘smitten down before your enemies’ see Leviticus 26.17; Deuteronomy 28.25. For the idea of ‘the land that you gave to their fathers’ compare Deuteronomy 19.8; Joshua 18.3. For actually remaining in the land having been smitten see Leviticus 26.17.
Deliverance From Famine Caused By Lack Of Rain (6.25-26).
Rain was the life-blood of the land of Canaan. Egypt was watered by the Nile, Assyria and Babylon were watered by irrigation from the Euphrates and the Tigris, but Canaan was almost wholly dependent on rain. If there was no rain there was total famine. Its life-blood had been taken away.
2.6.26 “When the heavens are 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, then hear you 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.”
The next example that Solomon took up was that of heaven being shut up so that there was no rain as a consequence of the fact that they had sinned against YHWH. Palestine was especially dependent on rain because it had almost no permanent rivers. Thus rain at the proper season was vital for their agriculture. It relied on the October/November rains and the April rains (the early and the latter rains). The idea that God’s people were dependent on YHWH for rain from Heaven is constant throughout the Law of Moses (specifically in Leviticus 26.4; Deuteronomy 11.11-17; 28.12, 24; compare 2 Samuel 1.21; Isaiah 32.15; 44.1-5; 55.10-13), for the rain filled the wadis and the natural wells, and produced the springs. See also 1 Kings 17-18.
Again the thought was that if they prayed towards the Temple and confessed His Name (believed) and turned from their sin (repented) when He afflicted them in this way, He would hear in Heaven (note not in the Temple) and forgive their sins. And this would be the consequence of His teaching them the good way in which they should walk, with the result that rain came on their land, the land which was given to them as their inheritance.
Note once more the emphasis on ‘forgiveness’, a central concept in this prayer. It is a concept which is taken from Leviticus and Numbers. For this idea of God positively forgiving (salach) see Exodus 34.9; Leviticus 4-5 (eight times); 6.7; 19.22; Numbers 14.19-20; 15.25-28; 30.5, 8, 12, and the Davidic Psalms 25.18; 103.3. In Deuteronomy forgiveness appears only as a negative idea in Deuteronomy 29.20. It is thus not a Deuteronomic concept. For the phrase ‘when Heaven is shut up and there is no rain’ compare Deuteronomy 11.17. It is an idea also found in the Ugaritic literature (written prior to Israel’s entering into the land). For the idea that the land was given to them as their inheritance see Numbers 16.14; 26.53-54; 32.18; 34.2, 29; 36.2; Deuteronomy 4.21, 38; 12.9; 15.4; 19.10; 21.23; 24.4; 25.19; 26.1; Joshua 14-24.
Deliverance From A Variety Of Disasters (6.28-31).
A number of possible natural disasters are now considered including disease, plant disease, sirocco winds, locust activity, invading enemies, etc.
2.6.28 “If there be in the land famine, if there be pestilence, if there be blasting or mildew, locust or caterpillar, if their enemies besiege them in the land of their cities (gates), whatever plague or whatever sickness there be,”
Solomon then turned his thoughts towards the many natural disasters that could come on the land - famine, pestilence, blasting (by the Sirocco winds from the desert), mildew (a parasite fungus resulting from overmuch rain), locust (which descended on the land to strip it of vegetation), and caterpillar (young locusts infesting the land which could be almost as devastating as their full grown counterparts), belligerent enemies besieging their cities and wasting their land, sickness and plague of many kinds. Against all these things, without YHWH they had little protection. They simply had to endure them. But the idea here is that if they pray to YHWH concerning these things He will hear and respond.
2.6.29-31 “Whatever prayer and supplication be made by any man, or by all your people Israel, who shall know every man his own plague and his own sorrow, and shall spread forth his hands toward this house, then hear you from heaven your dwelling-place and forgive, and render to every man according to all his ways, whose heart you know, for you, even you only, know the hearts of the children of men, that they may fear you, to walk in your ways, so long as they live in the land which you gave to our fathers.”
The concentration comes now more on the individual, although recognising that such things could affect all the people. For each man knows the plague that he is afflicted by and the sorrow that he has to endure. And if he then spreads forth his hands towards YHWH’s house (the Temple), Solomon asked that YHWH would hear ‘in Heaven His dwelling-place’, and would forgive, and, knowing his heart, would act towards him on the basis of his new ways if they truly resulted from repentance.
He then switched his thought to all the people and pointed out to YHWH that He knew all their hearts, and his desire was that YHWH’s actions would cause them to fear Him and walk in His ways, as long as they lived in the land which He had given to their fathers, something that they could only expect to do whilst they were obedient.
Note again his emphasis on the fact that YHWH’s supreme dwellingplace was not in the Temple but in Heaven, the need for repentance (a recognition of the plague in their own hearts), the necessary cry for forgiveness which would result from repentance, and the desire for the action of YHWH in restoring their hearts. Note also the desire for their continuation in the land which YHWH had given to their fathers in godly fear. There was ever before their thoughts the fact that God’s judgment on the Canaanites had been that they would be driven out of the land that they inhabited. Thus he prayed that the same might not happen to Israel.
Note further the thought which is contained here of prayer by individuals. This kind of disaster could strike at individual families, some here and some there, rather than the whole land.
It is interesting that in a verse where we might expect to find many parallels in the past if any specific passage had been in mind there are in fact quite remarkably, given the subject matter, almost none. For famine in the sense in mind here see Genesis 12.10; 26.1; 41 often; Leviticus 26.19-20. For pestilence compare Leviticus 26.25; Numbers 14.12. For blasting and mildew compare Deuteronomy 28.22. For locusts see especially Exodus 10 (often) and Deuteronomy 28.38. There is no mention of caterpillar (the young locust) in the Law of Moses. But as these are common disaster experiences it is really a collection from general knowledge and common sense, which indicates a general knowledge of the whole Law of Moses, and of the land, rather than a concentration on any particular piece of literature. After all Solomon took a great interest in the phenomena of nature (4.33).
‘In the land of their cities (literally ‘gates’).’ The point here, of course, is that it was only their cities that could be besieged, and the concentration was on their massive gates. But Solomon wanted to connect the idea with the land that YHWH had given them. This was an advancement on being smitten down by their enemies, which had more in mind the open battlefield. Here prolonged sieges were in mind, of a kind carried out, for example, by David on Ammon (2 Samuel 10). Some see ‘in the land, in the gates’ as signifying both in the countryside and in cities.
A Petition That He Will Hear Foreigners Who Call On Him Through His Temple (6.32-33).
In an unusual switch Solomon now prays that YHWH will also hear foreigners who pray to Him towards His Temple. It is significant that he failed to see the inconsistency of this prayer when compared with his own treatment of ‘strangers’. How easily we are blind to our own faults.
2.6.32-33 “Moreover concerning the foreigner, who is not of your people Israel, when he shall come from a far country for your great name’s sake, and your mighty hand, and your outstretched arm, when they shall come and pray toward this house, then hear you from heaven, even from your dwelling-place, and do according to all that the foreigner calls to you for, that all the peoples of the earth may know your name, and fear you, as do your people Israel, and that they may know that this house which I have built is called by your name.”
This quite remarkable emphasis on YHWH’s openness to the prayers of foreigners brings out Solomon’s breadth of vision. It visualised a time when foreigners would hear of what God had done and would come to the Temple to seek the God of Israel (see 10.1-13, 24-25; 2 Kings 5; compare Exodus 12.48; Numbers 15.14; Psalm 2.10. The idea was expanded by Isaiah 56.6 ff. For the idea of hearing what God had done see also Exodus 15.14-16).
It was a prayer that assumed a state of peace, expansion and prosperity like the time of Solomon, a time when Israel’s messengers and traders were going out to the world and were being received as honoured guests, and when the fame of Israel was being spread abroad, a time when the nations were subject to his control (Psalm 2.8). Then foreigners would learn of YHWH’s greatness and of what He had done for Israel, especially in delivering them from Egypt, and would come to worship Him and pray in His Temple. (Solomon was trying to bring home to the people the great vision that he had in building the Temple). And his prayer was that YHWH would hear the prayers of such people, and that YHWH would answer them from ‘Heaven His dwellingplace’, and do what they asked, so that all the peoples of the earth might know His Name, and fear Him, just as His people did. And the result would be that, as a consequence of their answered prayer, they would know that this Temple was distinctive from all others and was called by the Name of YHWH, because in a very real sense YHWH had manifested His presence there by answering their prayers.
For the phrase ‘far country’ see Joshua 9.6, 9. For ‘mighty hand’ and ‘outstretched arm’ see Deuteronomy 26.8. Compare Exodus 32.11, ‘with great power and with a mighty hand’.
Hearing Prayers For Help In Battle (6.34-35).
The idea here is of the people going out to battle because sent by YHWH (‘by whatever way you send them’), rather than the idea of resisting invasion or being besieged. It was something that they had often done under David. But it is a reminder that Solomon also was not wholly a man of peace. Compare 8.3.
2.6.34-35 “If your people go out to battle against their enemies, by whatever way you send them, and they pray to you toward this city which you have chosen, and the house which I have built for your name, then hear you from heaven their prayer and their supplication, and maintain their cause.”
So this final scenario is of a case where the war is being taken to the enemy because YHWH has sent them (and therefore very different from verse 33, and having worse possible consequences). Then when from the land to which they have gone (‘by whatever way you shall send them’) they pray to YHWH towards the city which He has chosen, and the house which Solomon has built in His Name, he asks that YHWH will hear their prayer and supplication in Heaven, and hear and maintain their cause, giving them victory.
It is clear that praying towards the Tabernacle in the centre of the camp has now become praying towards the Temple in the centre of the land. Both were seen as the focal point through which Heaven could be reached because His Name was there, as a result of the presence of the Ark. Notice how Solomon was now trying to convince the people (and YHWH) that YHWH had chosen Jerusalem. See on 6.6. It has nowhere previously been said that YHWH had chosen Jerusalem. He was now seen as having chosen Jerusalem because the Ark had settled there. But the choice had been David’s, a choice that resulted in YHWH then choosing Jerusalem for David’s sake. As with the Temple He went along with David’s choice.
It is noteworthy that when YHWH was all set to destroy Jerusalem (1 Chronicles 21.15) there is in David’s plea no mention of Him having chosen it.
A Prayer For Those Of His People Who Are Carried Off Into Foreign Lands Because They Have Sinned Against YHWH (6.36-39).
2.6.36-39 “If they sin against you, for there is no man who does not sin, and you be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captive to a land far off or near, yet if they bethink themselves in the land to which they are carried captive, and turn again, and make supplication to you in the land of their captivity, saying, ‘We have sinned, we have done perversely, and have dealt wickedly,’ if they return to you with all their heart and with all their soul in the land of their captivity, to which they have carried them captive, and pray toward their land, which you gave to their fathers, and the city which you have chosen, and toward the house which I have built for your name, then hear you from heaven, even from your dwelling-place, their prayer and their supplications, and maintain their cause, and forgive your people who have sinned against you.”.
Here the ‘they’ must look back to ‘your people’ of verse 34. The idea is that sin removes the right of His people to expect YHWH’s protection so that they are delivered to the enemy and carried away captive. That he has in mind a multitude of different sins carried out by a multitude of different people rather than one particular corporate sin comes out in the qualifying ‘for there is no man who does not sin’. The assumption is presumably that they have grown careless about sin and about the covenant and are not coming to Him in repentance through sacrificial offerings.
But what is in view here is not one great Exile, but a taking captive of people at different times, sometimes to a far off land, and sometimes to one that is near. This is not the ‘scattering among all peoples’ of Leviticus 26.33; Deuteronomy 28.64. The carrying off of captives was not just something practised by the great nations like Assyria and Babylon. They simply did it on a huge scale. It was common practise with prisoners of war. And it was common practise whenever nations invaded another nation. Indeed one of the spoils that they looked for was plenty of slaves to sell on or keep for their own use. We have the perfect example in 1 Samuel 30.2, 5-6, 18-1 where one of the reasons for the Amalekite invasion was in order to take captives as slaves. Compare also Deuteronomy 20.14; 21.10-11 where it was simply assumed as a matter of course that Israel would do the same. We can hardly doubt that other nations reciprocated. Consider for example Naaman’s Israelite slave girl (1 Kings 5.2). (Cushan Rishathaim of Mesopotamia would be an example of ‘far’ - Judges 3.8).
So this idea of being carried away captive did not require later history to make sense. Indeed in Leviticus 18.25-28; 20.22 YHWH had warned about the possibility of His ‘spewing them out’. It was thus to be expected. There would have been many Israelites in captivity who had been there as a consequence of the wars described in the Book of Judges and since, and many more would be taken captive during the coming wars with Syria and other enemies. It was something that was happening all the time. And it was Solomon’s prayer that when such people were carried into captivity they might remember YHWH and call on Him from wherever they were, and admit that they were sinners who had behaved sinfully (for as Solomon has pointed out there are none who sin not), with the result that their captors would treat them more leniently because YHWH had taken up their cause. It is not necessarily a suggestion of restoration from their captivity, although that would happen in many cases. It recognised that many of them would be there permanently and referred rather to compassion being shown to them in their captivity.
And the point was that wherever YHWH’s people were they should be able to look towards the land, and towards Jerusalem and towards the Temple, as they had once looked towards the Tabernacle, and be sure that YHWH would hear them. The spirit is more that of Leviticus 26.38-45 than of Deuteronomy 28-29, for in the latter there is a clear promise that they will be restored to their land, something which Solomon seemingly did not have in mind here (it is so clear in Deuteronomy that it is difficult to see how he could have overlooked it had he had that passage in mind). There is not even the hint of a return from captivity. This was indeed the condition of many Israelites who had been taken captive since the time of Joshua. It has nothing to do with the Exile. And we can safely say that while this prayer could have been prayed by someone who had in mind Leviticus 26 or who had a working knowledge of extracts from Deuteronomy (like, say, Solomon), it could not have been written by a thoroughgoing Deuteronomist.
Note again the emphasis on repentance (‘we have sinned, and have done perversely, we have dealt wickedly’) and on faith (‘if they return to You with all their heart and with all their soul -- and pray’), and on the desire that they receive forgiveness for all their sins and transgressions, because they were still the people of His inheritance. And he prayed that YHWH’s eyes might be opened towards them and He would hear their cry and ‘maintain their cause’, (and show compassion towards them - 1 Kings 8.50) because they were the chosen of YHWH (Exodus 19.5-6; 20. 1-18) in spite of their captivity.
For the warning about being carried away captive on a large scale as a judgment on His people (but not in these specific terms) see Leviticus 26.33; Deuteronomy 28.64. For His eyes being open towards them see on verse 29.
An Overall Request That God Would Hear Prayers Prayed In The Temple (6.40).
The verses that follow are additional to what is found in 1 Kings 8, and replace 1 Kings 8.50b-53 where there were two mentions of deliverance from Egypt, something which the Chronicler avoids putting on Solomon’s lips, perhaps because he saw Solomon’s heart as still being in Egypt. It may be that he made the change because, in line with Hosea 11, the Chronicler did not see Israel as ‘delivered from Egypt’ in that Solomon was engaging in forbidden trade with them and had married an Egyptian princess (1.16-17; 8.11; 9.28 with Deuteronomy 17.16) and was treating his people as though he was an Egyptian monarch by putting them under taskmasters (10.4, 11). Their position was still as though they were in Egypt ‘in the midst of the furnace of iron’ (1 Kings 8.51). Nevertheless these verses are a very suitable ending to the prayer. They do, however, also act as a flashback to the time before the entry of the Ark so that there cane be a repeat of the descent of the glory of YHWH.
2.6.40 “Now, O my God, let, I plead with you, your eyes be open, and let your ears be attentive to the prayer that is made in this place.”
Here Solomon closed by pleading with God to have His eyes open to what went on in the Temple, and to have His ears attentive to what was prayed there.
These words reflect verse 20 where Solomon had prayed that YHWH’s eyes be open towards this house day and night, and that He listen to the prayer which His servant prays towards this place, and to the supplication of His people when they pray towards this place. They are repeated in YHWH’s reply to Solomon, ‘My eyes will be open and My ears attend to the prayer which is made in this place’ (7.15). They thus accurately reflect Solomon’s prayer.
A Call For YHWH To Take Possession Of His Resting Place As His Ark Is Introduced There, And To Bless His People And Remember His Covenant Towards Them (6.41-42).
These words in verse 41 are almost identical to those in Psalm 132.8-9 although with a greater deviation in Psalm 132.10. These Psalms may well have been based on these words as found in the Chronicler’s source. Here they clearly refer to YHWH arising and entering into His resting place, ‘the Holiest Place’, along with the Ark of His strength (‘His mighty Ark’ or ‘the Ark from which He reveals His strength’). The Ark was seen as mighty in battle, except for when His people were living in disobedience (Numbers 10.35; 1 Samuel 4.4-8). This would appear to suggest that this final part of Solomon’s prayer occurred prior to the final entry of the Ark into the Holiest Place unless it is a theatrical statement after the event.
It may be that Solomon had uttered these words earlier as the Ark entered the Temple, with them being added at the end of this prayer by the Chronicler, so as to prepare for a repetition of the description of the descent of the glory of God. See opening chiasmus.
2.6.41 The first line of this verse may have in mind the words that used to be spoken when the Ark set forth on the days journey and then rested at the end of it (‘Arise, O YHWH, and let your enemis be scattered’ - Numbers 10.35-36). For Solomon’s call as the Ark approaches its resting place in the Holiest Place in the Temple, is for YHWH God Himself to arise into His resting place along with His mighty Ark, the Ark through which He reveals His power. As a consequence, because His Name (His esential character and Being) is permanently there in the Holiest Place, His priests will be ‘clothed with salvation’, either as they minister salvation to the people through offering sacrifices, or alternately by themselves revealing in their lives the saving power of God. And as a consequence His truly sanctified ones will rejoice in His goodness as they sense His forgiveness and salvation, or will themselves rejoice in the true goodness that YHWH has bestowed on them. This was a great moment for Israel as the separate Sanctuaries were being united as one, and Solomon’s hope was that it would produce a new sense of dedication in his people as described here.
2.6.42 The first problematic question here is as to who are His anointed ones? Are they David and Solomon? Are they the forthcoming anointed Davidic dynasty? Are they the anointed priests? Or are they all God’s true people (His holy ones) seen as ‘anointed’ by Him (Psalm 105.15)? Whichever it be Solomon prays that God will not turn away their face, that is, refuse to acknowledge them and listen to them. And the cry is on the basis that He remember His acts of covenant love manifested to David in all that He had done through him (or alternately that He remember David’s covenant love and act accordingly). He is basically saying ‘for David’s sake’, (as we would say ‘for Jesus’ sake’), and wants those acts of covenant love to continue on David’s descendants or on David’s priests or on David’s people, or perhaps on all three.
The Burnt Offerings And Sacrifices Were Consumed By Fire From Heaven And The Glory Of YHWH Filled The House Resulting In Great Celebrations (7.1-11).
As a consequence of Solomon’s plea for YHWH and His Ark which represented His strength to arise and enter into His resting place (6.41), the glory of YHWH descended on the Sanctuary and the fire of YHWH consumed the sacrifices, presumably some of those recently described in 5.6. Solomon and the people then worshipped Him, offering a large number of sacrifices, and observed the Feast of Tabernacles in His honour.
Note how verses 1-3 are in reverse order to their appearance in 5.13-14. In 5.13-14 it was the expression of praise to YHWH, the exclusion of the priests because of YHWH’s glorious presence, the glory of YHWH filling the house. Here it is the glory of YHWH filling the house, the exclusion of the priests because of YHWH’s glorious presence, and the same expression of praise to YHWH. This tends to confirm that both are describing the same event chiastically, and that the praise of the people was continuous both before and after the Ark was settled in the Holiest Place. It was a day of continual praise.
Analysis.
Note that in A the glory of YHWH was revealed, and in the parallel the glory of the king was revealed. In B the people of Israel gave thanks an worshipped YHWH, and in the parallel they returned to their houses glad at hear because of YHWH’s goodness. In C the king and all the people offered sacrifice before YHWH, and in the parallel they observed the Feast of Tabernacles (which involved many sacrifices). In D we have an account of the huge number of sacrifices and offerings Solomon offered, and in the parallel we learn that the offerings were so great that they were offered on a special part of the Temple court which had been sanctified for the occasion. In E Solomon and the people dedicated the house of God, and in the parallel Solomon sanctified a part of the Temple court. Centrally in F the priest stood along with the Levites with their musical instruments, and in the parallel the priests played their trumpets and the people stood.
2.7.1 ‘Now when Solomon had made an end of praying, the fire came down from heaven, and consumed the burnt-offering and the sacrifices, and the glory of YHWH filled the house.’
‘When Solomon had made an end of praying.’ This might suggest that the whole of 6.12-42 was prayed before the Ark entered the Sanctuary and was set in the Holiest Place, or it may simply refer to the final three verses in 6.40-42. But it has especially in mind the prayer to YHWH and His Ark to arise and enter their resting place.
And the Ark having been set in the Holiest Place, and the priests having then left the Sanctuary (5.11), fire came down and consumed the offerings and sacrifices then being offered, and the glory of YHWH filled the house, shielded from the onlookers by a great cloud (5.14). It was a sign that YHWH was possessing the Temple as His own. From then on none but sanctified priests would be able to enter it, and they with suitable awe. This event is a repetition of the event in 5.13b-1, the twofold description of the one event being an envelope for Solomon’s prayer.
The consuming directly by YHWH of the burnt offering and the sacrifices was a repetition of what had happened when David offered sacrifices on the threshingfloor of Ornan (1 Chronicles 21.26). A similar thing would take place when Elijah offered sacrifices on Mount Carmel in a contest with the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18.38). In each case it was a visible indication that YHWH was accepting the offerings, and an assurance that when men offered sacrifices before YHWH from a true heart YHWH would accept them. We know from this that He will accept our prayers in the same way, if our hearts are true and our sins forgiven.
In the parallel account in 1 Kings 8 the ending of Solomon’s prayer was followed by Solomon blessing the people. But that has been made redundant here for the Chronicler has replaced it by the descent of the glory of YHWH which guaranteed all that was in the blessing.
2.7.2 ‘And the priests could not enter into the house of YHWH, because the glory of YHWH filled YHWH’s house.
But at this time even the priests could not enter the Sanctuary because the glory of YHWH filled the whole Sanctuary. None could withstand His consuming fire. As with the pillar of fire at the Exodus, and the glory that filled the Tabernacle excluding even Moses, it was a confirmation that YHWH was with His people, and an indication of His extreme holiness.
2.7.3 ‘And all the children of Israel looked on, when the fire came down, and the glory of YHWH was on the house; and they bowed themselves with their faces to the ground on the pavement, and worshipped, and gave thanks to YHWH, saying, “For he is good, for his covenant love is for ever.”
Here it is made clear that not only the priests, but also all the people, saw the fire come down and the glory of YHWH fill the House. And the consequence was that they fell on their faces before YHWH and gave Him thanks and praise, repeating the phrase that was continually on their lips (5.13b) “For he is good, for his covenant love is for ever.” See also for this phrase 7.6; 20.21; 1 Chronicles 16.34, 41. That through His goodness His covenant love was for ever was central to their faith. It was a reminder that He would never forget His people.
2.7.4 ‘Then the king and all the people offered sacrifice before YHWH.’
And having worshipped Him, the king and all the people brought sacrifices to YHWH. Apart from the burnt offerings, and possibly sin offerings, these would be sacrifices of which the people could partake once they had offered the fat to YHWH (peace-offerings, thank-offerings, etc.). They were offerings of praise and thanksgiving to YHWH, but they would also contribute to the sacred feast held before YHWH.
2.7.5a ‘And king Solomon offered a sacrifice of twenty two herds of (eleph, ‘thousand, family unit’) oxen, and a hundred and twenty flocks of (eleph, ‘thousand, family unit’) sheep.’
Solomon had decided that on this occasion they would feast as never before. And he therefore provided the priests with offerings of twenty two herds of oxen and one hundred and twenty flocks of sheep (the word eleph (thousand) regularly indicates a large unit such as a family unit or a military unit, or in this case a flock or a herd). These would be offered as sacrifices and then the people could partake of the meat. These sacrifices also were dedicatory and expressions of praise and thanksgiving.
2.7.5b ‘So the king and all the people dedicated the house of God.’
So by their offerings and sacrifices, and subsequent feasting, Solomon and all the people dedicated the House of God which had been so singularly blessed by YHWH. This feast of dedication of the altar (which represents the whole Sanctuary) lasted for seven days, to be followed immediately by the seven day Feast of Tabernacles (verse 9; 1 Kings 5.65).
2.7.6 ‘And the priests stood, according to their offices, the Levites also with instruments of music of YHWH which David the king had made to give thanks to YHWH, “for his covenant love is for ever”, when David praised by their ministry, and the priests sounded trumpets before them, and all Israel stood.’
The verse commences with the priests standing, and ends with all Israel standing. All were partaking in praise to YHWH. The priests stood in accordance with their allotted courses (by David), trumpets at the ready, and the Levites also, with the instruments that David had made for the purpose of giving thanks to YHWH when he had offered praise through their ministry. Then the priest blew their trumpets in front of all Israel, as the words of praise echoed, “for His covenant love is for ever”. Note the repetition of this from 7.3 and 5.13. The assurance of God’s love through the covenant was a theme of the celebrations.
2.7.7 ‘Moreover Solomon hallowed the middle of the court which was before the house of YHWH, for there he offered the burnt-offerings, and the fat of the peace-offerings, because the brazen altar which Solomon had made was not able to receive the burnt-offering, and the meal-offering, and the fat.’
The offering of such huge amounts of offerings was more than was possible, even on the enlarged brazen altar, and so the middle of the court facing the Temple entrance was especially ‘hallowed’ (‘sanctified’) for the purpose of offerings sacrifices. These would be offered by the multitude of priests present, who would continue making the offerings from day to day through the feast, from which they would receive their allotted portions. Only the fat of the peace-offerings was offered up, the meat could be partaken of in the feast. But the task was immense (but so were the appetites of the people).
2.7.8 So Solomon held the feast at that time seven days, and all Israel with him, a very great assembly, from the entrance of Hamath to the brook of Egypt’
The seven day feast which Solomon had called for dedicating the altar being over, he now held another seven day feast, the Feast of Tabernacles or Ingathering (from the fifteenth day of the seventh moon period to the twenty first day), to celebrate the final gathering in of the harvest of summer fruits. (It was the eighth day of this feast which was a day of solemn assembly- verse 9; Leviticus 23.39b). This was one of the three great feasts, held at the Central Sanctuary, which Israelites were expected to attend (Exodus 23.14-17; Leviticus 23.33-43). Now all Israel were gathered for it. It was a very great assembly including Israelites from as far north as Lebo-Hamath, and from as far south as the brook of Egypt. Lebo-Hamath was modern Lebweh (Assyrian Laba’u), NNE of Baalbek, on the southern boundary of the district of Hamath, at the head of the road north to Hamath. The Brook (nahal = wadi) of Egypt is probably the Wadi el-‘Arish south west of which is desert up to the Egyptian border whilst north east of it are meadows and arable land. suitable for occupation.
2.7.9 ‘And on the eighth day they held a solemn assembly, for they kept the dedication of the altar seven days, and the feast seven days.’
‘On the eighth day’, that is the day after the seventh day of the Feast of Tabernacles (‘the great day of the Feast’ - John 7.37), a solemn assembly was held. This was in this case the fifteenth day of feasting coming after seven days of feasting for the dedication of the altar, and seven days of feasting for the Feast of Tabernacles. During the seven days for the dedication of the altar the Day of Atonement would have taken place. This would tie in specifically with Solomon’s emphasis on repentance and forgiveness, for the Day of Atonement was a day of repentance (affliction of soul) and forgiveness (atonement), a day of atonement for all Israel (Leviticus 23.26-32). So on the eighth day of the Feast of Tabernacles, that most solemn of days which finalised the great feasts of the religious year, the dedication of, and rejoicing for, the Temple in which resided the Ark of the Covenant of YHWH, came to an end. A similar fourteen day feast was held by Hezekiah (30.23), although in his case at time of the Feast of Passover and Unleavened Bread.
2.7.10 ‘And on the twenty third day of the seventh moon period he sent the people away to their tents, joyful and glad of heart for the goodness that YHWH had shown to David, and to Solomon, and to Israel his people.’
Then on the day after the ‘eighth day’, that is on the twenty third day of the seventh moon period, he sent the people back to their homes (their homes were often described as ‘tents, in recognition of the days in the wilderness and in order to remind them that life was temporary), full of joy and glad of heart at the goodness that YHWH had shown to David, and to Solomon, and to all Israel, by uniting the Ark and the Tabernacle in the new Sanctuary and revealing Himself in it. (Most would be unaware that the old sacred furniture was no longer in use - 13.11).
Note the coupling of the names of David and Solomon, a feature of the Chronicler (compare 11.17, and note 1 Chronicles 29.23 and that both were ‘the chosen of YHWH’). Despite their faults, both were seen as having walked in the ways of YHWH for most of their lives (the Chronicler omits mention of Solomon’s late aberrations described in 1 Kings 11, as he had omitted mention of David’ grosser failures. David’s failures had been dealt with by chastisement and forgiveness. Solomon’s came at the end of a long life of being pleasing to YHWH. Solomon’s sins will, however, be brought out in the following reign - 10.4).
2.7.11 ‘Thus Solomon finished the house of YHWH, and the king’s house, and all which came into Solomon’s heart to make in the house of YHWH, and in his own house, he prosperously effected.’
This verse forms an inclusio with 5.1. There also the work on the house of YHWH was declared to be finished. The difference now was that it was also dedicated to YHWH, and seen as accepted by Him. It will be noted that the work on the king’s house (which took thirteen years once the Temple was finished - 1 Kings 6.38-7.1 and note 2 Chronicles 8.1) is also declared here to be finished, but it is very much as a brief note, and the dedication of the Temple would have taken place before that happened. Unlike 1 Kings the Chronicler pays little attention to the building of the king’s house. He only mentions it in brief notes (7.11; 8.1). But the fact that it is mentioned here emphasises that Solomon paid as much attention to his own house as he did to YHWH’s House, and completed it equally luxuriously. His heart was revealed as being equally involved in both. Compare the apparent similar disapproval of the writer of 1 Kings that Solomon had spent nearly double the amount of time on his own house than he had on the Temple (1 Kings 6.38-7.1). He had, without thinking, exalted himself above YHWH. It took away something of the gloss on what he had done for YHWH, and demonstrated how his position had gone to his head. Neither the writer in 1 Kings nor the Chronicler were blind to Solomon’s faults.
SECTION 3. YHWH Appears To Solomon And Confirms His Response To Solomon’s Pleading But Gives A Solemn Warning Of What The Consequences Of Failure Will Be (7.12-22).
YHWH now appeared to Solomon by night and confirmed that He would respond to what Solomon had prayed, but warned him and the people of the need to be responsive to the covenant and to be obedient to its commandments, giving a stern warning of what the consequences would be of disobedience.
A question arises as to when this appearance of YHWH to Solomon took place. In view of the content of YHWH’s words we would assume that it followed almost immediately on Solomon’s own prayer. Indeed in view of its content it is difficult to see how it could have been otherwise. But a problem arises in that 1 Kings 9 (where the prayer also occurs) appears to date it after the king’s house had also been built, that is thirteen years after the completion of the Temple (1 Kings 9.1). For 1 Kings 9.1 says, ‘it came about when Solomon had finished the building of the house of YHWH and the king’s house --- that YHWH appeared to Solomon a second time’ and spoke the words that now follow, but this is later followed by the words ‘then King Solomon gave Hiram twenty cities in the land of Galilee’.
The solution almost certainly lies in the fact that the words in 1 Kings 9.1 are not to be applied too specifically from a chronological point of view, but are to be seen as a general introduction to both this reply to Solomon’s prayer which took place after the Temple had been built, and to what the writer says about Solomon’s dealing with Hiram (Huram) which took place after his own palace had been built, with the writer expecting us to see that there was a gap of thirteen years between the two events. Thus the words that now follow can be seen as YHWH directly replying to Solomon’s prayer after He had confirmed His acceptance of the Temple where His Ark had been situated, and not waiting thirteen years before He did so.
YHWH’s reply to Solomon’s prayer divides up into three parts:
YHWH’s Words To Solomon And His People (7.12-16).
YHWH confirms that if He acts in judgment towards Israel He will also respond in mercy if they repent and call on His Name.
His words can be analysed as follows:
Note that in A YHWH asserts that He has chosen ‘this place’ as a house of sacrifice, and in the parallel confirms that He will hear prayers addressed through ‘this place’ because He has chosen it. In B he defines how He might act against their land and in the parallel promises that if they repent He will hear and will heal their land. Central in C are the conditions that will change His attitude towards them if they sin.
2.7.12 ‘And YHWH appeared to Solomon by night, and said to him, “I have heard your prayer, and have chosen this place to myself for a house of sacrifice.”
That YHWH appeared to Solomon by night (compare 1.7) suggests that His appearance was through a dream (1 Kings 3.5). In that dream He declared that He had heard Solomon’s prayer and had consequently chosen this place personally as a house of sacrifice. Compare 2.3, 6 where Solomon had suggested this usage to King Huram. This suggests that while in Solomon’s prayer he had not mentioned sacrifice, YHWH saw repentance and the offering of sacrifices as going hand in hand. To call on His Name would require genuine offerings and sacrifices.
‘I have heard your prayer and chosen this place.’ These words tie in with YHWH’s promise in Deuteronomy 12.5 that He would ‘choose a place’ to which Israel could come and seek Him. Note the implication that the Temple was not previously His chosen place. He had now chosen it because of Solomon’s prayer (and, no doubt, the people’s worship). This ties in ill with the idea that the Temple was initially built through YHWH’s initiative.
The parallel passage in 1 Kings 9.3 reads, ‘I have heard your prayer and your supplication that you have made before Me. I have sanctified this place which you have built to put My Name there for ever, and My eyes and My heart will be there perpetually’. To ‘sanctify a place to put My Name there for ever’ was clearly the same thing for YHWH as ‘choosing it’ (see 7.16 where the ideas are paralleled), whilst the promise ‘My eyes and My Heart will be there perpetually’ reflect 7.16. What 1 Kings 9.3 omitted were verses 13-15 which the Chronicler presumably obtained from his other source. Their importance, however, cannot be doubted.
2.7.13-14 “If I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or if I command the locust to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among my people, if my people, who are called by my name, humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.”
In three clauses YHWH sums up some of the things concerning which Solomon had prayed, famine through lack of rain, famine through insects, and sickness and death through pestilence and disease, for He has in mind the healing of the land after repentance. These ideas of retribution and forgiveness continue throughout the book. Note that He omits reference to war and fighting. At this time such was not a serious threat, and Solomon was seen as a king of peace.
So YHWH promises that if He sends the retribution He describes on the land as a punishment for the people’s sins, then if His people respond in the right way, by humbling themselves, praying, seeking His face and turning from their evil ways, He will hear, forgive and heal. Note what is required. They must come to Him humbly, acknowledging their unworthiness and sinfulness. They must pray truly from the heart. They must seek His face with a desire to know Him and be known by Him. And they must turn from their evil ways. This is the way of salvation. Only then can He hear, forgive and heal,
The promise is to those who are ‘called by His Name’, in other words to true Yahwists. And if they are to receive His help, they must ‘humble themselves, pray, seek His face and turn from their wicked ways’, and this because of what He is. In the words of Isaiah He is ‘the high and lofty One Who inhabits eternity, Whose Name is Holy, Who dwells in the high and holy place with those who are of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones’ (Isaiah 57.15). Without humility and contrition there can be no forgiveness.
These words are a pattern of what God seeks from His people, and from us. Whenever His people become aware that sin has overtaken them with its awful consequences, this is the way back to God. They must humble themselves, pray, seek His face and turn from their sinful ways. Then He promises that He will respond by hearing, forgiving and restoring.
2.7.15 “Now my eyes will be open, and my ears attentive, to the prayer which is made in this place.”
YHWH then assures Solomon that He will be watching and listening when men pray in the Temple, because He has adopted it as His own. He will be watching for what He has just described.
These words deliberately parallel those in 6.40, which are the final three verses of Solomon’s prayer per the Chronicler, which suggests that they are original to that prayer, for God is responding to Solomon’s plea.
‘My eyes --- will be open ---.’ Solomon’s prayer had been that the eyes of YHWH would be open to this House day and night (6.20), in order that He might hear His people’s intercession, especially as regards forgiveness. Thus YHWH was promising that His eye would be open so that He would ever be ready to regard their genuine cry, and if necessary forgive. But the eye was also regularly seen as the instrument of judgment (Deuteronomy 19.13, 21; 25.12; 2 Samuel 22.28; Psalm 11.4; 66.7). Thus it includes the thought that the eyes of YHWH would watch over His people, both in order to ensure that they were fulfilling His requirements (Deuteronomy 13.18; 2 Samuel 22.28; Psalm 11.4), and in order to demonstrate His continual compassion towards them (Genesis 6.8; Deuteronomy 11.12; 32.10; Psalm 17.8; 32.8; 33.18; 34.15).
2.7 16 “For now have I chosen and made this house holy, that my name may be there for ever, and my eyes and my heart will be there perpetually.”
And this responsiveness of YHWH will be because, in response to the prayers of Solomon and His people, He has chosen the Temple in which His Ark is set, and made it ‘holy’, separated unto Him as sanctified in His sight, so that His Name, at this time represented by His Ark, may be there for ever. And His guarantee was thus that His eyes and heart would be there in perpetuity. Whilst the Temple would last men could always find hope there if they came to Him on His conditions.
He is thus pointing out that He has accepted it as taking the place of the Tabernacle and the Sacred Tent, where His Name had previously been (2 Samuel 6.2 and context), and which were so important in the worship of Israel, and was thereby graciously submitting to the well meant desires of David and Solomon.
For ‘My eyes will be there’ see on the previous verse. ‘My heart will be there’ indicated that if they were willing to hear Him and serve Him His heart would perform His will towards them. The heart was the seat of mind, will and emotion, and YHWH’s heart represented His very self (Genesis 6.6; 8.21). He would be there ready to act on their behalf, both for good and for bad.
YHWH’s Words To Solomon (7.17-18).
Having recognised that Solomon was interceding on behalf of his people, and having responded accordingly, YHWH now turns towards the needs and desires of Solomon Himself, indicated by the words ‘as for you ---.’ The spiritual health of the people was very much linked up with the spiritual health of the king. If the leadership was failing the people would tend to fail, although as the book will later reveal God was able to raise up prophets to speak to those of His people who would listen even when the leadership failed.
2.7.17 “And as for you, if you will walk before me as David your father walked, and do according to all that I have commanded you, and will keep my statutes and my ordinances,”
Blessing was not guaranteed for the king or for his descendants who followed him. Obedience was equally demanded of Him (Deuteronomy 17.18-20). If he was to enjoy the promises of 1 Chronicles 17.10-14 for himself and his dynasty he must walk before God as David his father had walked, in covenant obedience, repenting truly when he sinned. He must do all that YHWH had commanded and observe His statutes and His ordinances as revealed in the Law of Moses.
2.7.18 “Then I will establish the throne of your kingdom, according as I covenanted with David your father, saying, ‘There shall not fail you a man to be ruler in Israel.’ ”
And if he did so then God would establish the throne of his kingship, just as He had covenanted with David when He promised, ‘There shall not fail you a man to be ruler in Israel.’ Thus obedience would result in a continuing dynasty.
We should, however, notice that the promises in 1 Chronicles 17.10.14 were absolute and finally unconditional. His speaking of them as conditional here is as an encouragement to Solomon to follow the way of obedience. He is not thereby denying their absoluteness. Fortunately whatever Solomon did the king over the everlasting kingdom would come. But Solomon would have lost his part in it.
Note the slight change from the words in 1 Kings 9.5. There God spoke of ‘promising’ David, here He speaks of ‘covenanting’ with David. The promise was absolute, the covenant conditional and depending on response. There God said, ‘there shall not fail you a man on the throne of Israel’, but here the Chronicler writes it as, ‘there shall not fail you a man to be ruler in Israel’, perhaps because for some time in his day there had been no Davidide on the throne of Israel, even though the house of David still survived. He is asserting his own confidence that God would preserve the Davidic house and one day raise up His promised King.
YHWH’s Words To Solomon And His People (7.19-22).
Note here the specific change from ‘you’ in the singular, to ‘you’ in the plural. These words were now directed to both Solomon and His people. Obedience was required from all. The thought now is not of kingship ceasing, but of their right to be in the land ceasing, and the very Temple itself ceasing. For they too were dependent on obedience, the obedience of all the people. (God was not taken by surprise when His people failed).
2.7.19 “But if you (plural) turn away, and forsake my statutes and my commandments which I have set before you, and go and serve other gods, and worship them,”
God now addressed both Solomon and all the people, and described what would happen if they turned away from His ways, and forsook His statutes and commandments which He had set before them in the Law of Moses, and went and served other gods and worshipped them.
For the idea of ‘turning away from following YHWH’ see especially Joshua 22.18. The huge pressure on Israelites to turn away form YHWH in a land where there were ‘ancient’ false sanctuaries everywhere, and where all nations round about had their prominent idols, would have to be experienced to be understood. Such sanctuaries were easily available and provided a quick solution and an easy way out when problems arose, as well as appealing to man’s primitive instincts. And they would be constantly being urged to it by Canaanite inhabitants of the land. Furthermore they provided elements which excited the lower nature and made no excessive moral demands as is clearly revealed at Ugarit. That was why YHWH had taken such trouble to guard against them (Exodus 20.3-6; 23.24, 32-33; 34.12-14; Leviticus 19.4; 26.1, 30; Deuteronomy 4.19; 7.4; 8.19; 11.16; 13.2-13; 17.3; 28.14; 30.17; Joshua 24.16; Judges 2.19; 10.13; 1 Samuel 8.8). As will be seen from the references ‘serve other gods’ is typically Deuteronomic, while for ‘serve other gods and worship them’ see uniquely Deuteronomy 11.16. For the ease with which Israel could be turned to the worship of other gods see Numbers 25.2.
2.7.20a “Then will I pluck them up by the roots out of my land which I have given them,”
The consequence of their serving other gods and worshipping them will be that they will be ‘plucked up by the roots out of My land’, that is they will be uprooted and ‘cut off from YHWH’s land which He had given them’ (1 Kings 9.7), the point being that the land was given to them because He was their Overlord and they were His people, and on rebelling against Him they would thus no longer have any right to it. Compare Leviticus 18.24-28; 20.22.
The theoretical idea that Israel could lose their land if they were disobedient was well known in the Law, and does not therefore require a specific reference to the Exile. Indeed a similar idea of what could happen to YHWH’s House was found in Micah 3.12 where the Exile was certainly not in mind. They were to see their privileges as constantly dependent on obedience.
For ‘the land which I have given them’ see Numbers 20.12; Deuteronomy 9.23; 25.19. For the idea behind it see Numbers 20.24; 27.12; 32.7, 9; 33.53; Deuteronomy 3.20; 26.15. The point is that they had a duty and responsibility to Him as their Benefactor and Overlord.
2.7.20b “And this house, which I have hallowed for my name, will I cast out of my sight, and I will make it a proverb and a byword among all peoples.”
One important point to notice here was that the hallowing of the Temple by God did not give it immunity from Israel’s enemies. They were not to see the fact that YHWH had ‘hallowed’ the House as an indication that He would give it special treatment under all circumstances, for the ‘holiness’ of the House was not to be seen as intrinsic. It was dependent on YHWH’s favour. It was hallowed (set apart as the place through which they could reach Him) whilst they were obedient to Him. But if they were not faithful to the covenant He would cast the house out of His sight. He would have no further interest in it at all. Indeed, it would become a kind of private joke, a jest, a ‘proverb’ (illustration) which acted as a warning to others, and a ‘byword’ (a saying with teeth).
For ‘cast out of My sight’ compare Jeremiah 7.15. For the idea of being ‘a proverb and a byword’ see Deuteronomy 28.37; Jeremiah 24.9, but note that in neither case do the two words stand alone. Those verses are not likely therefore to be the direct source of the idea.
“And this house, which I have hallowed for my name.” By these words YHWH was declaring that He had hallowed (separated off totally to Himself) the House to put His Name there for ever, so that His eyes and heart would be there perpetually (verse 16). In other words He had accepted it as taking the place of the Tabernacle and the Sacred Tent, where His Name had previously been (2 Samuel 6.2 and context). From then on there would be a sense in which His personal presence would ever be there as expressed through His eye and heart. But it was conditional. For if the house of David, and the people, failed to walk in the ways of David, the House would simply be cast out of His sight and become a place to be hissed at. The House in itself meant nothing apart from the loving and obedient response of the people.
This idea of the House being ‘hallowed’ is typically Mosaic (although not Deuteronomic). In Exodus 29.42-44 YHWH spoke of ‘the door of the Tent of Meeting before YHWH, where I will meet with you, to speak there to you, and there I will meet with the children of Israel, and it will be hallowed by my glory, and I will hallow the Tent of Meeting, and the altar. Aaron also and his sons will I hallow to minister to me in the priest’s office. And I will dwell among the children of Israel and will be their God. And they will know that I am YHWH their God, Who brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, that I may dwell among them. I am YHWH their God.’
We note in the passage in Exodus the same emphasis as we find in this passage on the hallowing of YHWH’s sanctuary (here and verse 16); and on them knowing that He is YHWH their God Who brought them forth out of the land of Egypt (verse 22). It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Exodus 29.42-44 was in mind in these words spoken to Solomon. A further more indirect reference is found in Leviticus 21.23, where YHWH speaks of ‘hallowing -- My sanctuaries’ (i.e. the whole sanctuary including the inner court).
These two are the only previous references to the ‘hallowing of the Sanctuary’ by God, an idea which is not found at all in Deuteronomy, where sanctifying is always by the people, for example of the Sabbath (Deuteronomy 5.12); of the firstborn (Deuteronomy 15.19; of Moses and Aaron failing to hallow God before the people (Deuteronomy 32.51), the concept which is found most regularly throughout the Law of Moses. The idea therefore comes from Exodus.
2.7.21 “And this house, which is so high, every one who passes by it will be astonished, and will say, ‘Why has YHWH done thus to this land, and to this house?’ ”
‘This house which is so high’ might refer to the huge porch which was one hundred and twenty cubits high (3.4), or it might refer to the reputation that it had gained. Either way it would become an astonishment to men as they saw it broken down and deserted. And all would ask, ‘why has YHWH done this to this land and to this people’. The deserting of the land was described in verse 20, the destruction of the House in verse 21. For “Why has YHWH done thus to this land, and to this house?” compare Deuteronomy 29.24-29.
2.7.22 “And they will answer, ‘Because they forsook YHWH, the God of their fathers, who brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, and laid hold on other gods, and worshipped them, and served them, therefore has he brought all this evil on them’.”
Then men will reply that it was because they forsook YHWH, the God of their fathers, to Whom they owed so much, the God Who brought them forth from the land of Egypt. They forsook Him by laying hold of other gods and worshipping and serving them. That was why God had brought this evil upon them
For ‘YHWH your God Who brought forth your fathers out of the land of Egypt’ compare Exodus 29.46 where it is ‘YHWH your God Who brought them forth from the land of Egypt’, and where it is also connected with the hallowing of YHWH’s Sanctuary. Compare also Judges 2.12.
SECTION 4. The Glory That Was Solomon’s (8.1-9.28).
The account of Solomon’s reign closes with a full description of his glory as revealed in his activities, his establishment of the worship of YHWH, his relationship with foreign powers, his earthly splendour and his widespread sovereignty. It can be divided up as follows:
Note that in A Solomon engages in splendid building activities, including for his hordes and chariots, and in the parallel his riches wisdom and grandeur are revealed, including that of his horses and chariots. In B he establishes the glory of YHWH by true worship in the Temple, and in the parallel he establishes his own glory with an ivory throne and golden shields (just as he built YHWH’s House and alongside it his own house). Central in C are his trading relationships with Hiram and the Queen of Sheba.
A Summary Of Solomon’s Building Works And Of The Extension Of His Kingdom (8.1-6).
We now learn of a flurry of splendid building work carried out by Solomon as he established his kingdom. And this included building work in Hamath-zobah which he had first to conquer. He was only relatively a king of peace. In the chiasmus from 1.1 to 9.28, which is demonstrated in the introduction to the commentary on 2 Chronicles, this building work, with its use of foreign labour (8.7), parallels the building of the Temple with its use of foreign labour (2.1-18). Outwardly it was all very splendid, revealing the power and might of Solomon, yet in each case it contained the doubtful element of disobedience to God’s requirements under the Law, including the sufferings of those involved.
In this passage the Chronicler made use of information found in 1 Kings 9.10-19, but also introduced information from his other sources, which included the invasion of Hamath-zobah, a powerful state in the north. He replaced the account of cities which Solomon gave to Huram (which Huram deprecated) by using another source which described cities given to him by Huram. He also ignored the account of the giving of the city of Gezer to Solomon as a wedding present when he married Pharaoh’s daughter, and other details. He probably saw both these accounts as detrimental to Solomon. There is sufficient difference in the accounts for us to see that the Chronicler was being selective (he ignored 1 Kings 9.11-16 completely) and no reason for doubting that he obtained accurate information from other sources.
Analysis.
Note that in A he built YHWH’s house and his own palace, and in the parallel his extensive building including that which he built in Jerusalem for his pleasure. In B he built the Tyrian cities which he had been given, and in the parallel he built foreign cities in Tadmor and Hamath. Centrally in C he took possession of Hamath-zobah, a powerful state in the north.
8.1 ‘And it came about at the end of twenty years, in which Solomon had built the house of YHWH, and his own house,’
This verse amplifies 7.11 and brings out what Solomon had accomplished by the twenty fourth year of his reign (he commenced the building of the Temple in the fourth year of his reign). In the twenty years following the fourth year of his reign he built the Temple and he built his own palace, taking twice as long over the latter. It is noteworthy that the Chronicler, whilst not otherwise mentioning the building of his palace, regularly mentions it alongside his mention of the building of the Temple (2.2; 7.11; 8.1). It is as though he wants to bring out that Solomon not only sought the glory of YHWH, but also his own glory. This building activity neatly divides Solomon’s reign into two sections, first his building of the Temple and his palace, and then his continual building activity thereafter, and his continued building up of his own glory.
8.2 ‘That the cities which Huram had given to Solomon, Solomon built them, and caused the children of Israel to dwell there.’
There is no reason to doubt that Huram gave cities to Solomon. His country would need large supplies of wheat, barley, wine and olive oil, and Solomon himself had initiated the idea of giving cities in payment for necessities (1 Kings 9.11). They would presumably be on the border between Tyre and Israel. These Solomon fortified (‘built’ often signified ‘fortified an already existing city’) and transferred into them some of his own people. They would help to guard his borders.
8.3 ‘And Solomon went to Hamath-zobah, and prevailed against it.’
Solomon also engaged in expansion projects. He invaded Hamath-zobah, (a combined empire of Hamath and Zobah, a region whose chief cities guarded the main trade route from the north. Zobah had previously been a serious opponent of David (1 Kings 18.3, 9;19.16). And Solomon ‘prevailed against it,’ no doubt resulting in much bloodshed. This is the only example given of Solomon’s active expansion by military force. This was partly because most of the work had already been done by David, but that he did it dented his reputation as a king of peace. The incursion is not mentioned in 1 Kings.
8.4 ‘And he built Tadmor in the wilderness, and all the store-cities, which he built in Hamath.’
Tadmor was probably seized at the same time as Solomon’s expansion into Hamath-zobah. It was situated 200 kilometres (125 miles) north east of Damascus and was in the Syrian desert. It was mentioned in Assyrian texts as Tadmar, and equates with Palmyra (so the versions). It was a famous trading centre, and caught those who tried to avoid the main trade routes by using a route though the Syrian desert. Its seizure was an example of Solomon’s growing greed. YHWH had promised him riches but Solomon was determined to help YHWH out by making himself rich. His fortifying of it was in order to ensure that he could hold on to it against any opposition. The store cities built in Hamath were also no doubt aimed at assisting in his trading ventures. He was seeking to gain an even greater monopoly in the landbridge between Egypt and the north by expanding his trade opportunities. He was getting richer and richer.
8.5-6 ‘Also he built Beth-horon the upper, and Beth-horon the lower, fortified cities, with walls, gates, and bars; and Baalath, and all the store-cities that Solomon had, and all the cities for his chariots, and the cities for his horsemen, and all that Solomon desired to build for his pleasure in Jerusalem, and in Lebanon, and in all the land of his dominion.’
Solomon also fortified Upper and Lower Beth-horon. These controlled the Valley of Aijalon from which a road led towards Jerusalem. He also built or refurbished Baalath and many store cities and military strongpoints, as well as many pleasure palaces and parks in Jerusalem and throughout his large empire. He simply went on and on building, at a great cost to human lives. The store cities would be for his enhanced trading operations, as well as to hold the produce from the royal estates, much of which would be sold on. The pleasure palaces and parks were for the amusement of himself and his wives. And for this huge amount of activity he used slave labour (verses 7-8).
As already mentioned Beth-horon controlled the valley of Aijalon. It was on an important trade route between the maritime plain and the hill country. It was a route later taken by many armies. which invaded Israel. Thus its fortification by Solomon guarded the trade routes, ensured toll collection and helped to ensure the security of Israel. It was divided into Upper and Lower Beth-horon. Upper Beth-horon was 16 kilometres (10 miles) north west of Jerusalem, and was at a height of 617 metres (2000 feet) above sea level. Lower Beth-horon was 18 kilometres (11 miles) north west of Jerusalem, and was 400 metres (1300 feet) above sea level. According to 1 Chronicles 7.24 they were built/fortified by Sheerah, a descendant of Ephraim, but the name Beth-horon (house of Hauron, a Canaanite god of the underworld) suggests that they were initially built before then. Their description as fortified cities, with walls, gates, and bars demonstrates their military strength.
Baalath was probably the town of that name on the border of Dan (Joshua 19.44) which was associated with Eltekeh and Gibbethon. It was clearly at the time an important store city.
‘Lebanon.’ It may be that Solomon built a summer house in Lebanon, or it may be that the buildings were connected with iron mines in Lebanon. Alternately ‘Lebanon’ is a name sometimes applied to sections of northern Canaan (southern Lebanon) which would be ‘within Israel’, and it may be building work there that was in mind here.
The Builders And Users Of Solomon’s Fortified Cities, Store Houses, Military Garrisons and Pleasure Facilities (8.7-11).
Having described Solomon’s building works the Chronicler now informs us, in what is something of a whitewash, concerning some of those who built and who made use of the facilities described. That it is a whitewash (for it suggests that he only used Canaanite labour) is suggested by the words of the Israelites in 10.4, 11 who complained about the bitter treatment meted out to them. It is quite clear therefore that Israelites too were levied for forced labour by Solomon long after the Temple had been built. The passage is to some extent paralleled in 1 Kings 9.20-24 except that:
This sub-part is presented in chiastic fashion - foreigners, Israelites, Israelites, foreigner.
Analysis.
Note that in A we have the part played by foreigners in the building work above, and in the parallel we have the part played by foreigners in utilising the pleasure facilities described above (Pharaoh’s daughter would have had a huge retinue). In B we have the part played by Israelites in manning the military facilities described above, and in the parallel the part played by Israelites in administering all the facilities above.
2.8.7-8 ‘As for all the people who were left of the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, who were not of Israel, of their children who were left after them in the land, whom the children of Israel did not consume, of them did Solomon raise a levy of bondservants to this day.’
We learned in 2.2, 17-18 of ‘strangers’ who were levied by Solomon for his building work, including the building of the Temple. Now we learn that these levies were permanent and continued to be used for building work, and included among them the Canaanites (Amorites), although ‘strangers’ in 2.2 would include all non-Israelites, i.e. non-Yahwists).
‘The Amorites’ here must include the Canaanites, who would hardly be excluded (the lists in the Law always included ‘the Canaanites’ e.g. Exodus 3.17; 23.23; Deuteronomy 7.1; 20.17). Indeed, all listed here could be included under the word ‘Canaanites’, that is pre-conquest dwellers in the land who worshipped Baal. Many of these ‘Canaanites’ would be used to the idea of the slave-levy which was exercised by their own kings, as we discover from Ugarit. Thus they would not have been surprised as a subject people to find themselves drafted for this work. As with the Israelites in Egypt they and their families would be provided with food of a kind, and would still have their own homes. That is not to say that they found it palatable. They too groaned under their taskmasters. Nor is it likely that a late prophet (the Chronicler) saw such slavery as palatable as a concept. It represented the side of Solomon that he was unhappy with (10.4, 11).
Strictly speaking these Canaanites should have been slaughtered or driven from the land. They had been ‘devoted’ to YHWH as being unfit to live amongst His people because of their evil and perverted ways (Genesis 15.16). Had Solomon driven them out, removing their pernicious influence from among his people, he might have been justified. But he had no justification for enslaving them (the Gibeonites were enslaved because they had obtained a treaty deceitfully). By allowing them to live in the land he was treating them as ‘strangers’, and as such they had the right to the protection that the Law gave to ‘strangers’, a right that Solomon ignored.
‘Amorites’ was a term that could signify all the pre-conquest inhabitants of the land, or could alternatively signify the hill-dwellers in the hill country. The Hittites would possibly be groups which had wandered into Canaan centuries before and were possibly related in some way to the Hittite empire to the north (but see ‘the sons of Heth’ in Genesis 23). The Perizzites (‘villagers’) who dwelt in the hills were probably native primitive peoples. The Hivites were principally in the Lebanon hills and the Carmel range. The Jebusites were the ancient inhabitants of the hills around Jerusalem. The population of Canaan as a land which was open to settlers had previously been a very mixed one. Compare for these names the names of the original inhabitants of the land regularly mentioned in the Law of Moses (e.g. Exodus 3.17; 23.23; Deuteronomy 7.1; 20.17; Joshua 3.10; etc.).
‘To this day’ must come from an original record from the time of Solomon, the Chronicler incorporating it here in order to remind his people that they were still around in post-Exilic Palestine.
2.8.9 ‘But of the children of Israel Solomon made no slaves for his work, but they were men of war, and chief of his captains, and rulers of his chariots and of his horsemen.’
This statement can be seen as indicating Solomon’s general policy at the time it was written and must be treated with reserve. Whilst Solomon did not enslave the Israelites, he had made levies on them and forced them to assist in the building of the Temple even though it was only for one moon period out of three (1 Kings 5.13-14). Furthermore 10.2, 11 suggests more than is described there, and must indeed have referred to something much more recent. They would hardly have complained about something which had occurred over twenty years before and no longer applied. This suggests that towards the end of his life Solomon recommenced the levying of Israelites under his chief taskmaster Adoniram because of his massive building programmes. The one who originally composed these words may well have been living in the time of Solomon and have written them in the official records in between two periods when Israelites were being levied. What he wrote was true at the time.
That being so then, at the time of original composition, the use of Israelites was restricted to their being soldiers, commanders, charioteers, and horsemen. It was they who would utilise the fortresses and chariot cities that Solomon had built. It would appear that it was only later when their quality of life decreased due to the levy.
It should be remembered that the children of Israel were seen as ‘free-men’ and according to the Law could not be turned into bond-slaves, except when it was for debt or by personal choice in order to ensure a livelihood, even by such a tyrant as Solomon’s had become. They were thus called into service as soldiers, officers, commanders, captains, chariot shield-bearers and drivers. This was in fact what Samuel had warned the people would be the result of having a king (1 Samuel 8.12). Again the prophet is letting us know that Solomon was the typical harsh non-YHWH-like monarch.
2.8.10 ‘And these were the chief officers of king Solomon, even two hundred and fifty, who bore rule over the people.’
In 1 Kings 9.23 we had described the chief officers who were in control of those who did the building (were over Solomon’s work -- the people who wrought the work), which may well have included both Israelite and Canaanites, whilst here we have described the chief officers who were ‘over the people’ and were Israelites. The fact that the numbers differ suggests that the descriptions are not parallel.
Note on the numbers of taskmasters.
It may be significant that if we add the 3.600 taskmasters who were ‘strangers’ mentioned in 2.2 to the 250 Israelite chief officers here, this brings us to the same figure as the 3,300 taskmasters in 1 Kings 5.16 plus the 550 officers (both Israelite and Canaanite) in 1 Kings 9.23. In other words the figure for officers of 550 in 1 Kings 9.23 included 300 Canaanites and 250 Israelites. The Chronicler combines the 300 Canaanite foremen with the 3,300 Canaanite taskmasters to make 3,600 Canaanite overseers in 2.2, and describes only the Israelite officers here to tie in with his chiasmus.
End of note.
2.8.11 ‘And Solomon brought up the daughter of Pharaoh out of the city of David to the house which he had built for her, for he said, “My wife shall not dwell in the house of David king of Israel, because the places are holy, to which the ark of YHWH has come.’
This is the first mention by the Chronicler of the daughter of Pharaoh as Solomon’s wife. He clearly disapproved of Solomon marrying her. The writer in 1 Kings appears not to have had quite such an attitude towards her, although he does hint at an indirect connection with ‘high places’. He introduced her near the beginning of his account of Solomon’s life (1 Kings 3.1). He also did not give the reason presented here for her removal from the house of David.
The Pharaoh in view here was probably not Shishak, but the preceding Pharaoh but one, Siamun, a Pharaoh of the weak twenty first dynasty, who ruled around 978-959 BC. The weakness of the twenty first dynasty is known from external sources but is apparent here in that it is clear that Egypt were making no claims on ‘Canaan’, an area which, in their strongest periods, they had looked on as containing vassal city states. They did, however, continue to conduct local actions against the Philistines in protecting their borders from supposed incursions, in the course of which they ‘smote Gezer’ (1 Kings 9.16), so that they were not totally quiescent. He did, however, hand Gezer over to Solomon as a wedding present. A damaged triumphal relief scene at Tanis depicts Siamun smiting a foreigner, seemingly a Philistine (judging by the Aegean type axe in his hand), which confirms that Siamun did engage in such ‘police action’ in Philistia. But with regard to the area of Canaan as a whole Siamun was apparently quite content to make his northern border safe by means of a treaty with the powerful Solomon, something which would be to their mutual benefit, especially tradewise. For a daughter of Pharaoh to marry a foreign king was almost unheard of, which demonstrates how powerful Solomon’s kingdom was. One of the obvious benefits of this treaty to Solomon was seen in the multiplicity of horses that he later possessed, for Egypt was a well known source of such horses.
1 King 3.1b informs us that Solomon did not make this move ‘until he had made an end of building his own house’, in other words until he had been on the throne for twenty four years. He had thus put up with her idolatry in the city of David for a considerable length of time after the Ark had been brought into that city. It had clearly taken a long time for his conscience to become sensitive on the matter.,
We must remember that Pharaoh’s daughter would not have been living alone. She would have had with her a large retinue of Egyptian retainers, her own idolatrous priests, and her own idol sanctuary. Solomon would hardly have dared to refuse this. It would have been an insult to the Pharaoh. Thus idolatrous worship was being carried on in David’s house for over twenty years. It appears to have taken Solomon this length of time to recognise that an idol sanctuary and the Ark of YHWH were not compatible, which explains how he had been willing to use idolaters in building the Temple. Prior to this he had glided over the issue.
So here Solomon’s downward slide is depicted as continuing. Firstly he traded in horses with Egypt contrary to Deuteronomy 17.16 (1.14-17). Then he used an idolatrous architect and idolatrous labour in building the Temple (2.1-18). Then he allowed standing pillars as used in idolatrous temples (3.17). Then he allowed to be introduced into the Temple graven images such as the standing Cherubim and the bulls holding up the brazen sea (3.10; 4.3-4). Then he replaced the ‘original’ golden table of showbread and the ‘original’ golden seven branched lampstand with his architect’s own inventions (4.7-8). Then he enslaved large numbers of ‘strangers’ contrary to Leviticus 19.34 for the purpose of his building work (8.7-8). Now he admits to having married an idolatrous Egyptian princess of whose spiritual status he disapproved. By this he demonstrated that even according to his own conscience his flirtations with idolatry were unjustifiable.
Some see her as excluded because she was a woman, but it is hardly likely that women were not allowed to live within David’s palace just because the Ark was there. Their presence would be essential for his wellbeing.
The Establishment Of True Worship In The Temple (8.12-16).
The establishment in the Temple of true worship in accordance with the Law and in accordance with the commands of the prophet David is now described, indicating Solomon’s desire for the glory of YHWH, and concluding with the fact that everything was set thoroughly in order.
Analysis.
Note that in A the worship for the whole year, year by year, was established, and in the parallel everything was set thoroughly in order. In B the priests, Levites and gatekeepers were established in their courses as determined by the prophet David, and in the parallel we learn that the priests, Levites and gatekeepers fulfilled his command concerning them.
2.8.12-13 ‘Then Solomon offered burnt-offerings to YHWH on the altar of YHWH, which he had built before the porch, even as the duty of every day required, offering according to the commandment of Moses, on the sabbaths, and on the new moons, and on the set feasts, three times in the year, even in the feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles.’
The Temple being completed as far as was necessary the round of worship established by the Law of Moses was set in motion, the morning and evening burnt-offerings, the sabbath offerings, the new moon offerings, and the offerings at the three annual feasts, the feast of unleavened bread, the feast of sevens, and the feast of Tabernacles, all offered on the altar of YHWH which was in the court before the doors of the Temple (i.e. before YHWH). See Leviticus 23.1-37; Numbers 28-29.
‘Solomon offered’ is not to be pressed. If Solomon had personally done everything that the Chronicler said he did he would have been far too busy to rule his kingdom. The point is that it was offered at his command, just as the Temple and its furniture was made at his command.
2.8.14 ‘And he appointed, according to the ordinance of David his father, the courses of the priests to their service, and the Levites to their offices, to praise, and to minister before the priests, as the duty of every day required, the doorkeepers also by their courses at every gate, for so had David the man of God commanded.’
Solomon also ensured the establishment in their courses of the priests, the Levites (including the musicians), and the gatekeepers (security men) in accordance with what David had commanded, so that they might fulfil their duties as every day required (see 1 Chronicles 23-26). Note the ascription to David of the title ‘man of God’ a term which indicates a prophet. His work was seen as the consequence of divine inspiration.
Thus the priests ministered in the Sanctuary and in the inner court in accordance with their priestly responsibilities; the Levites led the praise and performed the offices for which they were responsible as regards the priests; and the gatekeepers (the security men) watched the gates, and kept their eyes on the treasuries.
2.8.15 ‘And they departed not from the commandment of the king to the priests and Levites concerning any matter, or concerning the treasures.’
All was done in accordance with David’s commandment to the priests and Levites (which, of course, included the gatekeepers) with regards to everything, especially the treasuries, the value of which would have been almost beyond assessing.
2.8.16 ‘Now all the work of Solomon was prepared up to the day, the foundation of the house of YHWH, and until it was finished. So the house of YHWH was set thoroughly in order.’
This was the day at which all Solomon’s activities had been aiming, from the foundation of the Temple to its conclusion. And so the house of YHWH and its ministry was set thoroughly in order. The true worship and honouring of YHWH was ensured.
The Exploits Of Solomon With Regard To Foreigners (8.17-9.12).
In this passage we have the Huram sandwich, with the Queen of Sheba filling. It commences with Huram’s assistance, selling ships to Solomon and hiring seamen to him (such trading was regularly by means of two-way ‘gifts’), and ends with the ships returning with exotic cargoes. They enabled Solomon to fetch large amounts of gold from Ophir together with other precious things which were of religious value. In between we find the details of the visit of the Queen of Sheba, the expensive gifts that she brought and her acknowledgement of Solomon’s wisdom. This combination of Huram and the queen of Sheba parallels his dealings with Huram in chapter 2. The idea of foreigners seeking to Jerusalem is prominent in the promises concerning the coming future king. Thus Solomon is seen, not only as the prototype of the coming king of peace, but also as the prototype of the One to Whom foreigners (Gentiles) would seek (Isaiah 11.1-10; 55.3-5; 56.6-8; 60.1-16; Amos 9.11-12; Micah 4.1-5; Haggai 2.6-7, 23; Zechariah 8.20-23; 9.9-10; 14.9-19).
Here then we learn of Solomon’s international influence and widespread trading activities, and central to it is Solomon’s reputation for wisdom as evidenced by the visit of the Queen of Sheba. Even though very much aware of Solomon’s weaknesses and failures the Chronicler hides nothing of his splendour. He is fair and open minded while making clear his disapproval simply by the way in which he words things. The sad thing about Solomon was that such a wise man, to whom God had given so much, should have been so foolish as to destroy his kingdom because of his vanity, pride and willingness to compromise on religious issues. He was fulfilling all the prophetic warnings of what happened when men were given supreme kingship (1 Samuel 8.11-18; Deuteronomy 17.16-17).
The visit of the Queen of Sheba was almost certainly a consequence of her wanting to ensure the maintenance of trading routes between her kingdom in Arabia, and the Red Sea trade through Ezion-Geber, the northern trade routes, and the maritime trade through Tyre and Sidon. Solomon’s kingdom bestrode and controlled all these trade routes as the middleman. We know from Assyrian records that queens were a regular feature of Arabian rule in Saba around this time, along with their priest-kings, so that this visit is not surprising. She clearly wanted to search out and sum up her prospective trading partner. She was suitably impressed. But, of course, no hint of such trading activities is given. Kings did not ‘trade’. They ‘gave’ each other things (compare Hiram above) and discussed higher matters.
Analysis.
Note that in A Solomon’s servant and Huram’s servants bring back gold from Ophir, and in the parallel we are told what else they brought which enhanced YHWH’s house and worship. In B the Queen of Sheba gives Solomon rich gifts, and in the parallel she does the same. In C she questions him thoroughly and seeks guidance on some of her problems, no doubt including problems of ruling her country, and in the parallel she blesses YHWH who has made him wise so as to be able properly to rule his country. In D she sees his way of living, and his servants and ministers as they serve him, and their splendour, and in the parallel she declares them to be happy indeed. Centrally in E she says that the report that she had received concerning him had turned out to be true, and in the parallel she says that he far exceeded the reputation of which she had heard.
2.8.17-18 ‘Then Solomon went to Ezion-geber, and to Eloth, on the seashore in the land of Edom, and Huram sent him by the hands of his servants, ships, and servants who had knowledge of the sea, and they came with the servants of Solomon to Ophir, and fetched from there four hundred and fifty talents of gold, and brought them to king Solomon.’
As a consequence of David’s conquest of Edom Solomon had control of the port of Ezion-Geber on the Red Sea. This is now Guzarat al-Far’un, and the nearby ancient storage facilities have been excavated. Traces of shipbuilding materials (long nails, lumps of pitch, carbonised cables) were found on site. It was an important maritime trade route for Arabia and East Africa. Eloth (Elath) also was on the Gulf of Aqabah, and is mentioned for identification purposes. These facilities would provide Solomon with huge revenues, as well as enabling his own trading ventures.
Taking advantage of his treaty friendship with Hiram Solomon set up his own fleet, first buying ships, and then probably constructing them, with his own people receiving expert guidance and help from the experienced Tyrian sailors and shipbuilders. And they regularly set sail for Ophir, and returned bringing back large consignments of gold (compare Job 22.24; 28.16; Isaiah 13.12), a trade attested on the Tell Qasileh ostracon inscriptions. We do not know the identity of Ophir, which may have been in southern Arabia (Genesis 10.29), or East Africa (e.g. Somalia which was a source of frankincense and myrrh) or even India. India is known to have had a thriving trade with the Persian Gulf region in 2nd-1st millenniums BC, and all the commodities mentioned were available from there. But Ophir may simply have been the middlemen who received wares from distant countries and made them available to kings like Solomon.
There is no reason for doubting the huge amount of gold which would accumulate over many voyages. Solomon’s trade was expansive, and such levels are mentioned in inscriptions elsewhere.
The 450 talents of gold as compared with 420 talents of gold in 1 Kings 9.28 may have arisen because the royal records were continually updated as more gold arrived from Ophir. The Chronicler or his source may have been consulting a somewhat later record.
2.9.1 ‘And when the queen of Sheba heard of the fame of Solomon, she came to prove Solomon with hard questions at Jerusalem, with a very great train, and camels which bore spices, and gold in abundance, and precious stones. And when she was come to Solomon, she communed with him of all that was in her heart.’
The queen’s journey would have been one of about 2250 kilometres (1400 miles) across sandy deserts. The real purpose of her visit would be to sound out the possibilities of trade with Solomon, and discuss the terms on which Arabian traders could pass through Israel on their way to other buyers. She was possibly also concerned that Solomon’s trade from Ezion-geber was affecting her own overland trading routes with Arabian/African countries. But this would naturally not be mentioned in the royal records. However, there is no good reason for doubting the Queen of Sheba’s genuine interest in what she had heard of Yahwism. The fame of David’s exploits and of Solomon’s Temple had no doubt spread, and together with it the mystery of the covenant chest, topped by the Cherubim which represented the invisible God, which ‘bore the Name of YHWH of Hosts’ (2 Samuel 6.2), and was seen as so important by Israel. The greatness that YHWH had given to Solomon, as He had raised up this powerful empire on his behalf, had become a byword. Furthermore Solomon’s reputation for wisdom had also reached her ears, and she wanted to test him out with riddles, as well as discussing diplomatic and ethical questions. All this is quite in accord with what we might expect.
2.9.2 ‘And she came to Jerusalem with a very great train, with camels which bore spices, and very much gold, and precious stones; and when she was come to Solomon, she communed with him of all that was in her heart.’
The Queen was taking advantage of the visit for trading purposes, and brought with her a huge train of valuable commodities, no doubt well guarded. Her camels brought the spices, gold and precious stones for which Arabia was famous. They would, of course, have been a ‘gift’, in return for which she would be entitled to expect similar ‘gifts’. But the main purpose of her own coming was in order to sound Solomon out, and discover what she could about him, with thoughts of future dealings in mind. Thus they talked about many things, and she was so impressed by him that she discussed with him her problems, which were probably mainly political.
9.2 ‘And Solomon told her all her questions, and there was not anything hid from Solomon which he told her not.’
She found Solomon competent and capable, and able to live up to the reputation that he had earned. He was able to give satisfactory answers to all her questions, and was not caught out by any of them. This was where his God-given wisdom mainly lay, in the ability to rule wisely. Like Solomon we are all often better at giving good advice than at following it ourselves.
2.9.3-4 ‘And when the queen of Sheba had seen the wisdom of Solomon, and the house which he had built, and the food of his table, and the sitting of his servants, and the attendance of his ministers, and their apparel, his cupbearers also, and their apparel, and his ascent by which he went up to the house of YHWH, there was no more spirit in her.’
The magnificence of Solomon’s court impressed even such a great queen, while his wisdom, the magnificence of his palace complex, and the engineering ingenuity of the access which had been built between the palace and the Temple (or possibly the fact that it was made of intricately carved algum wood, possibly sandalwood), filled her with awe. It fulfilled all her expectations. Also included among her impressions was the quality, variety and quantity of food, the protocol of his chief ministers, the wide variety of lesser ministers, (or the huge number of servants) and the kind of clothing that they wore, together with the hugely important ‘cupbearers’ (not just wine waiters. Compare the Rabshakeh in 2 Kings 18.17, and the later Nehemiah, both right hand men to the king) who supervised all drinking and ensured that no important persons were poisoned. Everything was magnificent, and it ‘took her breath away’.
What might also have impressed her about his ascent to the house of YHWH was the huge bodyguard with their shields of glistening gold (12.10-11 with 9.16).
2.9.5-6 ‘And she said to the king, “It was a true report that I heard in my own land of your acts, and of your wisdom. However I did not believe their words, until I came, and my own eyes had seen it,; and, behold, the half of the greatness of your wisdom was not told me. You exceed the reputation that I heard.”
While fulsome praise was expected by kings, and indeed its lack would have been looked on as an insult, there is no reason for doubting the genuineness of the Queen’s words. She had heard of both his doings and his wisdom, and had hardly been able to believe that it was true. Now, however, she had seen it with her own eyes. Indeed what she had seen had surpassed all that she had heard. Both in wisdom and in wealth, Solomon had surpassed all expectations. Sadly it was these very things which would contribute so very much towards his downfall. Reputation and wealth can destroy the best of men, especially when they have absolute power and rarely hear criticism of themselves. It is possibly significant that no prophet raised his voice against him in his day. It suggests that their voices were muted.
2.9.7 “Happy are your men, and happy are these your servants, who stand continually before you, and hear your wisdom.”
Having seen the luxurious living of Solomon’s leading ministers and administrators, and having seen how they were guided by Solomon, the queen declared how blessed they were. She declared that his wisdom was such that all who served him should only count themselves as fortunate. How this fulsome praise must have delighted Solomon’s heart. And how dangerous it was for him. It is little wonder that he began to believe that he could do anything that he liked with impunity. He began to see himself as the centre of his world, and as being beyond requiring advice or rebuke, hence the silence of the prophets.
2.9.8 “Blessed be YHWH your God, who delighted in you, to set you on his throne, to be king for YHWH your God, because your God loved Israel, to establish them for ever, therefore did he make you king over them, to do justice and righteousness.”
Note how ‘the throne of Israel’ in 1 Kings 10.9 has become ‘His (YHWH’s) throne’. The throne of Israel was, of course, YHWH’s throne for He was Overlord of Israel, and the king His representative. So the queen now expressed her full appreciation of YHWH Who had set him on His throne (the throne of Israel). To her, of course, the throne of Israel was the only one on which YHWH could set him. In her eyes He was the God of Israel, not of the whole world. And she declared how the appointment of such a one as Solomon must show how much He loved Israel.
But even her reference to YHWH almost made it sound as if it was YHWH Who was privileged to have been able to establish Solomon’s throne. He had chosen Solomon out of His love for Israel because none could be found who compared with him. No doubt she had learned all about YHWH’s covenant with David, and His promise of an everlasting throne, and how YHWH required him to rule in justice and righteousness. Solomon was proud of all these facts, and would not have hesitated to have spoken of them. And kings in those days always gave due credit to their gods, while at the same time, of course, keeping some of it for themselves. So even her honouring of YHWH was eclipsed by her appreciation of Solomon. How careful we have to be that we do not take away the glory from God.
2.9.9 ‘And she gave the king a hundred and twenty talents of gold, and spices in great abundance, and precious stones, nor was there any such spice as the queen of Sheba gave to king Solomon.’
The Queen brought much gold, and large quantities of spices and precious stones (compare verse 2). As she had accompanied the caravan she would not want it to come short in any particular. It had to reveal her own worth. It was thus much larger than usual, and beyond compare. She would, of course, expect to return to her country with reciprocal gifts of equal value (verse 12). But that went without saying. Indeed, verse 12 makes clear that she was a hard bargainer.
For the one hundred and twenty talents of gold compare the 150 talents of gold which was extracted from Metten II of Tyre by Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria c. 730 BC. It was thus not an abnormal ‘present’, and may well have acknowledged treaty obligations. The massive wealth of the Sabaeans was later a byword.
2.9.10 ‘And the servants also of Huram, and the servants of Solomon, who brought gold from Ophir, brought algum-trees and precious stones.’
The re-introduction of Huram here was no afterthought or postscript. Solomon’s dealings with Huram have acted as an inclusio for the visit of the queen of Sheba, because they were more profitable and more longlasting, and because the aim was to bring out that Solomon’s trading activities were ‘world-wide’. Where the queen scored was in making Solomon feel good about himself. She thus got the most publicity. Huram probably did not boost his ego in quite the same way.
So meanwhile Solomon’s other trading avenues were continuing, and his ships as supplemented by Huram, also brought in algum (almug) trees and precious stones, as well as more gold than the queen of Sheba (8.18). The word ‘almug’ is witnessed to at Ugarit. It would appear to have been a particularly fine wood, as its use in musical instruments suggests. At Alalakh it appears to have been used to make fine furniture. It was possibly a type of sandalwood (see on 2.8) imported by the Phoenicians. The queen of Sheba was not the only one who could bring exotic things.
2.9.11 ‘And the king made of the algum-trees terraces for the house of YHWH, and for the king’s house, and lyres and harps for the singers, and there were none such seen before in the land of Judah.’
Solomon’s importance was such that only the very best was sent to Solomon. The word translated as ‘pillars’ in 1 Kings was obscure (the translation is a guess) and is replaced here by a word meaning ‘way, highway’ which is translated as ‘terraces’ (no doubt highly decorative ones). Alternately it might be based on an Akkadian cognate meaning ‘gateways’. Whatever they were they impressed the queen of Sheba (verse 4). The lyres and harps (both stringed instruments) are a reminder of David’s prowess, and of the musical background to Temple worship (compare Amos 5.23), Such musical instruments were known at Ugarit, and going far back in time (Genesis 4.21).
The fact that ‘none such were seen before in the land of Judah’ indicates how exotic the wood was seen to be.
2.9.12 ‘And king Solomon gave to the queen of Sheba all her desire, whatever she asked, besides what she had brought to the king. So she turned, and went to her own land, she and her servants.’
It is this which is the postscript. The queen’s munificence is now seen to have had a purpose. Having supplied her ‘gifts’ she was called on to name her price for the goods that she had brought which were not specifically genuine gifts to the king, and her price was accepted without haggling. (For trading seen as ‘giving’ compare the transaction between Abraham and Ephron in Genesis 23. To have named a price immediately would have been seen as insulting). And everything having been satisfactorily settled, the caravan was loaded up with her ‘gifts’ and she returned with her array of ministers and attendants to her own land, no doubt well satisfied with the outcome of her visit. There was nothing romantic about it. It had been a hard-headed business trip.
The description of all this accumulation of wealth was, of course, double-edged. On the one hand it revealed the source of some of the wealth which YHWH piled on Solomon, and the great ‘name’ that He had given him, as He had promised. And it also revealed Solomon as the prototype of the coming king to whom the nations would bring gifts. On the other hand, however, it was all part of what so possessed Solomon’s interest that he forsook YHWH. For although the details of Solomon’s reign ends with ascriptions to his wealth and wisdom, it is only shortly after that we discover how he had failed (a technique of the Chronicler, compare 14.3 in respect of Rehoboam and Abijah, and possibly also Solomon). Had he only listened to his own wisdom it might not have happened.
The Earthly Wealth And Greatness Of King Solomon (9.13-21).
The glory and greatness of YHWH had been revealed by the care taken to fulfil all His commandments concerning worship. Solomon had stopped at nothing in order to give Him His due. Here he turns his mind to his own glory, and how he could enhance it, something which he accomplishes by making a throne of pearl and ceremonial shields of gold.
So the Chronicler now indicates Solomon’s great wealth in terms of gold coming to him from many sources, which was partly used for ornamental shields and bucklers (larger shields) and for a multiplicity of golden drinking vessels, and his great majesty in terms of his ivory throne. The account is similar to 1 Kings 10.14-22 with emendations. It parallels the Chronicler’s indication of Solomon’s wealth depicted in chapter 1.
Analysis.
Note that in A reference is made to the gold received by Solomon which was not brought by the traders and merchants, and in the parallel the gold that was. In B are recorded the golden shields and bucklers that went into the House of Lebanon, and in the parallel are recorded the golden vessels that went into the House of Lebanon. Centrally in C and in the parallel we have details concerning his ivory throne.
2.9.13-14 ‘Now the weight of gold which came to Solomon in one year was six hundred and sixty six talents of gold, besides that which the traders and merchants brought, and all the kings of Arabia and the governors of the country brought gold and silver to Solomon.’
This huge sum received by Solomon annually was on top of what he received from all the kings of Arabia, and all his own governors, and was also on top of the equally huge amounts he obtained from his trading ventures mentioned in verse 22. Much of it might have been from tolls as he and his administrators charged tolls to all who passed through his extensive territory. Other would be from tribute paid by subject kings (verse 25). Other would be from spoils resulting from invasions (8.3). The sources were varied and the total enormous. (1 Kings has ‘kings of mingled peoples’ instead of ‘kings of Arabia’).
While this amount of gold (around twenty tons) might appear to be an exaggeration, it is not really over-enormous in the light of what we learn elsewhere, although we need not doubt that someone possibly selected one of the best years for the obtaining of his example. As we have seen above, the Queen of Sheba brought 120 talents of gold in one particular year, while Ophir despatched 450 talents of gold over a period. We can compare how five centuries after the death of Solomon, one province alone in ‘India’ (the Indus basin) gave to the Persian emperors annually 360 talents of gold (Herodotus iii, 94), while within ten years of Solomon’s death and stretching over a period of four years Osorkon I of Egypt presented a total of two million deben weight of silver (a staggering 220 tons) and another 2,300,000 deben weight of silver and gold (some 250 tons) to the gods, largely in the form of precious objects (vessels, statuary, etc.). This grand total of 470 tons of precious metal, although admittedly some was in silver, outstrips Solomon’s reputed weight of gold by twenty times, and the Egyptian record is not only detailed but is undoubtedly firsthand.
2.9.15-16 ‘And king Solomon made two hundred bucklers of beaten gold, six hundred shekels of beaten gold went to one buckler, and he made three hundred shields of beaten gold, three hundred shekels of gold went to one shield: and the king put them in the house of the forest of Lebanon.’
Solomon made large numbers of shields and bucklers of pure gold for ceremonial purposes. (One of their purposes is made clear in 12.9-11). They made a grand show when he was seeking to impress people like King Huram and the queen of Sheba, as well as when trying to impress his own people with his majesty and greatness. The two hundred large shields each contained six hundred shekels of gold. The three hundred smaller shields each contained three hundred shekels of gold (1 Kings says three mina of gold, using the heavy mina which = 100 shekels). These were placed in the house of the forest of Lebanon and brought out for ceremonial purposes (1 Kings 7.2 ff). The house of the forest of Lebanon was a part of the palace complex, so named because it had an array of large pillars which gave the impression of a forest and were made from cedars of Lebanon.
The Chronicler might well have had a wry smile on his face when he wrote these words, for he would know that in the not too distant future he would be deliberately pointing out that these shields would be appropriated by the Pharaoh, and would be carried off to Egypt (12.9-10). The glory that was Solomon’s would thus not be long lasting. It was a fading glory because of his arrogance and his son’s arrogance. What YHWH supplied, YHWH could take away.
2.9.17 ‘Moreover the king made a great throne of ivory, and overlaid it with pure gold.’
The king also had made for him his own unique throne. It was an ostentatious throne inlaid with ivory, and overlaid with the finest gold. Everything about Solomon had to be extreme. He was the most powerful monarch in his region, and was determined to receive due honour.
2.9.18 ‘And there were six steps to the throne, with a footstool of gold, which were fastened to the throne, and stays on either side by the place of the seat, and two lions standing beside the stays.’
Six steps led up to the throne, which had a footstool of gold. (1 Kings 10.18 mentions the rearward curving back which is paralleled in Egyptian thrones). The purpose of the throne was to lift Solomon above his minions, and all who approached him. The six steps led up to the dais on which the throne was placed which would be the seventh level. Such sevenfold designs elsewhere indicated the supreme power of the gods. In Babylon the seven-staged ziggurats led up to the gods. At Ugarit seven steps led up to inmost shrine of the Temple of Baal. Here it may well have been intended to indicate that Solomon was priest-king after the order of Melchizedek (Psalm 110.4), and therefore the Intercessor of the nations. It would therefore be intended to indicate his supreme power over the nations. We may compare the attitude behind it with that of the King of Babylon in Isaiah 14.13-14. Solomon did not yet realise it, but in exalting himself he was on the way down.
On either side of the throne seat were stays, with two lions standing by the stays, providing protection (in a similar way to the Cherubim) and indicating Solomon’s power and fearsomeness. They may well also have symbolised the Lion of the Tribe of Judah (Genesis 49.9-10) ruling over his lion people (Numbers 23.24; 24.9) and surrounded by his pride.
2.9.19 ‘And twelve lions stood there on the one side and on the other on the six steps, there was not anything similar made in any kingdom.’
A lion also stood at each side of each step leading up to the throne, numbering twelve in all. These may have represented the leaders of the tribes of Israel, seen as young lions. Here then was the lion king. When he roared the earth shook. No other parallel to this throne could be found anywhere. It was unique. Thus is Solomon’s glory emphasised.
2.9.20 ‘And all king Solomon’s drinking vessels were of gold, and all the vessels of the house of the forest of Lebanon were of pure gold. Silver did not count for anything in the days of Solomon.’
Furthermore all the drinking and other vessels in the palace complex were made of pure gold. Silver vessels could not be found anywhere, because they were seen as too inferior. They were for lesser people. Silver counted for nothing in the court of Solomon. Such was his splendour, although it was a fading splendour. But it did not seem fading at the time. Solomon and his adherents no doubt thought that it would last for ever. To the Chronicler it was a brief glimpse of what the golden age might bring. However, he makes no comment. He was only too aware that within a few short years it would all come tumbling down.
2.9.21 ‘For the king had ships which went to Tarshish with the servants of Huram. Once every three years came the ships of Tarshish, bringing gold, and silver, ivory, and apes, and peacocks.’
Forming a parallel with verses 13-14 we are reminded of Solomon’s other source of gold. He had a number of ships which sailed to Tarshish with the assistance of Phoenician sailors. They returned ‘every three years’ (part of the first year, the whole second year, and part of the third year, in other words about eighteen months). The ‘ships of Tarshish’ were large sea-going vessels of the type used on long distance voyages, often carrying ore, but also bringing back other exotic cargoes from far distant places. ‘Tarshish’ may simply signify ‘a far off place’ where ore could be found. These may have been constructed by Hiram’s and Solomon’s men at Ezion-geber, or it is even possible that vessels had been taken to pieces in Tyre and then carried to Ezion-geber where they would be reconstructed. This was common practise in the ancient world.
These large ships regularly set off on their voyages, and would be away ‘three years’ (one full year and two part years). This does not necessarily signify long voyages as we would think of them. Ships in those days did not just ‘sail away into the sunset’ to a far off place and return. They would often hug the coast, regularly visiting different ports to trade and gathering necessary water and provisions. They would be laid up at times in a convenient port when it was outside the sailing season because of unseasonal weather. They might remain in some ports for a considerable time until the weather had become more reliable, or until they had disposed of some of their produce and filled up with the goods they received in return. Thus it is difficult to know how much actual sailing time was included in the ‘three years’ (eighteen months) involved (compare Paul’s journey from Palestine to Crete in Acts 21.1-13 even though that was in a number of ships).
They would then return with exotic goods such as gold, silver, ivory, and possibly apes and peacocks (the meaning of the nouns is uncertain, especially the latter, but they were quite probably exotic creatures. Translators have always had difficulties with them from earliest times). These were a wonder to all who beheld them. They may not all have been obtained from their original homelands. They may have been traded on by other vessels which had come from those places. Thus we have no real idea how far Solomon’s fleet was able to penetrate. But to Israelites, unused to the sea, it would all have seemed wonderful, and added greatly to Solomon’s glory.
The Tyrian large long-distance vessels were called ‘ships of Tarshish’. It has been conjectured that tarshish refers to iron smelteries, and that they were ore-carrying vessels. Thus they may have derived their name from the ores that they carried, or from the destinations that they reached where there were smelteries, these being in different part of the ancient world, such as Spanish Tartessus and Sardinia. An inscription in Sardinia speaks of Tarshish. Thus it may not have indicated one particular place. Indeed, it is unlikely that ships would sail from Ezion-geber if they were headed in the direction of Tartessus or Spain The Tarshish in mind here was probably on the East African coast, or on the shores of Arabia. Thus ‘Tarshish’ may well largely have described their purpose rather than their destination, and the name have gradually come to signify large, long-distance vessels, with Tarshish being a description of a number of mysterious places that they visited in the search for ores and exotic products. But the main point here is that they brought gold.
The Grandeur Of Solomon (9.22-28).
The establishing of Solomon’s reputation continues stressing his grandeur, visits from foreign royalties, tribute received, military might, extended dominion, and the riches he brought to Israel.
Analysis.
Note that in A the kings of all lands came to Solomon to hear his wisdom, and in the parallel they brought silver and cedar and horses from all lands. In B all of them brought tribute, and in the parallel he ruled over them all. Centrally in C was the strength which held it all together.
2.9.22-23 ‘So king Solomon exceeded all the kings of the earth in riches and wisdom, and all the kings of the earth sought the presence of Solomon, to hear his wisdom, which God had put in his heart.’
It need hardly be stated that this is hyperbole, and speaks of Solomon’s world. No one knew enough about all the kings of the earth to make such a statement accurately. The point is that in the whole of Solomon’s world there was no other king who compared with him in splendour or in wisdom, and that his wisdom was seen as so great that all such kings came to hear his wisdom. This parallels what was said about his wisdom and wealth in 1.7-12. The section on Solomon thus opens and closes with reference to his wisdom and his wealth.
It will be noted that Solomon is presented as almost a Messianic figure. He was a prefiguration of the king who would come to rule the everlasting kingdom.
2.9.24 ‘And they brought every man his tribute, vessels of silver, and vessels of gold, and raiment, armour, and spices, horses, and mules, a rate year by year.’
And as they came to learn from his wisdom they also brought him tribute. He was the overlord, and they were his underlings. Thus they brought year by year the tribute that had been assessed on them, made up of ‘vessels of silver, and vessels of gold, and raiment, armour, and spices, horses, and mules’.
2.9.25 ‘And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen, which he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.’
Central to Solomon’s status was his armed might. Compare here 1.14 which is very similar but where mention is made of 1,400 chariots. If we equate these figures with 1.14 this would suggest four thousand stalls for chariot horses which serviced his 1400 chariots (compare 1 Kings 10.26). Chariot units would always need spare horses in case of injury. The impression given here is that these were his permanent standbys available for the defence of the realm.
This being so it indicates that Solomon’s trust was now firmly in chariots and horsemen (contrast Psalm 20.7). This was what his greatness and wisdom had led him to, armed might and global arms-dealing. The chariot is, in fact, rarely looked on with favour in the Biblical narratives, being usually in the hands of Israel’s enemies, (although the Assyrian annals tell us that Ahab had ‘two thousand’ of them) and in the books of Kings such chariots were seen as in direct contrast with the heavenly chariots of YHWH which protected His people (2 Kings 2.11-12; 6.17; 7.6; 13.14; compare Psalm 68.17). The prophetic attitude was thus that men were to trust in YHWH rather than in chariots (Deuteronomy 20.1; Psalm 20.7; 46.9; 76.6; and see especially Isaiah 2.6-7; 31.1, 3; Micah 5.10), and there are no grounds for thinking that this prophetic writer saw it any differently (he would be familiar with Isaiah and Micah, and with the Psalms). Thus what might appear to be Solomon’s high point was really in the writer’s view also his low point. He no longer trusted in YHWH, he trusted in chariots.
Note Re The Number Of Chariots.
One problem that arises is that 1 Kings 4.26 tells us that Solomon had ‘forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots’ as well as twelve thousand horsemen. This may have been because the figure there included stalls for chariot horses which he had for sale as part of his trading ventures, and were mainly additional to those he kept for the defence of his realm. Most scholars, however, see it as an indication of the miscopying, something which undoubtedly could happen.
End of Note.
2.9.26 ‘And he ruled over all the kings from the River even unto the land of the Philistines, and to the border of Egypt.’
The size of Solomon’s empire is now described. It stretched from the Euphrates to the borders of Egypt, and either included the land of the Philistines, or went up to the border of their lands. As we know it now included Hamath, Zobah and Tadmor (8.3-4). Tyre may well have been ignored as a ‘friendly nation’ in treaty relationship.
2.9.27 ‘And the king made silver to be in Jerusalem as stones, and cedars made he to be as the sycomore-trees which are in the lowland, for abundance.
Such was the prosperity of Israel, and especially of Jerusalem, that silver was worth little more than the stones on the ground, (it was not much thought of - verse 20), while valuable cedarwood was as common as the local ‘sycamore trees’ (large well-rooted spreading trees which produced an inferior kind of fig and grew in abundance in Palestine, while having little value). Compare for this 1.16. It is emphasised both at the beginning and the end of Solomon’s life.
2.9.28 ‘And they brought horses for Solomon out of Egypt, and out of all lands.’
Another thing that is emphasised at both the beginning and the end of Solomon’s life is the bringing of horses from Egypt. Verse 28 again parallels chapter 1 (verse 16). In both cases emphasis is placed on the fact that the horses came out of Egypt, as well as out of other places. This would appear to indicate a deliberate reference to Deuteronomy 17.16. The hint was that Solomon was, by his behaviour, taking his people back into Egypt, i.e. was involving them once again with idolaters and foreign ways. Indeed, one of the features of Solomon’s reign was his flirtation with idolaters, a question mark thus hung over his loyalty to full Yahwism, something which the Chronicler felt unable to overlook in spite of his general approval of much of what he did. Like David, Solomon was a prototype of the coming king, but equally like David there was that which marred the image. A better was yet to come.
In a sense these words summarised Solomon’s reign (the following conclusion is remarkably silent). They reveal to us that whilst he was wise, wealthy and powerful, and established the Temple of YHWH and the Ark together in Jerusalem, his reign was epitomised by his contacts with Egypt and Tyre and other lands which dragged him away from pure Yahwism. He had failed to be the model king of Deuteronomy 17.14-20.
The Conclusion Of Solomon’s Reign (9.29-31).
It is noticeable that when we contrast this conclusion with the one given in 1 Kings 11.41-43 the Chronicler drops the reference to his wisdom and leaves it rather bland. The omission must have been deliberate and speaks volumes. It is as though what has been said, and what follows in 10.1 ff., is seen by him as questioning that wisdom. For he cannot avoid now making clear that the division of the kingdom, which caused the great empire of Solomon to collapse overnight, had its roots in his folly. So he simply refers us, if we wish for more details, to the prophetic sources for Solomon’s reign, without reference to the court records (unless they were the court records). He is leaving the other side of what Solomon was (the rest of the acts of Solomon) to be revealed by prophets.
2.9.29 ‘Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the history of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer concerning Jeroboam the son of Nebat?’
He now cites sources for further reading, the third of which at least refers to a subject that he himself has avoided. We have come across the history of Nathan the prophet with reference to the life of David (1 Chronicles 29.29). It would seem that this was a considerable work. The prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite is unknown to us apart from his prophecy concerning Jeroboam the son of Nebat (1 Kings 11.29-40). The visions of Iddo the seer concerning Jeroboam the son of Nebat appear also to refer to the division of the kingdom, but reference is also made later to the history of Iddo the seer (12.15) and the commentary of the prophet Iddo (13.22). Good contemporary records were therefore being maintained. It is interesting that the Chronicler makes no reference at this stage to the book of the acts of Solomon (1 Kings 11.41) or the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah (1 Kings 14.29). He appears to have preferred reference to prophetic material for the life of Solomon and Rehoboam. Perhaps he saw them as more revealing.
2.9.30 ‘And Solomon reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel forty years.’
Solomon’s reign is depicted in solitary greatness. He reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel for forty years. His kingdom was established in Jerusalem when he began to reign, he reigned over the whole of Israel, and the kingdom was still united in Jerusalem when he died. No other king would do that, even though it appeared that all was well. For we will soon learn that all was not well. He did not leave behind a contented kingdom. And the consequence of his failures was the division of the kingdom.
At this time ‘forty years’ was the standard length for the reign of a king indicating a full reign (29.27; Acts 13.21; 2 Samuel 5.4; 1 Kings 2.11; 1 Samuel 4.18) as it was the standard for the periods of rest in Judges (Judges 3.11; 5.31; 8.28). Whilst approximating to the length of time it is probably a round number rather than exact.
2.9.31 ‘And Solomon slept with his fathers, and he was buried in the city of David his father, and Rehoboam his son reigned instead of him.’
With slight variations this is the standard ending for the life of a king of Judah when they died naturally. He slept with his fathers, he was buried in the city of David, his son reigned instead of him (compare 12.16; 14.1; 21.1 etc.). The dynasty continued.
IS THERE SOMETHING IN THE BIBLE THAT PUZZLES YOU?
If so please EMail us with your question and we will do our best to give you a satisfactory answer.EMailus. (But preferably not from aol.com, for some reason they do not deliver our messages).
FREE Scholarly verse by verse commentaries on the Bible.
THE PENTATEUCH --- GENESIS ---EXODUS--- LEVITICUS --- NUMBERS --- DEUTERONOMY --- THE BOOK OF JOSHUA --- THE BOOK OF JUDGES --- THE BOOK OF RUTH --- SAMUEL --- KINGS --- EZRA---NEHEMIAH--- ESTHER--- PSALMS 1-58--- PROVERBS---ECCLESIASTES--- SONG OF SOLOMON --- ISAIAH --- JEREMIAH --- LAMENTATIONS --- EZEKIEL --- DANIEL --- --- HOSEA --- --- JOEL ------ AMOS --- --- OBADIAH --- --- JONAH --- --- MICAH --- --- NAHUM --- --- HABAKKUK--- --- ZEPHANIAH --- --- HAGGAI --- ZECHARIAH --- --- MALACHI --- THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW ---THE GOSPEL OF MARK--- THE GOSPEL OF LUKE --- THE GOSPEL OF JOHN --- THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES --- READINGS IN ROMANS --- 1 CORINTHIANS --- 2 CORINTHIANS ---GALATIANS --- EPHESIANS--- PHILIPPIANS --- COLOSSIANS --- 1 THESSALONIANS --- 2 THESSALONIANS --- 1 TIMOTHY --- 2 TIMOTHY --- TITUS --- PHILEMON --- HEBREWS --- JAMES --- 1 & 2 PETER --- JOHN'S LETTERS --- JUDE --- REVELATION --- THE GOSPELS & ACTS