1 Kings: New European Christadelphian Commentary

Duncan Heaster

Carelinks

PO Bo 152, Menai NSW 2234

AUSTRALIA

www.carelinks.net

Copyright

Copyright © 2018 by Duncan Heaster.

All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review or scholarly journal.

First Printing: 2018

ISBN

PREFACE

This commentary is based around the New European Version of the Bible, which is generally printed with brief commentary on each chapter. Charities such as Carelinks Ministries and the Christadelphian Advancement Trust endeavour to provide totally free copies worldwide according to resources and donations available to them. But there is a desire by many to go beyond those brief comments on each chapter, and delve deeper into the text. The New European Christadelphian commentary seeks to meet that need. As with all Divine things, beauty becomes the more apparent the closer we analyze. We can zoom in the scale of investigation to literally every letter of the words used by His Spirit. But that would require endless volumes. And academic analysis is no more nor less than that; we are to live by His word. This commentary seeks to achieve a balance between practical teaching on one hand, and a reasonable level of thorough consideration of the original text. On that side of things, you will observe in the commentary a common abbreviation: “s.w.”. This stands for “same word”; the same original Greek or Hebrew word translated [A] is used when translated [B]. This helps to slightly remove the mask of translation through which most Bible readers have to relate to the original text.

Are there errors of thought and intellectual process in these volumes? Surely there are. Let me know about them. But finally- don’t fail to see the wood for the trees. Never let the wonder of the simple, basic Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Kingdom become obscured by all the angst over correctly interpreting this or that Bible verse. Believe it, respond to it, be baptized into Him, and let the word become flesh in you as it was so supremely in Him.

If you would like to enable the NEV Bible and associated material to remain freely available, do consider making a donation to Carelinks Ministries or The Christadelphian Advancement Trust. And please pray that our sending forth of God’s word will bring back glory to His Name and that of His dear Son whom we serve.

Duncan Heaster

dh@heaster.org

1 Kings

1 Kings Chapter 1

1 Kings 1:1 Now king David was old and advanced in years; and they covered him with clothes, but he couldn’t keep warm-

This is a legitimate translation but "keep warm" is a Hebrew term also used about procreation. There appeared to be some great desire that he should produce yet another child.

1 Kings 1:2 Therefore his servants said to him, Let there be sought for my lord the king a young virgin. Let her stand before the king, and cherish him; and let her lie on your chest, so that my lord the king may keep warm-

If indeed there were genuine health reasons for this (although see on :1), it seems morally questionable. Despite David's undoubted faith and spirituality, his life leaves many abiding questions about his basic ethics and those of his immediate circle.

1 Kings 1:3 So they sought for a beautiful young lady throughout all the borders of Israel, and found Abishag the Shunammite, and brought her to the king-

"Abishag" is literally father / mother of the erring / astray. The language is so similar to Esther 2:2 that it indeed seems that a wife, of sorts, was being found for David. Some read "Shulamite", the word of Song 6:13 for Solomon's lover, a female version of the name "Solomon". In this case we can see some kind of manipulation going on to try to ensure that David's final wife and possible child were within Solomon and Bathsheba's camp.

1 Kings 1:4 The young lady was very beautiful; and she cherished the king, and ministered to him; but the king didn’t know her intimately-

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

1 Kings 1:5 Then Adonijah the son of Haggith exalted himself, saying, I will be king-

He was the oldest surviving son of David and therefore considered in line for the throne.

Then he prepared him chariots and horsemen, and fifty men to run before him-

"Prepared" or "established" is a major theme in the promises of the eternal establishment of David's throne (2 Sam. 7:12,13,16 etc.), and Solomon wrongly assumed that the conditional nature of the promises concerning the seed were just irrelevant to him as he had wisdom. Therefore he uses the word of how his kingdom has been "established" (1 Kings 2:24 s.w.). Solomon's contenders for the throne were all stopped by God, they tried to prepare or establish themselves but it never worked out (2 Sam. 15:1; 1 Kings 1:5); and so surely Solomon has the idea in mind that he has been established as the promised Messianic seed of David with an eternally "established" throne and kingdom. This leads him to the conclusion that the outcome of wisdom and folly is in this life, and he has no perspective of a final day of judgment and eternal establishment of God's Kingdom on earth. This is why the simplistic dichotomies he presents in Proverbs between the blessed and wise, and the cursed and foolish, are not always true to observed experiences in this life. For it is the future Kingdom which puts them in ultimate perspective.

Absalom did the same (2 Sam. 15:1), and the similarities in the rebellions mean that David was intended to learn from them.

1 Kings 1:6 His father had not displeased him at any time in saying, Why have you done so? And he was also a very handsome man; and he was born after Absalom-

We are immediately given the hint that he was of the same character and appearance of Absalom, and also similar to Saul (1 Sam. 9:2). Perhaps we are to understand that David had never disciplined him, unlike Solomon who in his Proverbs reflects upon David's discipline of him. Or maybe the idea is more specifically that David had never forbidden his clear pretensions to the throne, despite his stated desire for Solomon to succeed him.

1 Kings 1:7 He conferred with Joab son of Zeruiah and with Abiathar the priest: they followed Adonijah and helped him-

That Joab David's cousin, should turn away from David after a lifetime of loyalty is hard to understand. But we sense a personality conflict between the two of them, and indeed it seems that originally Joab had supported Absalom's idea of seizing power, but then fell out with him. David held Joab as too hard a man, not understanding grace; whereas Joab held David to be far too soft, and increasingly lacking strong leadership skills in his old age. The support for Adonijah was perhaps more because of disillusion with David than because Adonijah personally had much to offer.

Abiathar's father and family had all been slain as a result of loyalty to David, and maybe decades later this remained as a source of bitterness to him. Or perhaps he was simply in a jealousy complex against Zadok, as it is unclear which of them was the high priest.

1 Kings 1:8 But Zadok the priest, Benaiah son of Jehoiada, Nathan the prophet, Shimei, Rei and the mighty men who belonged to David, were not with Adonijah-

We see here the division between the two priests, Abiathar and Zadok, who had been so united in helping David survive Absalom's putsch. Perhaps there was jealousy between them because Abiathar was the priest in Jerusalem, whilst Zadok cared for the tabernacle at Gibeon, which was "the great high place" (1 Chron. 16:39; 1 Kings 3:4). "The mighty men" are those listed in 2 Sam. 23. If "Shimei" is the Shimei who cursed David, then we see his loyalty to David now; and that David should later order his murder is the more reprehensible.

1 Kings 1:9 Adonijah killed sheep and cattle and fatlings by the stone of Zoheleth, which is beside En Rogel; and he called all his brothers, the king’s sons, and all the men of Judah, the king’s servants-

This is another similarity with Absalom's revolt (see on :5), who began his revolt with a religious festival. It is alluded to by Solomon in Prov. 21:27: "The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination: how much more, when he brings it with a wicked mind!". Solomon may have in view Saul's rejection from the kingship for his wrong attitude to sacrifice (1 Sam. 15:21,22). Likewise the attempts of Absalom and Adonijah to take the throne from David and Solomon involved the offering of sacrifices (2 Sam. 15:12; 1 Kings 1:9). What Solomon says in the Proverbs is true on one level, but he harnesses Divine truth to justify himself and his own agendas; just as we can.

1 Kings 1:10 but Nathan the prophet, and Benaiah, and the mighty men, and Solomon his brother, he didn’t call-

As with Absalom's rebellion, sympathizers were invited to a religious feast, and this was used to declare the new king.

1 Kings 1:11 Then Nathan spoke to Bathsheba the mother of Solomon saying, Haven’t you heard that Adonijah the son of Haggith reigns, and David our lord doesn’t know it?-

"Adonijah" means 'Yah is lord', although clearly he wasn't a spiritual man. Nathan refers to David as their 'Lord'. Perhaps this is intended to be another example of how faithful women like Sarah called their husbands "lord" (1 Pet. 3:6).

1 Kings 1:12 Now therefore come, please let me give you advice, that you may save your own life, and the life of your son Solomon-

Nathan is in fact giving Bathsheba his advice, knowing that the usurper would typically slay the family of his rivals. But Nathan frames his approach as asking for her advice. Bathsheba was it seems the favoured queen. We wonder why Abigail had fallen out of favour; although mortality for women being so low in those times, she may well have died by this stage.

1 Kings 1:13 Go in to king David and tell him, ‘Didn’t you, my lord, king, swear to your handmaid saying, Assuredly Solomon your son shall reign after me, and he shall sit on my throne? Why then does Adonijah reign?’-

It was God who had sworn to David that his "son" would reign on his throne, and Nathan was the prophet through whom he had been told this. But David seems to have assumed that he had some choice to make in directing God's purpose, and had in turn sworn that Solomon should reign on his throne. The similarity of the wording suggests that he assumed Solomon was going to be the fulfilment of the promises to him of 2 Sam. 7. But this was in fact setting Solomon up for spiritual failure, as do many such parental assumptions. For those promises were conditional. And just as David refused to take full note of that, therefore neither did Solomon. He assumed he was the Messianic son of David and ignored the conditions, leading to his own spiritual shipwreck.

1 Kings 1:14 Whilst you are talking there with the king, I also will come in after you, and confirm your words-

Literally, 'fulfil the words'. As discussed on :13, we sense that the words in view are those of the promises to David about his seed, which David had too quickly assumed must refer to Solomon. We note that Nathan too had too quickly assumed he knew God's will and word in 2 Sam. 7:3-5.

1 Kings 1:15 Bathsheba went in to the king into the room. The king was very old; and Abishag the Shunammite was ministering to the king-

We are naturally reminded of she had first come in to the king when they committed adultery. And now she enters his bedroom uninvited, and finds a far younger woman trying to sexually arouse him (see on :1). The whole situation is indeed tragic, and the outcome of not going God's way in moral matters.

1 Kings 1:16 Bathsheba bowed, and showed respect to the king. The king said, What would you like?-

The single Hebrew word "what?" could suggest he was indeed so frail he could hardly speak beyond single words.

1 Kings 1:17 She said to him, My lord, you swore by Yahweh your God to your handmaid, ‘Assuredly Solomon your son shall reign after me, and he shall sit on my throne’-

See on :13. She obediently repeats verbatim the words Nathan had put in her mouth. This continues the theme of David being manipulated by people and people being used as puppets by others.

1 Kings 1:18 Now, look, Adonijah reigns; and you, my lord the king, don’t know it-

She calls David "lord" many times. We get the impression of deep and rightful respect for him, despite his failures. Perhaps this is intended to be another example of how faithful women like Sarah called their husbands "lord" (1 Pet. 3:6).

1 Kings 1:19 He has killed cattle, fatlings and sheep in abundance, and has called all the sons of the king, and Abiathar the priest, and Joab the captain of the army; but he hasn’t called Solomon your servant-

David's heart must have slumped as he heard these words. He died with the pain of betrayal by Adonijah, Joab and Abiathar. It would be wrong to imagine him dying a happy man at peace. His life indeed had been full of such traumas ever since his sin of passion with Bathsheba. How bitterly he must have regretted it.

1 Kings 1:20 You, my lord the king, the eyes of all Israel are on you, that you should tell them who shall sit on the throne of my lord the king after him-

David apparently had not made any public pronouncement about his intentions for Solomon, although he had done so privately to Bathsheba and Nathan, the prophet who had first given him the promises about his "son".

1 Kings 1:21 Otherwise it will happen, when my lord the king shall sleep with his fathers, that I and my son Solomon shall be counted offenders-

Heb. "sinners". The idea may be that Bathsheba's marriage would be declared void because of David's sin with her, and therefore Solomon pronounced an illegitimate son. David died with this reminder of that sin of passion which would have seemed so long ago, and, to the human mind, dealt with by the passage of time and the grief over Absalom.

1 Kings 1:22 Behold, while she still talked with the king, Nathan the prophet came in-

Again, without invitation; David would have guessed this had all been set up. David makes no recorded response to Bathsheba's words, possibly because he was so frail (see on :16).

1 Kings 1:23 They told the king, saying, Here is Nathan the prophet! When he had come in before the king, he bowed down before the king with his face to the ground-

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

1 Kings 1:24 Nathan said, My lord, king, have you said, ‘Adonijah shall reign after me, and he shall sit on my throne?’-

Perhaps Adonijah was falsely claiming this, abusing his father's frail state. Or maybe this was a device by Nathan to get the king to mutter some response, to provoke him to mental awareness in his weak state; see on :16,22.

1 Kings 1:25 For he is gone down this day, and has killed cattle and fatlings and sheep in abundance, and has called all the king’s sons, and the captains of the army, and Abiathar the priest. Even now they are eating and drinking before him and saying, ‘Long live king Adonijah!’-

To eat and drink before a king was a sign of support for him and his acceptance; and there is something of this in the meaning of the breaking of bread service.

1 Kings 1:26 But he hasn’t called me, even me your servant, nor Zadok the priest, nor Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, nor your servant Solomon-

Nathan's respect of David comes out strongly- "me, even me your servant". See on :23.

1 Kings 1:27 Is this thing done by my lord the king, and you haven’t shown to your servants who should sit on the throne of my lord the king after him?-

Again this may be a device by Nathan to provoke the frail minded king to speak forth. Or perhaps indeed he had not openly stated his desire for Solomon to be king. "After him" again alludes to the promises about the "son" which Nathan had given David, and it seems he is again implying that David is to state now who is going to fulfil them. Again, as discussed on :13, their conditional nature is being ignored by everyone. And it led Solomon to do the same.

1 Kings 1:28 Then king David answered, Call to me Bathsheba. She came into the king’s presence, and stood before the king-

Perhaps Nathan left the room at this point (:32). "Call me Bathsheba" would have inevitably recalled to his mind how he had said those fateful words to his servants decades previously, and now he was still suffering the result of that sin.

1 Kings 1:29 The king swore and said, As Yahweh lives, who has redeemed my soul out of all adversity-

Earlier, David in the Psalms had so often asked God to redeem him, e.g. in Ps. 69:18: "Draw near to my soul, and redeem it. Ransom me because of my enemies". God had already forgiven David, ransoming and redeeming him. But he was left to suffer the consequences of those sins, and because of that, in crisis he starts to wonder whether he has indeed been forgiven. And we can do the same so easily. The consequence of sin is death, and we can squirm against this when we or others face it... forgetting the wonder of the fact that we are indeed redeemed and ransomed from the power of the grave, although we must still take the consequences.  At the very end of his life, David realized that he had in fact been redeemed (s.w. 1 Kings 1:29). He could give up his spirit to God in death, knowing that He was redeemed from the power of the grave (s.w. Ps. 31:5; 49:15). His sure hope in the resurrection of the body looked ahead to the attitude with which the Lord Jesus died.

These are the words of Jacob in Gen. 48:16 and also of David earlier, at 2 Sam. 4:9. What Jacob only learnt at the end of his life, David learnt and applied during his life. And we should likewise not be experiential learners, but learn instead from Jacob. David stresses that Yahweh had redeemed him, and he had not needed to take vengeance himself. He repeats this in now; he was deeply aware of Yahweh's redemption of him by grace right to his last days.

1 Kings 1:30 most certainly as I swore to you by Yahweh the God of Israel, saying, ‘Assuredly Solomon your son shall reign after me, and he shall sit on my throne in my place;’ most certainly so will I do this day-

As discussed on :13, he wrongly assumes that he can pronounce Solomon as the fulfilment of the promises made to him. For he speaks in the language of the promises of 2 Sam. 7; and this refusal to accept their conditionality, and fulfilment by grace rather than his pronouncement, was what led Solomon to spiritual disaster in the longer term.

1 Kings 1:31 Then Bathsheba bowed with her face to the earth, and showed respect to the king, and said, Let my lord king David live forever!-

To say this to a man on his deathbed is perhaps consciously intended to show the meaningless nature of this common phrase.

1 Kings 1:32 King David said, Call to me Zadok the priest, Nathan the prophet, and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada. They came before the king-

Perhaps Nathan had left the bedroom when Bathsheba was summoned back (:28). Or perhaps this is yet another indication of the very weak mental state of David.

1 Kings 1:33 The king said to them, Take with you the servants of your lord, and cause Solomon my son to ride on my own mule, and bring him down to Gihon-

The first mention of mules in the Bible is associated with Absalom's murder of Amnon his brother (2 Sam. 13:29). They were cross bred in disobedience to Lev. 19:19. We get the impression that a generally slack attitude to what might have been considered minor matters of the law was associated with the major sin of murder. This is the problem when we start to think that some parts of God's laws can just be ignored. David was fond of them, having his own mule (1 Kings 1:33), and Solomon was willing to receive them as tribute (1 Kings 10:25).

1 Kings 1:34 Let Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet anoint him there king over Israel. Blow the trumpet, and say, ‘Long live king Solomon!’-

This anointing ought to have been done earlier, as it was with David. We wonder whether David had some slight doubts about Solomon's suitability, hence his lack of public pronouncement about Solomon being his chosen successor. Or perhaps David just wanted to hold on to personal power to the bitter end, and hadn't wanted to appoint anyone in his place through a public proclamation. There had not yet been any anointing or trumpet blowing for Adonijah, so this was in order to upstage that happening.

1 Kings 1:35 Then you shall come up after him-

Just as men had followed after Adonijah (:7).

And he shall come and sit on my throne; for he shall be king in my place. I have appointed him to be prince over Israel and over Judah-

On one hand we could read the usage of the word "prince" as reflecting how Yahweh was the ultimate king of Israel. Or we could read it as reflecting David's dogged desire, typical of an old man, to hold on to his own kingly power until his last breath. Or we could see it as a Messianic term, as it is in Dan. 9:25, again showing that David thought he could make Solomon the fulfilment of the promises of a Messianic seed just by pronouncing it from his deathbed- ignoring all the conditional clauses which accompanied those promises.

1 Kings 1:36 Benaiah the son of Jehoiada answered the king and said, Amen. May Yahweh, the God of my lord the king, say so too-

This is a clear example of the meaning of the word "Amen". It is a statement that we believe in faith that God also wills to be so what we have said Amen to. His "Amen" is therefore our "Amen". There is a similar example in Jer. 28:6.

1 Kings 1:37 As Yahweh has been with my lord the king, even so may He be with Solomon, and make his throne greater than the throne of my lord king David-

Benaiah too is alluding to the promises to David, and stating his belief that they are to be fulfilled through Solomon- again ignoring all the conditional clauses which accompanied those promises. "So may He be" is Heb. "so shall He be".

1 Kings 1:38 So Zadok the priest, Nathan the prophet, Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, and the Cherethites and the Pelethites, went down and caused Solomon to ride on king David’s mule, and brought him to Gihon-

"Pelethite" is arguably a form of the word "Philistine". There is a theme in David's life of his former enemies, even Gentiles against whom he had fought and slain their families, became his most loyal supporters and servants, right to the end of his days. This loyalty is a reflection not only of their respect of his personal integrity, despite some out of character failures; but especially of their conversion to Yahweh, David's God.

1 Kings 1:39 Zadok the priest took the horn of oil out of the tabernacle, and anointed Solomon. They blew the trumpet; and all the people said, Long live king Solomon!-

The horn of oil refers to the specific horn from which the holy anointing oil was poured upon the priests. Zadok cared for the tabernacle at Gibeon, which was "the great high place" (1 Chron. 16:39; 1 Kings 3:4), and so it is another example of correlation within the inspired records that he had access to that horn and the oil with which to anoint Solomon (1 Kings 1:39). Using this oil to anoint a king would therefore have presented Solomon as a king-priest.

1 Kings 1:40 All the people came up after him, and the people piped with pipes, and rejoiced with great joy, so that the earth shook with their sound-

We can assume that there was mass popular support for Solomon, far greater than for Adonijah.

1 Kings 1:41 Adonijah and all the guests who were with him heard it as they finished eating. When Joab heard the sound of the trumpet he said, Why is this noise of the city being in an uproar?-

The feast would have taken some days; for the horn of priestly anointing oil had to be fetched from Gibeon (:39).

1 Kings 1:42 While he yet spoke, behold, Jonathan the son of Abiathar the priest came: and Adonijah said, Come in; for you are a worthy man, and bring good news-

The record here repeats the coming in of messengers to David earlier in this chapter. Despite his revolt against his father David, he perhaps unconsciously repeats his father's very words as he awaited news of the battle with Absalom. He could not ultimately throw off the ties that bind. We note that Jonathan had earlier run messages for David in the time of Absalom's revolt (2 Sam. 17:17); now he does so for Adonijah, and was perceived as a "worthy man", on Adonijah's side. All these things have the ring of psychological credibility to them. This is how life goes.

1 Kings 1:43 Jonathan answered Adonijah, Most certainly our lord king David has made Solomon king-

The hint could be that "most certainly" he did carry good news, that Solomon had been made king. Already even the messenger was seeking to cover himself against the inevitable repercussions of a failed power grab. Hence he calls David "our lord king David".

1 Kings 1:44 The king has sent with him Zadok the priest, Nathan the prophet, Benaiah son of Jehoiada, and the Cherethites and the Pelethites; and they have caused him to ride on the king’s mule-

Jonathan is careful to report things exactly as they were and as had observed them in Jerusalem. He is bravely giving no intimation of continued loyalty to Adonijah and his own father Abiathar who was his main support.

1 Kings 1:45 Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet have anointed him king in Gihon. They have come up from there rejoicing, so that the city rang again. This is the noise that you have heard-

Again we see that there was mass popular support for David's choice of Solomon, and not so much for Adonijah.

1 Kings 1:46 Also, Solomon sits on the throne of the kingdom-

Solomon had literally been sat upon David's throne, and Jonathan had seen it.

1 Kings 1:47 Moreover the king’s servants came to bless our lord king David saying, ‘May your God make the name of Solomon better than your name, and make his throne greater than your throne’; and the king bowed himself on the bed-

Again "our lord king David" shows that Jonathan's loyalties were now with David and Solomon again. The fickleness of human loyalty is a great theme of the records of David's life.

1 Kings 1:48 Also thus said the king, ‘Blessed be Yahweh, the God of Israel, who has given one to sit on my throne this day, my eyes even seeing it’-

These words of David aren't recorded but there is no reason to doubt Jonathan's account of them. Those words are clearly allusive to the promises in 2 Sam. 7 that David's eyes would see his Messianic son / seed enthroned, implying David's resurrection. LXX adds "one of my seed", confirming this. But David instead assumed that they were true in his lifetime, and that Solomon was indeed the Messianic seed promised. By this wrong assumption, David was ignoring the conditional aspects to the promises- that Solomon had to prove himself obedient to Yahweh. By doing so, David set Solomon up for spiritual failure, through merely assuming his acceptability to God regardless of his lifestyle; see on :13.

1 Kings 1:49 All the guests of Adonijah were afraid, and rose up, and each man went his way-

Again we see the fickleness of human loyalty, which is such a great theme of the records of David's life.

1 Kings 1:50 Adonijah feared because of Solomon; and he arose, and went, and caught hold on the horns of the altar-

He must have somehow smuggled himself into the sanctuary, otherwise he would have been arrested and charged with treason well beforehand. He was treating the altar as a kind of talisman, just as the surrounding religions did. The horns of the altar were smeared with the blood of atonement (Ex. 29:12; 30:10), so he may have been assuming that he would somehow get forgiveness by doing this.

1 Kings 1:51 It was told Solomon saying, Behold, Adonijah fears king Solomon; for, behold, he has laid hold on the horns of the altar, saying, ‘Let king Solomon swear to me first that he will not kill his servant with the sword’-

The idea was that if God had atoned for his sin of rebellion (see on :50), then Solomon should not carry out the death penalty. The whole process of reasoning was very twisted, and are in fact the words of an equally twisted Jacob to Esau in Gen. 25:31,33.

1 Kings 1:52 Solomon said, If he shows himself a worthy man, not a hair of him shall fall to the earth; but if wickedness be found in him, he shall die-

Solomon is intentionally vague. Not a hair falling to the earth could be read as meaning that an intended punishment would not be carried out (1 Sam. 14:45; 2 Sam. 14:11). "But if wickedness be found..." could be read as meaning 'If there is any more of this in future', or 'We will investigate the matter by judgment and the just penalty will be given in future'.

1 Kings 1:53 So king Solomon sent, and they brought him down from the altar. He came and bowed down to king Solomon; and Solomon said to him, Go to your house-

This was not real forgiveness, because Solomon evidently considered it not politic to immediately slay Adonijah, but that was his intention. Perhaps he was reasoning that Adonijah's support base would be encouraged to repent if they saw that they were not going to all be slain. And Solomon probably didn't feel he had the political strength at that point to slay men like Joab and Abiathar. And we must examine our own apparent forgiveness of others, to determine whether it is really just a matter of politics and prudence rather than true forgiveness.

1 Kings Chapter 2

1 Kings 2:1 Now the days of David drew near that he should die; and he commanded Solomon his son saying-

According to Josephus (Antiquities 7.14,7) the events of 1 Chronicles 28, 29 happened in the interval between the first anointing of Solomon and the death of David.

1 Kings 2:2 I am going the way of all the earth-

This is quoting the words of Joshua, as do the second part of the verse. David has Joshua in mind because he considers that Solomon is going to now inherit the Kingdom.

Be strong therefore, and show yourself a man-

As noted above, this is the language of Joshua (Dt. 31:7,23; Josh. 1:6,7). See on :3. "Show yourself a man" may refer to the fact Solomon was very young (1 Kings 3:7) and needed to quickly act as an adult.

David seems to have theoretically recognized that the building of the temple was conditional on Solomon's spirituality, but he overlooked this in his enthusiasm for Solomon to be the Messiah, who may be the reference of "a man". He tells Solomon to show himself a man, and goes on in :4 to speak of how “a man” would eternally reign on his Messianic throne. He was encouraging Solomon to be and act like Messiah. Ps. 127 is "For Solomon" (Ps. 127:2 "beloved" = Heb. Jedidah), and warns him that his labour for the temple will be in vain unless God builds it. The Psalm basically says that God will build Solomon a house in the sense of a family centred in the beloved seed who would die [“sleep”] to enable it; and therefore Solomon should not be so sweating himself day and night to build God a house / temple. This is the very message which God had given David earlier. David and Solomon evidently shelved their knowledge of the fact that Heaven is God's dwelling place. It would seem that Solomon particularly was guilty of a false humility; there is a gross contradiction within his words of 2 Chron. 6:2,18: "I have built an house of habitation for thee, and a place for thy dwelling for ever... But will God in very deed dwell with men on the earth? behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house which I have built?". This is one of several hints that Solomon felt that the full fulfilment of the Davidic promises was to be found in him (cp. 2 Chron. 6:10). He failed to look forward to the spirit of Christ, instead becoming obsessed with the achievement of his own works. He was largely encouraged in this by David, who seems to have felt that Solomon was the Messiah figure the promises spoke about. Thus Ps.72 is dedicated to Solomon, and yet it speaks clearly of the messianic Kingdom. In the same way as David came to misquote and misapply the promises God made to him, Solomon did likewise. God told David that He did not want a physical house, because He had never commanded this to be done at any time in the past. Solomon misquotes this in 2 Chron. 6:5,6 to mean that God had never asked for a physical house in the past, but now he had asked David's son to build such a house in Jerusalem.

1 Kings 2:3 and keep the instruction of Yahweh your God, to walk in His ways, to keep His statutes, His commandments, His ordinances and His testimonies, according to what is written in the law of Moses, that you may prosper in all that you do, and wherever you turn yourself-

In Prov. 29:14 “The king that faithfully judges the poor, his throne shall be established for ever”, Solomon is clearly referring to the promises to David, which he assumed were about him. He thought that because he had judged the poor harlots wisely, therefore he would be the promised Messiah. And this was just what David his father had hoped and expected of him. David had even asked Solomon to “do wisely” i.e. to show wisdom, in order that the promises to him about Messiah would be fulfilled (1 Kings 2:3 RVmg.). So this was surely one of Solomon’s motives in giving them justice and being ‘wise’; he sought to live out his father’s expectations and to fulfil the requirements of the Messiah figure.

"That you may prosper" is s.w. "to make one wise" (Gen. 3:6). David's desire was that Solomon would be "wise" just as David had been "wise / prospered" (1 Sam. 18:5,14,15), and so Solomon asked God for wisdom and wanted to be wise. But his subsequent life showed this was because he wanted to live out parental expectation rather than be personally wise. And so he later turned away from that wisdom in his personal life. The language of prospering continues the Joshua allusions (see on :2; Josh. 1:7,8).

1 Kings 2:4 This is so that Yahweh may establish His word which He spoke concerning me saying, ‘If your children take heed to their way, to walk before Me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul, there shall not fail you’, He said, ‘a man on the throne of Israel’-

David wanted Solomon to be that "man" (:2). Solomon's prophetic sonship of David was conditional upon him preserving or observing Yahweh's ways (1 Kings 2:4; 1 Chron. 22:13; 2 Chron. 7:17); but he didn't preserve or observe them (1 Kings 11:10,11); despite David praying that Solomon would be given a heart to observe them (1 Chron. 29:19). We can pray for God to work upon the hearts of others, but He will not force people against their own deepest will and heart position. Solomon stresses overmuch how God would keep or preserve the righteous (Prov. 2:8; 3:26), without recognizing the conditional aspect of this. Why did Solomon go wrong? His Proverbs are true enough, but he stresses that obedience to his wisdom and teaching would preserve his hearers (Prov. 4:4; 6:22; 7:1; 8:32; 15:5), preservation was through following the example of the wise (Prov. 2:20); rather than stressing obedience to God's ways, and replacing David his father's simple love of God with a love of academic wisdom: "Yahweh preserves all those who love Him" (Ps. 145:20).

Another example of Solomon misquoting God is in 2 Chron. 6:6. Solomon claims that God said: “I have chosen Jerusalem, that my name might be there”. God had chosen no resting place, although it would have been politically convenient for Solomon if the city of Jerusalem as a city was where God had chosen to dwell. And so he kept thinking that way until he persuaded himself that in fact this was what God had said. David had charged Solomon with the words which God had spoken to him about Solomon: “If thy children take heed to their way, to walk before me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul” (1 Kings 2:4). But Solomon subtly changes this when he reminds God of how He had supposedly told David: “There shall not fail thee a man to sit on the throne of Israel; so that they children take heed to their way, that they walk before me as thou hast walked before me” (1 Kings 8:25). Two things become apparent here:

- The conditionality of the promise to David about Solomon is totally overlooked.  “If thy children…” becomes “so that…”, with the implication that David would always have descendants on the throne who would walk obediently before God. The possibility of personal failure had been removed by Solomon from his own perception of God.

- God’s desire that Solomon should “walk before me in truth” was changed to “walk before me as thou [David] hast walked before me”. This defined walking before God personally as having the relationship with God which your father had. And so often we have made the same mistake. The call to personally follow the Lord has become displaced by a following Him through others.

Notice how Solomon says these words to God Himself. Solomon had persuaded himself that this truly was what God had asked of David and himself, and so he comes out with these words to God.

There was no sense in Solomon that he might have the possibility of failure, of rejection by God. The promises to David were conditional- David pointed this out to Solomon in 1 Kings 2:4: "If thy children take heed to their way...". But Solomon misquotes this in 1 Kings 8:25: "Now therefore, O LORD, the God of Israel, keep with thy servant David my father that which thou hast promised him, saying, There shall not fail thee a man in my sight to sit on the throne of Israel; so that thy children take heed to their way to walk before me as thou hast walked before me". Some translations offer paraphrases of the difficult "so that" phrase. But there's no getting around it. Solomon is saying 'Give me what you promised me, without conditions, so that I will fulfil those conditions... it's not possible for anyone to fulfil those conditions unless you first give them what you conditionally promised'. The logic is all upside down, and is very demanding upon God, implying that any failure to "take heed to the way" would be because God hadn't given what He promised. It's a telling insight into Solomon's mind. It was all about him, rather than all about God and glorifying Him.

Note that all this happened at the very start of Solomon's reign; it seems to me that he was always on the wrong track, rather than as it were 'going wrong' later on.

1 Kings 2:5 Moreover you know also what Joab the son of Zeruiah did to me and what he did to the two captains of the armies of Israel, to Abner the son of Ner, and to Amasa the son of Jether, whom he killed, and shed the blood of war in peace, and put the blood of war on his sash that was about his waist, and in his shoes that were on his feet-

The only person in David's life whose belt is noted is Joab (2 Sam. 20:8; 1 Kings 2:5). But Ps. 109:8,19 wish curses upon the man who was well known for his belt. See notes there for the extent of David's anger with Joab and his desire for the man's condemnation because of it- even though David was not himself perfect. Solomon's comment that Joab shed the blood of war in peace, perhaps meaning 'in the name of peace', may allude to how Joab killed Amasa whilst asking him whether "Is all well with you?", using the word shalom, "peace".

1 Kings 2:6 Do therefore according to your wisdom, and don’t let his gray head go down to Sheol in peace-

Solomon alludes to this in Prov. 19:5,9: "A false witness shall not be unpunished; he who utters lies shall perish". See on :5. Solomon is alluding to his father David's parting commandments to him to destroy all the opposition to him (1 Kings 2:6,9). So whilst what Solomon writes is true, he is harnessing Divine truth to his own agenda of self justification. And we who claim to hold His truths must take warning.

Joab was David's cousin, who had shown David a lifetime of loyalty. But we sense a personality conflict between the two of them, and indeed it seems that originally Joab had supported Absalom's idea of seizing power, but then fell out with him; and he supported Adonijah's. David held Joab as too hard a man, not understanding grace; whereas Joab held David to be far too soft, and increasingly lacking strong leadership skills in his old age. The support for Adonijah was perhaps more because of disillusion with David than because Adonijah personally had much to offer. Yet to order his death seems to me absolutely lacking in grace.

1 Kings 2:7 But show kindness to the sons of Barzillai the Gileadite, and let them be of those who eat at your table; for so they came to me when I fled from Absalom your brother-

On balance, over a lifetime, Joab had shown David far more kindness than Barzillai. So it is so sad that David, who had experienced so much grace, at the end of his life was so lacking in it and so short termist in his view. After Solomon's ascension, there was judgment and reward; in the form of being able to eat at his table (1 Kings 2:7 cp. 2 Sam. 9: 7,10; 19:28).  After Christ's return, the reward is to break bread with Him (Lk. 14:15; 22:30). Breaking bread with Him now is a sign of joyful fellowship with Him in anticipation of that; it shouldn’t therefore be a scary, worrying experience.

1 Kings 2:8 Behold, there is with you Shimei the son of Gera, the Benjamite of Bahurim, who cursed me with a grievous curse in the day when I went to Mahanaim; but he came down to meet me at the Jordan, and I vowed to him by Yahweh saying, ‘I will not put you to death with the sword’-

David earlier forgave Shimei for cursing him. But he tells Solomon to bring down that old man’s white hairs to the grave with blood on them- a crude image for the murder of an old man (:9). And he uses the same awful turn of phrase to ask Solomon to do this also to his lifelong friend Joab (1 Kings 2:6,9). Surely grace would’ve found another way? He was therefore barred from building the temple because of the amount of blood he had shed (1 Chron. 22:8).

David graciously overlooked Shimei's cursing, promising him that he would not die because of it (2 Sam. 16:10,11; 19:23). But he didn't keep up that level of grace to the end: he later asked Solomon to ensure that Shimei  was killed for that incident (1 Kings 2:8,9). And one wonders whether it was Shimei’s words which so broke David’s heart that he later wrote: “Because that he remembered not to shew mercy, but persecuted the poor and needy man…as he loved cursing, so let it come unto him; as he delighted not in blessing, so may it be far from him. He clothed himself also with cursing as with a garment…” (Ps. 109:16-18).

1 Kings 2:9 Now therefore don’t hold him guiltless, for you are a wise man-

It is significant that Solomon's  spiritual life  has  more appearance of spirituality the closer we get back to David's death. David had asked for wisdom (Ps. 119:34), and even Solomon’s request for wisdom can be seen as rooted in a desire to live out parental expectation more than purely from his own volition. For David had told him: “You are a wise man” (1 Kings 2:9), and Solomon wanted to live up to that expectation. In  other words, David's influence was extremely strong, but  it  decreased over the years. Yet even at the end, Solomon’s wisdom stayed with him in that some aspects of his upbringing stayed with him- he could never escape from it. When he says that he has never found a truly wise woman, but he did know one wise man (Ecc. 7:28) he may well have had David in mind.

And you will know what you ought to do to him, and you shall bring his gray head down to Sheol with blood-

Solomon alludes to this in Prov. 21:11: "When the mocker is punished, the simple gains wisdom. When the wise is instructed, he receives knowledge". This seems to be justifying David's command for Solomon to punish the mocker Shimei, who had cursed him at the time of Absalom's rebellion. At the time, David had forgiven Shimei and forbidden his men to kill him. But at the end of his life, David didn't maintain that level of grace, and commanded Solomon to ensure that he brought Shimei's grey hairs down to the grave with blood. And Solomon justified this collapse of forgiveness and grace by saying that it would give wisdom to others and instruct the wise.

Shimei was a wicked man who hated God's servant David. God told him to curse David (2 Sam. 16:10). Afterwards, Shimei repents and acknowledges that by doing so he sinned (2 Sam. 19:20). And although David recognized that God had told Shimei to curse him (2 Sam. 16:10), David tells Solomon not to hold Shimei "guiltless" for how he had cursed him (1 Kings 2:9). As with the evil spirit from Yahweh working upon Saul, a man is encouraged by God to do the sinful act in which he has set his heart.

Psalm 7:16 had been David's commentary about Shimei: "The trouble he causes shall return upon his own head, his violence shall come down on the crown of his own head". In the context of Shimei, whose cursing was the initial context of this Psalm (see on Ps. 7:1), David sought himself to bring this about. He told Solomon to ensure that Shimei's head and grey hairs should be brought down with blood to the grave by him (1 Kings 2:8,9). This unspiritual attitude of David was rooted in the way that at the earlier point, here in Ps. 7:16, David rejoiced in the thought that Shimei would be condemned by God; and sets about to bring that condemnation about himself. This surely was a case of taking Divine judgment into his own hand in a way he should not have done, and quite overlooking the Divine desire for repentance (Ez. 33:11).

1 Kings 2:10 David slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David-

This idiom is clear evidence that the distinction in reward between good and evil people is not made at the point of death. Death is unconsciousness, and the eternal outcome of our lives will be at the resurrection and day of judgment.

1 Kings 2:11 The days that David reigned over Israel were forty years; he reigned seven years in Hebron, and he reigned thirty-three years in Jerusalem-

Seven and a half years (2 Sam. 2:11) becomes "seven years" (1 Kings 2:11); three months and ten days (2 Chron. 36:9) becomes "three months" (2 Kings 24:8). Sometimes the Biblical record is vague, other times exact. This reflects how God is not seeking to cover His back against critics. He is of an altogether higher nature than that. There are times when the Spirit uses very approximate numbers rather than exact ("about the space of four hundred and fifty years", Acts 13:20 cp. 1 Kings 6:1). The reference to "seventy" in Judges 9:56 also doesn't seem exact.  And 1 Kings 7:23 gives the circumference of the laver as “thirty cubits”, although it was ten cubits broad. Taking ‘pi’ to be 3.14, it is apparent that the circumference would have been 31.4 cubits; but the Spirit says, summing up, “thirty”.

1 Kings 2:12 Solomon sat on the throne of David his father; and his kingdom was firmly established-

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

1 Kings 2:13 Then Adonijah the son of Haggith came to Bathsheba the mother of Solomon. She said, Do you come peaceably? He said, Peaceably-

She feared for her life, using the same term as in 1 Sam. 16:4.

1 Kings 2:14 He said moreover, I have something to tell you. She said, Say on-

He had come not only to ask for the hand of Abishag in marriage, but also to tell her something (:15). We can understand that Solomon therefore interpreted Adonijah's actions as a desire to usurp him.

1 Kings 2:15 He said, You know that the kingdom was mine, and that all Israel set their faces on me, that I should reign. However the kingdom is turned around, and has become my brother’s; for it was his from Yahweh-

This is a typical mixture of truth and untruth. Indeed the kingdom was Solomon's "from Yahweh" in that David had made that decision and sworn by Yahweh. It is however not so true that "all Israel" wanted him to be king, for when Solomon was pronounced king, there was ecstatic rejoicing amongst the people. And "the kingdom was mine" only in that he was the eldest surviving son of David; but being the eldest son didn't at all mean that the throne was passed on to him, because kings typically chose one of their sons to reign rather than the throne passing automatically to the eldest son. And he quite overlooks the promises to David, which make being the true son of David conditional upon obedience to Yahweh.

1 Kings 2:16 Now I ask one petition of you. Don’t deny me. She said to him, Say on-

This again is manipulative. Perhaps "Say on" was too close to agreeing to grant a petition she had not yet heard; for perhaps from pride she asks Solomon to grant the petition, even though it was highly dubious.

1 Kings 2:17 He said, Please speak to Solomon the king (for he will not tell you ‘no’), that he give me Abishag the Shunammite as wife-

Again Adonijah is playing with words and logic, arguing that Solomon cannot say no to his mother, and she cannot say no to him, Adonijah.

1 Kings 2:18 Bathsheba said, Alright. I will speak for you to the king-

Either she was naive, or she felt bound to ask because of her unwise response to him in :16.

1 Kings 2:19 Bathsheba therefore went to king Solomon, to speak to him for Adonijah. The king rose up to meet her, and bowed himself to her, and sat down on his throne, and caused a throne to be set for the king’s mother; and she sat on his right hand-

We sense here and in 1 Kings 1 the deep sense of respect for David and Bathsheba. Solomon speaks so highly of his mother in Proverbs, apparently modelling the "virtuous woman" of Prov. 31 upon her. To sit on the right hand means to be second in command of power, so we can assume Bathsheba was a powerful political individual as David's favourite surviving wife and mother of the son he had chosen as king.

1 Kings 2:20 Then she said, I ask one small petition of you; don’t deny me. The king said to her, Ask on, my mother; for I will not deny you-

He repeats the same error she had made in :16, agreeing to a petition before knowing what it was. This seems a theme the Bible likes to raise, for we think of king Darius with Daniel, and Herod and the daughter of Herodias. She considers it a "small petition", but it was a very large petition because of its major political ramifications, which Solomon immediately perceived. We wonder therefore whether she was being simply naive rather than feeling railroaded because of her response in :16.

1 Kings 2:21 She said, Let Abishag the Shunammite be given to Adonijah your brother as wife-

Perhaps she thought that Adonijah's only motive was his desire to marry a beauty queen. But as suggested on 1 Kings 1:1, Abishag was more than a carer for a man in a geriatric ward. She had had intimate sexual contact with David, although he had not succeeded in achieving intercourse with her. He was therefore to be considered as at least one of his concubines, and whoever married her was thereby strengthening their connection with David's throne.

1 Kings 2:22 King Solomon answered his mother, Why do you ask Abishag the Shunammite for Adonijah? Ask for him the kingdom also; for he is my elder brother; even for him, and for Abiathar the priest, and for Joab the son of Zeruiah-

Solomon may well have been correct. But there is also the possibility that he wildly extrapolated from the fact Adonijah wanted to marry thus beautiful woman, and refused to give him credit for accepting that Solomon rather than himself was Yahweh's choice for the throne (:15). And from that, Solomon creates a conspiracy theory about Joab and Abiathar. He had threatened Adonijah that he had as it were a suspended death sentence which would be triggered if he committed any more "wickedness" (1 Kings 1:52). Adonijah's motives are left intentionally unclear in the record, to provoke our reflection. Whatever, it seems to me that Solomon was eager to perceive Adonijah as having broken the conditions of 1 Kings 1:52 so that he could kill him.

1 Kings 2:23 Then king Solomon vowed by Yahweh saying, God do so to me, and more also, if Adonijah has not spoken this word against his own life-

If Adonijah realized how Solomon would react, he surely wouldn't have gone ahead as he did in trying to marry Abishag. And as noted on :14-17, his reasoning was less than honest and deceitful, but again, we could put this down to his simple desire to marry the beautiful Abishag. It seems a rather strict interpretation of 1 Kings 1:52 to claim that the request for Abishag was "wickedness".

1 Kings 2:24 Now therefore as Yahweh lives, who has established me, and set me on the throne of David my father, and who has made me a house, as He promised, surely Adonijah shall be put to death this day-

David's belief that Ps. 72 applied totally to Solomon would have encouraged him Solomon to feel that the fact that he was the great Son of David and had had the promises made to him justified all his actions. This is an example. For as discussed on :22,23, his desire to murder Adonijah was not on any very Biblical basis from the law of Moses.

"Established" is the word used in the promises of the eternal establishment of David's throne (2 Sam. 7:12,13,16 etc.), and Solomon wrongly assumed that the conditional nature of the promises concerning the seed were just irrelevant to him as he had wisdom. Therefore he uses the word of how his kingdom has been "established" (1 Kings 2:24 s.w.). Solomon's contenders for the throne were all stopped by God, they tried to prepare or establish themselves but it never worked out (2 Sam. 15:1; 1 Kings 1:5); and so surely Solomon has the idea in mind that he has been established as the promised Messianic seed of David with an eternally "established" throne and kingdom. This leads him to the conclusion that the outcome of wisdom and folly is in this life, and he has no perspective of a final day of judgment and eternal establishment of God's Kingdom on earth. This is why the simplistic dichotomies he presents in Proverbs between the blessed and wise, and the cursed and foolish, are not always true to observed experiences in this life. For it is the future Kingdom which puts them in ultimate perspective.

He felt that God “has made me an house, as he promised” to David. He felt that he was the fulfillment of the promises, and therefore the Kingdom had come; he failed to be awed by the greatness of the Christ to come, and abstracted and reduced His coming Kingdom into an effective nothingness. By doing so, he totally overlooked the highly conditional nature of the promises, and forgot his own proneness to failure, and the weakness of his nature. He failed to meditate upon the promises beyond what they seemed to offer him in the here and now; and the result was that he felt they were totally fulfilled in him (1 Kings 8:20,24).

1 Kings 2:25 King Solomon sent by Benaiah the son of Jehoiada; and he fell on him, so that he died-

Benaiah must now have been an old man, so perhaps he arranged the murder through a proxy.

1 Kings 2:26 To Abiathar the priest the king said, Go to Anathoth, to your own fields; for you are worthy of death. But I will not at this time put you to death, because you carried the ark of the Lord Yahweh before David my father, and because you were afflicted in all in which my father was afflicted-

As discussed on :22,23, there was no specific evidence that Abiathar had done anything worthy of death, nor that he was actually involved in any plot to establish Adonijah as king again. Perhaps it was as simple as Adonijah being in love with a beautiful woman and wanting to marry her. And Adonijah is being dogmatically condemned on the basis of conspiracy theory alone. We note that Abiathar carried the ark at the time of Absalom's rebellion (2 Sam. 15:24); but it is hard to prove that he was from the line of Levites who were allowed to do this. David had been taught through the death of Uzzah that the ark must be carried only according to the specific Mosaic legislation. But he apparently was so close to the spirit of the law that he realized even after that, that the letter of that law could be broken.

1 Kings 2:27 So Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being priest to Yahweh, that he might fulfil the word of Yahweh, which He spoke concerning the house of Eli in Shiloh-

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

1 Kings 2:28 The news came to Joab; for Joab had turned after Adonijah, though he didn’t turn after Absalom. Joab fled to the tabernacle of Yahweh, and caught hold on the horns of the altar-

This was a sad end for Joab, who was by now elderly. It seems David had a personality clash with Joab, frustrated at his refusal to understand grace and complaining that Joab was "too hard" for him. But it ended up with David's son Solomon ordering Joab to be slain, despite all his loyalty, and I would consider this as the supreme example of intolerance of intolerance, showing a lack of grace to someone because they had not understood grace. David in the later part of his life had always refused to carry out legitimate death sentences, e.g. as demanded by the behaviour of Amnon and Absalom. But Solomon lacked that grace, because he failed to perceive his own sins and need for grace himself.

1 Kings 2:29 It was told king Solomon, Joab has fled to the tabernacle of Yahweh, and behold, he is by the altar. Then Solomon sent Benaiah the son of Jehoiada saying, Go, fall on him-

It seems that Solomon didn’t really reflect on who his father really was. He had an ideal image of him, choosing to overlook his failures with women. David committed the sin of presumption with Bathsheba, and yet Solomon judges Joab for committing presumptuous sin without mercy (1 Kings 2:29 cp. Ex. 21:14).

1 Kings 2:30 Benaiah came to the tabernacle of Yahweh and said to him, Thus says the king, ‘Come forth!’. He said, No; but I will die here. Benaiah brought the king word again saying, Thus said Joab, and thus he answered me-

Perhaps Joab said this to still try to avoid death, reasoning that surely Solomon would have more respect for the tabernacle than to order him to be slain on the altar. Or perhaps Joab's spiritual side was eager to die as a sacrifice upon God's altar. Or maybe he wanted to make Solomon unpopular with the people by ordering him slain on the altar. The narrative is purposefully open ended to provoke our reflections.

1 Kings 2:31 The king said to him, Do as he has said, and fall on him, and bury him; that you may take away the blood which Joab shed without cause, from me and from my father’s house-

Solomon's reasoning was wrong in so many ways. To murder someone on the horns of the altar showed a lack of respect for Yahweh's holiness. Joab could easily have been removed and executed elsewhere. The blood shed by Joab "without cause" was no reason for his death at this stage; David himself had shed much blood without good cause. And Joab's guilt did not pass to David and Solomon. And murdering Joab did not somehow cleanse Solomon from some imagined guilt by association with Joab. Solomon wanted Joab dead because his father had told him to eliminate him. And so he was using any quasi spiritual reasoning which came into his head to justify it.

1 Kings 2:32 Yahweh will return his blood on his own head, because he fell on two men more righteous and better than he, and killed them with the sword, and my father David didn’t know it: Abner the son of Ner, captain of the army of Israel, and Amasa the son of Jether, captain of the army of Judah-

This may have been true on one level. But David had slain men like Uriah who were more righteous and better than himself. And been forgiven by grace. The reasons given by Solomon are in fact a condemnation of his father rather than a justification of him. We note already an effective distinction between Israel and Judah; the division which was to come was only bringing into the open what had historically been developing for generations. God confirms men in the divisions they themselves wish to happen, and binds together those who wish to unify.

1 Kings 2:33 So shall their blood return on the head of Joab, and on the head of his seed forever. But to David, and to his seed, and to his house, and to his throne, there shall be peace forever from Yahweh-

Solomon here states dogmatically that he is the eternally blessed seed of David, and his house and throne are to blessed with eternal peace with God. But those promises were conditional upon his obedience, and he ignored those conditions. He was led into this by the assumptions and parental obsessions of his father, but all the same, it was this which led him to make shipwreck of his faith. This assumption that the Davidic promises were fulfilled in him led him to a lack of self examination and no humility arising from a sense of the eternal future he might miss if he turned away. See on :45.

Solomon may be alluding to how "it will go well with you" if the shedder of innocent blood is condemned to death (Dt. 19:13). But he fails to realize that David was in exactly that situation, and had been saved by Divine grace alone. And he ought to have reflected that grace, even if David didn't.

1 Kings 2:34 Then Benaiah the son of Jehoiada went up and fell on him, and killed him; and he was buried in his own house in the wilderness-

The 'going up' would have been by the steps which led up to the altar; unless the reference is to 'going up' to the mount Zion where the temple was.

1 Kings 2:35 The king put Benaiah the son of Jehoiada in his place over the army; and the king put Zadok the priest in the place of Abiathar-

Benaiah surely did the wrong thing by slaying Joab, without evidence for his wrongdoing, by the altar. Yet he is rewarded for his conscienceless behaviour by political promotion. All this doesn't sound the stuff of God's Kingdom.

1 Kings 2:36 The king sent and called for Shimei and said to him, Build yourself a house in Jerusalem, and dwell there, and don’t go out anywhere from there-

The intention of making him move to Jerusalem from Bahurim (1 Kings 2:8) was surely in order to set him up to be murdered. Solomon reveals a very calculating and callous side, typical of a man who (unlike David) had never been personally spiritually desperate, and had not known grace.

1 Kings 2:37 For on the day you go out, and pass over the brook Kidron, know for certain that you shall surely die: your blood shall be on your own head-

Solomon may well have been present that terrible night when David and his family passed over the brook Kidron, and then encountered Shimei's cursing. And he therefore built this memory in to his punishment of Shimei. The Kidron was the river he would have had to cross were he to return to his home town of Bahurim, from whence he had been summoned to live in Jerusalem (1 Kings 2:8). See on :40. We sense Solomon's playing of God by the manner in which he alludes to the curse in Eden, that "in the day" the brook was crossed, "you shall surely die"; see on :44.

1 Kings 2:38 Shimei said to the king, The saying is good. As my lord the king has said, so will your servant do. Shimei lived in Jerusalem many days-

The description of the length of time periods in the Bible is relative; "many days" is three years (:39).

1 Kings 2:39 It happened at the end of three years, that two of the servants of Shimei ran away to Achish, son of Maacah, king of Gath. They told Shimei saying, Behold, your servants are in Gath-

These slaves may have been Philistines who ran back home. David had twice fled to Achish king of Gath (1 Sam. 21:10; 27:2). But Solomon is unmoved by these associations with his father's days of desperation and a life preserved by Divine grace.

1 Kings 2:40 Shimei arose, saddled his donkey, and went to Gath to Achish, to seek his servants; and Shimei went, and brought his servants from Gath-

The road to Gath would not have involved crossing the Kidron; it was in the opposite direction. For Solomon to insist that Shimei had broken the spirit of his commandment about not crossing the Kidron was therefore very legalistic, and not a very solid basis upon which to murder a man whom David had assured of forgiveness.

1 Kings 2:41 It was told Solomon that Shimei had gone from Jerusalem to Gath, and had come again-

Shimei surely did this assuming that he was not liable for the death penalty because he had not crossed the Kidron (:37), as Gath was in the opposite direction; and he had kept the spirit of the agreement in that he had returned. Solomon comes over as very much lacking in integrity in now killing him.

1 Kings 2:42 The king sent and called for Shimei, and said to him, Didn’t I adjure you by Yahweh and warn you, saying, ‘Know for certain, that on the day you go out, and walk abroad any where, you shall surely die?’. You said to me, ‘The saying that I have heard is good’-

There is no reference in the narrative to any such oath by Yahweh. This is not to say no such reference to Yahweh was made, but it also rather supports the impression we have of Solomon's lack of integrity and willingness to tell untruths; see on :40.

1 Kings 2:43 Why then have you not kept the oath of Yahweh, and the commandment that I have instructed you with?-

Solomon is condemned for not keeping the covenant / oath of Yahweh and His commands (s.w. 1 Kings 11:10,11, which implies he was guilty of not doing so from his youth). His hypocrisy and lack of grace is so marked.

1 Kings 2:44 The king said moreover to Shimei, You know all the wickedness which your heart knows full well, what you did to David my father. Therefore Yahweh shall return your wickedness on your own head-

Again, Solomon is playing God, as we saw him doing on :37. It was not Yahweh who was returning his wickedness upon him, but Solomon doing so. Shimei had apologized for his words of cursing, and David had forgiven him and given him assurances. Solomon's attitude is very wrong, and there was no Mosaic legal justification for the death penalty for cursing a man. And Shimei's stoning of David and calling him a "man of blood" had been justified, in that indeed David was worthy of death by stoning and was indeed a man of blood. To slate this as "wickedness" worthy of the death penalty is very severe judgment. And Solomon is choosing to respect his father's senile words spoken from his deathbed, rather than his father's earlier gracious forgiveness of Shimei.

1 Kings 2:45 But king Solomon shall be blessed, and the throne of David shall be established before Yahweh forever-

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

1 Kings 2:46 So the king commanded Benaiah the son of Jehoiada; and he went out, and fell on him, so that he died. The kingdom was established in the hand of Solomon-

Clearly the kingdom was established in a secular sense, by Solomon's brutal murder of potential contenders for the throne. But this was not the same as the promised eternal establishment of David's kingdom in the hands of his Messianic seed.

1 Kings Chapter 3

1 Kings 3:1 Solomon made affinity with Pharaoh king of Egypt, and took Pharaoh’s daughter, and brought her into the city of David, until he had made an end of building his own house, and the house of Yahweh, and the wall of Jerusalem all around-

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

1 Kings 3:2 At that time the people sacrificed in the high places, because there was no house built for the name of Yahweh-

This surely reflects Solomon’s perspective- for God Himself didn’t need a built house in which sacrifice could be offered. The temple became such an obsession with Solomon that he came to think that no really acceptable worship could occur outside of the idea which he had so developed in his own mind. It’s rather like thinking that one must have a physical church building in which to be an ecclesia of the living God- who doesn’t dwell in buildings made with hands.

"Only" the people sacrificed in high places... and Solomon loved the Lord... only  he sacrificed... in high places" (1 Kings 3:2,3), highlights the contradiction between Solomon's love for God and his willingness to sacrifice in the "high places" which God detested - for the Law clearly spelt out that sacrifice could only be offered in the tabernacle, at the place where Yahweh's Name was placed (Dt. 12:5-8; 14:23-25).

1 Kings 3:3 Solomon loved Yahweh, walking in the statutes of David his father: only he sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places-

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

1 Kings 3:4 The king went to Gibeon to sacrifice there; for that was the great high place. Solomon offered a thousand burnt offerings on that altar-

Zadok cared for the tabernacle at Gibeon, which was "the great high place" (1 Chron. 16:39; 1 Kings 3:4), and so it is another example of correlation within the inspired records that he had access to that horn and the oil with which to anoint Solomon (1 Kings 1:39). Solomon had replaced Abiathar with Zadok as chief priest, so perhaps his worship to Gibeon rather than Jerusalem [where Abiathar had officiated] was a nod towards Zadok.

1 Kings 3:5 In Gibeon Yahweh appeared to Solomon in a dream by night; and God said, Ask what I shall give you-

Godly men usually asked or enquired of God on their initiative, as David did (s.w. 1 Sam. 22:10; 23:4; 2 Sam. 5:19). But Solomon had apparently merely offered ritual sacrifices, and had not engaged with God in personal relationship. Now he is encouraged to do so.

I have argued that Ecclesiastes is Solomon's self reflection, a kind of autobiography. It is also a rejection and renunciation of his faith, because he wrote it at the end of his life, when his heart had been turned aside from God (1 Kings 11:3). I suggest it is this dream which is the reference of Ecc. 5:3: "For as a dream comes with a multitude of cares, so a fool’s speech with a multitude of words". If we enquire what reference a "dream" may have to Solomon's historical life, we naturally think of this dream at the start of his life when he was offered whatever he wanted, and he chose wisdom. Several times in Ecclesiastes he appears to regret that choice, as he considers there to be no ultimate advantage to wisdom or going God's way because death ends it all, and God, Solomon thinks, cannot resurrect the dead to judgment (Ecc. 3:22). And so in Ecc. 5:3 Solomon seems to be saying that that dream was simply self induced, an outcome of his "multitude of cares", and the "multitude of words" of wisdom he had written in response to it was but "a fool's speech". Like many who have had the direct involvement of God in their lives in youth, he came to rationalize it as nothing at all Divine, considering his dream had just been some Freudian reflection of his own internal "cares". And this kind of rationalizing of the Divine over time is absolutely true to observed experience in those who turn away from God.

1 Kings 3:6 Solomon said, You have shown to Your servant David my father great grace, according as he walked before You in truth, righteousness and in uprightness of heart with You. You have kept for him this great grace, that You have given him a son to sit on his throne, as it is this day-

Thus the eternity of God's truth is paralleled with the eternity of His righteousness (as in Ps. 119:142,160). David walked / lived "in truth and righteousness" (s.w. 1 Kings 3:6; Ps. 15:2), because this was how God is. The Messianic seed of David was to have this characteristic, ruling on David's throne in truth and righteousness (s.w. Is. 16:5).

But Solomon has it all the wrong way around in saying that Yahweh had showed grace to David because he had walked before Yahweh in truth. Solomon totally misunderstood grace. It is a pure gift from God, and not at all granted in response to our righteous walk.

These  words  are  doubtless an allusion to the mercy God showed David  in his relationship with Solomon's mother, Bathsheba. But Solomon  makes no mention of David's great faith in God's grace, and  his  subsequent  appreciation  that  animal sacrifices were meaningless.  These were David's real strong points, but Solomon is obsessed with David's public life of obedience ("according as he  walked"). He  evidently saw his father as the epitome of spiritual  good,  faultless  in God's sight. "Mercy" and "truth" both  occur  in  1 Kings  3:6,  and  they  often  refer to the promises.  Solomon seems to have seen the promises to David as a reward for David's good life, rather than an expression of God's unwarranted  grace.  David's  reaction  was  "Who  am  I...?" to receive  such  an  honour.  Solomon's  feeling  was  that  David deserved them because of his righteousness. So here is a feature of  many  parent : child  relationships in the Lord. The children love  and  respect  their parents spiritually, but often for the wrong  reasons;  they  actually  misunderstand their forefathers' spirituality.  This  is  why their understanding of parental and community expectation is often wrong in the first place.

1 Kings 3:7 Now, Yahweh my God-

See on :10.

You have made Your servant king instead of David my father. I am but a little child. I don’t know how to go out or come in-

Alluded to in Mt. 18:3,4; become a child so you can rule the Kingdom; Christ was the greatest child as he will be the greatest ruler. This sets Solomon up as our example in this aspect. Notice how Sarah’s unspiritual comments “cast out the bondwoman…” and “my Lord being old…”are interpreted positively in the NT.

Ecclesiastes is in many ways Solomon's self-examination; and it was accurate. He indicates that the temple had actually made him stumble, and that his numerous sacrifices had been the sacrifices of a fool, rather than the wise man he had appeared to  be (Ecc. 5:1); and surely he was casting a sideways glance at himself when he spoke of the wise child (cp. Solomon initially, 1 Kings 3:7) being greater than the old and foolish king who would no  longer be admonished  (Ecc. 4:13; even though Solomon had advisers, 1 Kings 12:6). Yet he chose to do absolutely nothing about this; once again, his accurate spiritual knowledge had no real practical influence upon him.

So very often  does Solomon speak of "David my father",  and  that  God  had made him king "instead of David my father"  (e.g. 1  Kings  3:7). Thus he asks Hiram to deal with him just as he had done with David his father (1 Kings 5:2-7; and cp. 1 Kings 5:1 with 2 Sam. 5:11). The number of times these phrases occur  in  the  records  is  so  large  that  we  simply have to recognize  that  God  is  pointing something out to us about the relationship  between Solomon and David (1 Kings 2:24,26,32,44; 3:6,7,14; 5:3,5; 6:12; 8:15,17,18,20,24,25,26; 9:4; 11:33; 2 Chron. 1:8,9; 2:3,7,14; 6:4,7,8,10,15,16; 7:17). Solomon was raised a believer, and he lived out parental expectation; but in later life, he himself was revealed as having no real faith at all, and he turned away from Yahweh to idolatry. So often in his prayers to  God does Solomon make reference to David; for example: "Thou hast  showed  unto  thy  servant  David  my  father great mercy, according   as   he   walked   before  thee  in  truth,  and  in righteousness,  and  in uprightness of heart with thee; and thou hast  kept for him this great kindness, that thou hast given him a son to sit upon his throne" (1 Kings 3:6).

1 Kings 3:8 Your servant is in the midst of Your people which You have chosen, a great people, that can’t be numbered nor counted for multitude-

Solomon assumes that the promises to Abraham of an innumerable seed had been fulfilled in his kingdom, just as he assumes the promises to David of the seed were fulfilled in him. He has no perspective of the future Kingdom of God, nor does he factor in the conditional nature of those promises.

And so Solomon 'had  the truth', he knew so deeply the true principles of  Yahweh  worship and the promises which formed the basis of the covenant. But like us, he scarcely considered the enormity of the gap between the theory he knew and the practice of it in his own heart and living. We too have a tendency to build up masses of Biblical and spiritual knowledge, and to let the mere acquisition of it stop us from practicing it. He flouted the explicit commandments  not to get horses from Egypt, not to marry Gentile women,  and  not  to multiply silver and gold (Dt. 17:17,18 cp. 1 Kings  10:21-29).  At  the  end  of his days, he recognized that although  he  had  loved  the  theory  of wisdom, the image of a spiritual  life, the wisdom of God had never really impacted his soul: "I said, I will be wise (referring back to his request for wisdom in 1 Kings 3); but it was far from me" (Ecc. 7:23). His request for wisdom had only been so that he could do the job of leading  Israel, living out the parental expectation of his father, whom he admits in Proverbs 4 had taught him to ask for wisdom. In Prov. 19:12 he speaks as if his own wisdom was like the dew coming down- as if he felt that the mere possession of wisdom made him the Messiah figure which his father had so hoped for him to be in Ps. 72:6). And he says as much in Prov. 29:3: “Whoso loveth wisdom [exactly what Solomon was commended for doing] rejoiceth his father”. He saw his wisdom and knowledge as some sort of a reward in themselves: “the prudent are crowned with knowledge” (Prov. 14:18). This is of course true in a sense, as all the Proverbs are. But Solomon surely had the idea that he, who was so renowned for his knowledge, was somehow thereby rewarded by having it. This assumption by Solomon was likely behind each of the many references he makes to the value of wisdom and the blessedness of the man who has it. It is rather like feeling that ‘we have the truth’ because somehow our correct understanding of doctrines is a reward for our righteousness, and mere possession of doctrinal truth means that we are acceptable to God.

1 Kings 3:9 Give Your servant therefore an understanding heart to judge Your people, that I may discern between good and evil; for who is able to judge this Your great people?-

I suggest on Ps. 119:169 that David asked for the word of promise that he would become king to be fulfilled; and in that context he asked for "wisdom / understanding" in how to rule Israel. And this was likewise the prayer of Solomon when he became king; but his motives were less than pure because he was consciously seeking to imitate his father in this request.

Solomon in Proverbs presents wisdom as of great personal benefit, indeed it is "for yourself"; and folly likewise is to your loss. But this presents a somewhat selfish view of wisdom. Solomon had been granted wisdom not for himself, but because he wanted to know how best to rule God's great people. But once he has the wisdom, he becomes exalted by it, and concludes that wisdom is essentially for the personal benefit of those who have it, "you are wise for yourself" (Prov. 9:12). Whatever truths are revealed to us are so that we might use them to the glory of God with others, and not to merely keep them for our own personal benefit.

1 Kings 3:10 The speech pleased the Lord, that Solomon had asked this thing-

See on :11. We may wonder why adonai is here used for "Lord", and elohim in :11, rather than Yahweh. It could well be that this reflects the fact that Solomon was not really in covenant relationship with Yahweh, from His viewpoint. Although Solomon certainly speaks of "Yahweh my God" in :7, it could be that this was mere language he had picked up from David. For his subsequent life shows him to have been a man who acted as if he were outside of covenant relationship with Yahweh. But that is not to say that his choice was not deeply pleasing to Yahweh, and He wanted to work further with Solomon to bring him to Himself.

1 Kings 3:11 God said to him, Because you have asked this thing, and have not asked for yourself long life, neither have asked riches for yourself, nor have asked the life of your enemies, but have asked for yourself understanding to discern justice-

God may be alluding to how David had asked long life and been given it (Ps. 21:8). This allusion was seeking to show Solomon that he was not to merely live out the image of his father David, but to think independently and forge his own relationship with God. Likewise Solomon had not taken literally the invitation of Ps. 2:8 to Messiah to "ask of Me (s.w. :5) and I will give you the Gentiles". Instead he had asked for wisdom.

1 Kings 3:12 therefore I have done according to your word. Behold, I have already given you a wise and an understanding heart; so that there has been none like you before you, neither after you shall any arise like you-

Solomon asked God for a wise heart- but he was told that God had already given him this. The process of educating Solomon in wisdom would have started long before; but it was released, as it were, by Solomon’s specific prayer. We likewise are to ask in faith believing that we already have the things we ask for.

1 Kings 3:13 I have also given you that which you have not asked-

We are not merely reading history here. God's word is living and engages with us in all generations. We too are given exceeding abundantly above all we ask (Eph. 3:20 alludes here)- if we put first the wisdom of achieving God's glory .

Both riches and honour, so that there shall not be any among the kings like you, all your days-

"Riches" is s.w. Prov. 14:24 "The crown of the wise is their riches, but the folly of fools crowns them with folly".

It was Solomon who was the king and wore the ultimate crown in his society. And he implies that his fantastic riches were a result of his wisdom, and that his pattern should be followed by others. But he fails to remember that his desire for wisdom was recognized by God in that He gave Solomon riches. Those riches were a gift from God, by grace, and not acquired or generated by his own application of wisdom. He therefore misused his possession of wisdom and experience of grace to justify himself, and present himself as a self made man; when he was not that at all.

Solomon knew and warned that a little folly can destroy the man who is in reputation for wisdom and honour (Ecc. 10:1). Solomon had “honour” [s.w.] to an unprecedented extent (1 Kings 3:13). But in the same book he admits that he, the man famed world-wide for wisdom, gave himself to folly (Ecc. 2:3). He knew so well the error and folly of his ways, but he could only preach the lesson but not heed it. He “saw that wisdom exceedeth folly” (Ecc. 2:13)- but so what...

1 Kings 3:14 If you will walk in My ways, to keep My statutes and My commandments as your father David walked, then I will lengthen your days-

God counted David as having observed His statutes, even though he laments that he doesn't observe them as he wished (s.w. Ps. 119:5,9). His desire to observe them was counted finally as if he had done so. Solomon was commanded to personally keep or watch over [s.w.] the commandments (1 Kings 3:14 and often); but he seemed to think that possession of intellectual understanding would keep / watch over him and of itself keep him in the way (Prov. 2:11). This is the temptation for all who pride themselves on possession of academic knowledge of Divine truth. God is here warning him against this, and reminding him of the conditional nature of the promises to him.

1 Kings 3:15 Solomon awoke; and behold, it was a dream-

We wonder why this detail is added, when it seems obvious. Perhaps later in the nihilism of Ecclesiastes he would come to think that he had merely had a dream about wisdom. For he reasons as if his wisdom is purely of himself, and acts and reasons as if he has had no relationship with Yahweh. Or maybe it is to highlight the fulfilment of Ps. 127:2: "He gives to His beloved (Jedidiah) in sleep".

Then he came to Jerusalem, and stood before the ark of the covenant of Yahweh, and offered up burnt offerings, offered peace offerings, and made a feast to all his servants-

Solomon had just offered before the sanctuary in Gibeon, and now he does so at Jerusalem, perhaps to indicate that he considered both shrines equally valid.

1 Kings 3:16 Then two women who were prostitutes came to the king, and stood before him-

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

1 Kings 3:17 The one woman said, Oh my lord, I and this woman live in one house. I gave birth with her in the house-

Solomon alludes to himself at this point in Prov. 18:17: "He who pleads his cause first seems right; until another comes and questions him". This is the language of the courtroom, and is advice to judges. But the average Israelite was not a courtroom judge. And so Solomon, as so often, has himself in view as the parade example of what he means. And the implication is that his judgments were perfect and beyond question, apart from by fools.

1 Kings 3:18 It happened the third day after I gave birth, that this woman gave birth also. We were together. There was no stranger with us in the house, just us two in the house-

Neither woman had assistance in giving birth. No family were present- they were prostitutes, the very lowest of Hebrew society, cut off from their extended families. See on :16.

1 Kings 3:19 This woman’s child died in the night, because she lay on it-

"This woman..." enables us to play Bible television with the record, and imagine it all happening right before our eyes. See on :22.

1 Kings 3:20 She arose at midnight, and took my son from beside me, while your handmaid slept, and laid it in her bosom, and laid her dead child in my bosom-

The story lacks credibility, although they both apparently repeated it. If the other woman was awake at midnight and saw the guilty woman arising, then why did she allow her to swap over the babies? But the way of wisdom and justice (see on :28) is not to always point out the glaring inconsistencies within the narrative or beliefs of others. But to act on a higher level. We see this kind of thing so often in the way the Lord responded to questions.

1 Kings 3:21 When I rose in the morning to nurse my child, behold, it was dead; but when I had looked at it in the morning, behold, it was not my son, whom I bore-

The first "morning" would be the twilight of dawn, but then when the sun arose she realized it was not her son. As noted on :20, the story line of both women has internal contradictions. But the way of wisdom and justice was not to point these out.

1 Kings 3:22 The other woman said, No; but the living is my son, and the dead is your son. The other said, No; but the dead is your son, and the living is my son. Thus they spoke before the king-

The repetition of the phrase "the other" invites us to first listen and look at one woman making her case, and then swivel our attention to the other. See on :19.

1 Kings 3:23 Then the king said, The one says, ‘This is my son who lives, and your son is the dead’; and the other says, ‘No; but your son is the dead one, and my son is the living one’-

As noted on :20,21, there were internal contradictions in their stories which a judge would typically have picked up on and explored further, in order to elicit whose story was more credible. The women come over as simple, and it would not have been hard through a series of questions to get closer to the truth. But the way of wisdom and justice (:28) is not like this nor does it treat people in that forensic manner. And it was this which so impressed the observing audience.

1 Kings 3:24 The king said, Get me a sword. They brought a sword before the king-

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

1 Kings 3:25 The king said, Divide the living child in two, and give half to the one, and half to the other-

This was not Solomon's intention, as he stresses "in no way kill it" (:27). It was done to elicit the psychological reaction of the women, and this was to be the basis of discerning truth. Likewise truth is arrived at in ways other than forensic examination of evidence and argumentation. This is the way of the Spirit and true wisdom.

1 Kings 3:26 Then the woman whose the living child was spoke to the king, for her heart yearned over her son, and she said, Oh my lord, give her the living child, and in no way kill it! But the other said, It shall be neither mine nor yours. Divide it-

The instinctive gut reaction of the true mother said it all and showed her for who she was. It may be that when the one said "Let (the baby) be neither mine nor yours, but divide it", this is the Spirit's description of her inner attitude, rather than the literal words she spoke. But her inner thoughts were counted as her words (careful re-reading and reflection make this seem most likely here).

1 Kings 3:27 Then the king answered, Give her the living child, and in no way kill it. She is its mother-

The law's requirement that he whore be put to death is shown to be inappropriate as we imagine the poor infant in the presence of these low life women. To save its life but then execute its mother would have been wrong. True wisdom and justice (:28) saw far beyond this letter of the law. And this is  pattern for us today.

1 Kings 3:28 All Israel heard of the judgment which the king had judged; and they feared the king: for they saw that the wisdom of God was in him, to do justice-

But as noted on :16, that "justice" was not the judgment which the law required for prostitutes. "The wisdom of God was in the midst of him" (1 Kings 3:28 AVmg) looks ahead to the description of the Lord Jesus in Col. 2:3. On one hand Solomon was a type of Christ, but in reality it was rather that he had been potentially empowered to be the Messianic seed, but he failed. And the Lord Jesus fulfilled the potentials of the seed perfectly, leaving Solomon a failed, marred reflection of Him.

1 Kings Chapter 4

1 Kings 4:1 King Solomon was king over all Israel-

The unity of Israel is associated with its glory. Israel's maximum point of glory under Solomon was also its historically most united period.

1 Kings 4:2 These were the princes whom he had: Azariah the son of Zadok, the priest-

Azariah was therefore a king-priest (cp. Rev. 5:10). The kingdom of Solomon can indeed be viewed as a type of the future kingdom of the Lord Jesus. The twelve deputy rulers (:7) correspond with Mt. 19:28; the provision of food each month (:27) corresponds with Is. 66:23; Ez. 47:12 and Rev. 22:2. But in reality it was rather that Solomon had been potentially empowered to be the Messianic seed with a Messianic kingdom as promised to David, but he failed. And the Lord Jesus fulfilled the potentials of the seed perfectly, leaving Solomon and his kingdom as a failed, marred reflection of Him.

1 Kings 4:3 Elihoreph and Ahijah, the sons of Shisha, scribes; Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud, the recorder-

Shisha was the Shavsha of 1 Chron. 18:16, the Sheva of 2 Sam. 20:25 and the Seraiah of 2 Sam. 8:17. Jehoshaphat would have now been elderly (2 Sam. 8:16; 20:24); see on :4.

1 Kings 4:4 Benaiah the son of Jehoiada was over the army; Zadok and Abiathar were priests-

This is only a description of things as they initially were. For Abiathar was soon deposed by Solomon, and Benaiah was by now an old man who would not have lived long into Solomon's reign.

1 Kings 4:5 Azariah the son of Nathan was over the officers; Zabud the son of Nathan was chief officer, the king’s friend-

Solomon alludes to this in Prov. 27:9: "Perfume and incense bring joy to the heart; so does earnest counsel from a man’s friend". This is true, but Solomon may be using Divine truth to justify himself; for he had appointed the son of Nathan the prophet, loyal to David his father, as "the king's friend".

1 Kings 4:6 Ahishar was over the household; and Adoniram the son of Abda was over the men subject to forced labour-

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

1 Kings 4:7 Solomon had twelve officers over all Israel, who provided food for the king and his household: each man had to make provision for a month in the year-

See on :2. This implies a huge amount of food was required by Solomon to feed his extended family. His 700 wives and 300 concubines would have produced many children who all required feeding. Solomon's indulgence of every sexual whim came at a cost, which he forced his people to meet; and it gave him no family happiness, but rather led him to the cynical reflection of Ecc. 5:11.

1 Kings 4:8 These are their names: Ben Hur, in the hill country of Ephraim-

It could be argued that Solomon's taxation system was effectively taxing the other tribes apart from Judah. For the twelve administrative districts exclude Judah:

1. Mount Ephraim

2. Makaz

3. Arubboth

4. Naphath-dor

5. Taanach and Megiddo

6. Ramoth-gilead

7. Mahanaim

8. Naphtali

9. Asher and Zebulun

10. Issachar

11. Benjamin

12. The land of Gad (1 Kings 4: 7-19)

This organization was not strictly according to the tribal divisions but was more geographically based. Thus group 2 was from both Dan and Ephraim; group 3 from both Manasseh and Ephraim. Perhaps this was an intentional attempt to undermine tribalism, which Solomon saw as a potential threat to his power base. If he had been obedient to God, he could have been quietly assured that God and not his cunning would establish and eternally maintain his kingdom. And yet the regional governors imposed by Solomon were largely from Judah or somehow related to David's "old guard". This group 9 was ruled by the son of David's advisor Hushai (2 Sam. 15:32-37). Group 8 by Solomon's son in law Ahimaaz (1 Kings 4:15). Group 5 was ruled by a connection with the priest Zadok, and possible by the brother of David, and Solomon's scribe Jehoshaphat (1 Kings 4:3). Abinadab of group 7 was probably the son of Iddo who had been one of David's men (1 Chron. 27:21). Abinadab who ruled Group 4 was Solomon's son in law (I Kings 4:11).

All this was an attempt by Solomon to establish the kingdom in his own strength. The regional governors were not locals, but rather under the direct control of Solomon in Jerusalem and appointed on the basis of loyalty to him. No wonder that after his death, the other tribes wanted to break free from Judah.

1 Kings 4:9 Ben Deker, in Makaz, and in Shaalbim, and Beth Shemesh, and Elon Beth Hanan-

These were in Dan (Jud. 1:35). Beth Shemesh was a priestly city (Josh. 21:16), but Solomon still required them to pay taxes to him in Jerusalem, contrary to the spirit of the Mosaic law.

1 Kings 4:10 Ben Hesed, in Arubboth (to him belonged Socoh, and all the land of Hepher)-

I suggest this Socoh is the one in Manasseh and not the one in Judah; see on :8.

1 Kings 4:11 Ben Abinadab, in all the height of Dor (he had Taphath the daughter of Solomon as wife)-

- See on :8.

1 Kings 4:12 Baana the son of Ahilud, in Taanach and Megiddo, and all Beth Shean which is beside Zarethan, beneath Jezreel, from Beth Shean to Abel Meholah, as far as beyond Jokmeam-

The brother of Jehoshaphat (:3), again reflecting how the rulers of the regions were not local men but part of Solomon's inner circle, or their relatives. See on :8.

1 Kings 4:13 Ben Geber, in Ramoth Gilead (to him belonged the towns of Jair the son of Manasseh, which are in Gilead; to him belonged the region of Argob, which is in Bashan, sixty great cities with walls and bronze bars)-

They had begun as small towns (Num. 32:41) but had grown since then. But they were all to pay their taxes to Jerusalem; see on :8.

1 Kings 4:14 Ahinadab the son of Iddo, in Mahanaim-

- See on :8.

1 Kings 4:15 Ahimaaz, in Naphtali (he also took Basemath the daughter of Solomon as wife)-

- See on :8.

1 Kings 4:16 Baana the son of Hushai, in Asher and Bealoth-

- See on :8.

1 Kings 4:17 Jehoshaphat the son of Paruah, in Issachar- See on :8.

1 Kings 4:18 Shimei the son of Ela, in Benjamin-

Although Judah and Benjamin were always connected, as explained on :8, Solomon expected Benjamin to pay taxes to him in Jerusalem. We note at this point the clear omission of Judah as a taxable area.

1 Kings 4:19 Geber the son of Uri, in the land of Gilead, the country of Sihon king of the Amorites and of Og king of Bashan; and he was the only officer who was in the land-

"Only" could mean "the greatest", and "the land" may refer to the territory on the east of Jordan. "Officer" translates a military term; the idea may be that he was the only garrison officer stationed in that area, which had many Gentiles in it.

1 Kings 4:20 Judah and Israel were many as the sand which is by the sea in multitude, eating and drinking and making merry-

This is alluded to by Solomon in Prov. 14:28 GNB: "A king's greatness depends on how many people he rules; without them he is nothing". Solomon is again justifying himself, for the people at his time are described as very many at his time (1 Kings 4:20). Solomon is harnessing Divine truth to his own agenda of self justification. And we who claim to hold His truths must take warning.

We must remember that baptism means that we are now the seed of Abraham, and the blessings of forgiveness, of all spiritual blessings in heavenly places, and God's turning us away from our sins are right now being fulfilled in us (Acts 3:27-29). Israel were multiplied as the sand on the sea shore (2 Sam. 17:11; 1 Kings 4:20), they possessed the gates of their enemies (Dt. 17:2; 18:6)- all in antitype of how Abraham's future seed would also receive the promised blessings in their mortal experience, as well as in the eternal blessedness of the future Kingdom.

"Judah and Israel were many, as the sand which is by the sea in multitude, eating and drinking and making merry" combines allusions to two different passages. Clearly there is reference to the fact that the Abrahamic promises had a primary fulfillment at this time.  But the final phrase refers back to Israel's idolatry with the golden calf.  It is as if the dualism within Solomon at this time - in being the primary fulfillment of the seed, and yet also being apostate - was fulfilled in Israel. We see elsewhere several indications that Solomon and Israel were closely connected (cp. Christ and the church).

1 Kings 4:21 Solomon ruled over all the kingdoms from the River to the land of the Philistines, and to the border of Egypt: they brought tribute, and served Solomon all the days of his life-

Israel was at its largest extent in Solomon's Kingdom; lost land was restored, and the borders re-established (2 Chron. 9:26; 8:4  cp. Josh. 16:3,5); it was also at its political strongest; nations submitted to Solomon (1 Kings 4:20); Israel was the chief of the nations and the nations brought "presents" (s.w. sacrifices) to him  (1 Kings  4:21). All this looked ahead to the Messianic Kingdom; but see on :25.

1 Kings 4:22 Solomon’s provision for one day was thirty measures of fine flour, and sixty measures of meal-

Solomon in Prov. 23:3 warned not to desire huge meals. But Solomon clearly revelled in his food, and speaks in Ecclesiastes of how he tried to find fulfilment in gluttony. He knew God's truth, but "it was far from me" personally, as he laments in Ecclesiastes. There mere possession of Divine truth can in fact lead a man to think it doesn't apply to him. This is why the word must be made flesh in us, as it was in the Lord.

1 Kings 4:23 ten head of fat cattle, twenty head of cattle out of the pastures, one hundred sheep, besides harts, gazelles, roebucks and fattened fowl-

"Fattened fowl" has been translated as geese or swans. Not all these animals were clean food, but Solomon (according to Ecclesiastes) wanted to experiment with all human experience.

1 Kings 4:24 For he had dominion over all on this side of the River, from Tiphsah even to Gaza, over all the kings on this side of the River: and he had peace on all sides around him-

In the context of this chapter, the "dominion" in view may mean that all had to pay taxes to Solomon.

1 Kings 4:25 Judah and Israel lived safely, every man under his vine and under his fig tree, from Dan even to Beersheba, all the days of Solomon-

Clearly this language, and the great fertility of the land implied by :22-28, is the language of the Messianic kingdom (Mic. 4:4; Ez. 34:28; Is. 35:1,2). But in reality it was rather that Solomon had been potentially empowered to be the Messianic seed with a Messianic kingdom as promised to David, but he failed. And the Lord Jesus fulfilled the potentials of the seed perfectly, leaving Solomon and his kingdom as a failed, marred reflection of Him.

1 Kings 4:26 Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen-

Solomon's enthusiasm for Egyptian horses is clearly chronicled (1 Kings 4:26-28), although this was studied disobedience to Dt. 17:16. There is a powerful point to be made here: we can deceive ourselves that God is blessing us, when actually we are breaching explicit commands. Would Solomon had understood the concept of self-examination.

1 Kings 4:27 Those officers provided food for king Solomon, and for all who came to king Solomon’s table, every man in his month-

“He that loves silver (as Solomon did, Ecc. 2:8; 1 Kings 10:21-29) shall not be satisfied with silver (as he wasn’t- see Ecc. 2); nor he that loves abundance (s.w. used about the abundance of Solomon’s wives, 2 Chron. 11:23) with increase. When goods increase, they are increased that eat them (cp. the large numbers at his table, 1 Kings 4:27)” (Ecc. 5:10,11). The Hebrew word translated “not be satisfied” occurs around 25 times in the Proverbs, with Solomon warning of how the way of the flesh couldn’t satisfy. Solomon said all this with an eye on himself. He preached it to others, he felt deeply the truth of it, but he saw no personal way out of it. All he had was the accurate knowledge of his situation, but no real motivation to change- like the alcoholic or drug abuser who knows every aspect of the harm of his habit.

They let nothing be lacking-

Heb. ‘they let nothing be missing'. This is in the context of describing the taxation system, whereby taxation was enforced and the taxes were indeed gathered to Solomon.

1 Kings 4:28 Barley also and straw for the horses and swift steeds brought they to the place where the officers were, each man according to his duty-

Just as Solomon's abundance of wives led to having a few thousand mouths to feed, and Israel needed to provide for that; so his obsession with thousands of horses meant that there was a need for a huge amount of fodder for them. And all Israel had to provide this- all for the sake of Solomon's obsessive desires. That he reigned for as long as he did was truly a sign of God's grace to him for the sake of his father David, and is a tacit reflection of how much God loved David despite all his failures.

1 Kings 4:29 God gave Solomon great wisdom and understanding, and very great perception, according to the sand which is on the seashore-

His wisdom was to guide Israel, but it concerned the natural creation; as if his expositions concerning this were teaching spiritual lessons (1 Kings 4:29,32,33)- as the Lord's parables. The "largenss of heart" (AV) was to be experienced by all Israel, whose largeness of heart was to lead to the Gentiles flowing to them (Is. 60:5). Paul's appeal to allow the Holy Spirit to enlarge our hearts could be seen as alluding to the gift given Solomon (2 Cor. 6:11,13).

The description of the "largeness" of heart in 1 Kings 4:29 uses the  same word used about the largeness of the land of Israel in Ex. 3:8; Neh. 9:35; his wisdom was "as the sand that is on the sea shore",  as Israel were described in Gen. 22:17. He wanted wisdom, but so as to teach it to others, not to personalize it. Even in his spiritual  collapse  at the time of Ecclesiastes, Solomon still  taught  Israel  true  wisdom,  and organized his wisdom into more accessible books (Ecc. 12:9-12), giving himself the title koheleth (‘the preacher’). And yet he himself tried alcohol, wealth, women, indeed every addiction, in order to “see what was that good for the sons of men, which they should do under the heaven” (Ecc. 2:3). And yet he knew from childhood the conclusion of the matter- man’s duty is to fear God and be obedient (Ecc. 12:13). He who had been given wisdom started out in a search for it… showing clearly enough that what he knew was so much theory, but never touched his own heart. Solomon taught wisdom to the youngsters, but he gave himself over to search for some kind of vague philosophical truth outside of God.

1 Kings 4:30 Solomon’s wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east, and all the wisdom of Egypt-

If this is simply God's comment, then it would be axiomatic that Solomon's Divinely given wisdom was better than that of the Gentiles. So we should rather read this as stating how his wisdom was perceived amongst the Gentiles.

1 Kings 4:31 For he was wiser than all men; than Ethan the Ezrahite, Heman-

Ethan and Heman are mentioned together in 1 Kings 4:31 as men whom Solomon's wisdom exceeded; and in 1 Chron. 15:19 they are both singers whom David appointed. We can assume that they were famed for their wisdom; but Solomon's wisdom exceeded theirs.

Calcol, Darda, the sons of Mahol: and his fame was in all the nations all around-

Calcol and the other names mentioned in 1 Kings 4:31 as wise men are all mentioned in 1 Chron. 2:6 as sons of Zerah, men of Judah. The idea of 1 Kings 4:30,31 is that Solomon's wisdom exceeded that of famous Gentile wise men, and also of the wise men of Judah.

1 Kings 4:32 He spoke three thousand proverbs; and his songs were one thousand and five-

LXX says 5000 songs. David was famed as Israel's psalmist, and his songs were distributed to the surrounding nations, appealing for them to turn to Israel's God. Solomon's obsession with writing songs can be seen as an attempt to live out his father's image.

1 Kings 4:33 He spoke of trees, from the cedar that is in Lebanon even to the hyssop that springs out of the wall; he spoke also of animals, birds, creeping things and fish-

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

1 Kings 4:34 There came of all peoples to hear the wisdom of Solomon, from all kings of the earth, who had heard of his wisdom-

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

1 Kings Chapter 5

1 Kings 5:1 Hiram king of Tyre sent his servants to Solomon; for he had heard that they had anointed him king in the place of his father: for Hiram had always admired David-

So very often does Solomon speak of "David my father",  and  that  God had made him king "instead of David my father" (e.g. 1 Kings  3:7). Thus he asks Hiram to deal with him just as he had done with David his father (1 Kings 5:2-7; and cp. 1 Kings 5:1 with 2 Sam. 5:11). The number of times these phrases occur  in  the  records  is so  large  that  we  simply have to recognize  that  God is pointing something out to us about the relationship  between Solomon and David (1 Kings 2:24,26,32,44; 3:6,7,14; 5:3,5; 6:12; 8:15,17,18,20,24,25,26; 9:4; 11:33; 2 Chron. 1:8,9; 2:3,7,14; 6:4,7,8,10,15,16; 7:17). Solomon was raised a believer, and he lived out parental expectation; but in later life, he himself was revealed as having no real faith at all, and he turned away from Yahweh to idolatry. So often in his prayers to God does Solomon make reference to David; for example: "Thou hast showed unto thy servant  David  my  father great mercy, according as he walked before  thee  in  truth, and in righteousness, and in uprightness of heart with thee; and thou hast kept for him this great kindness, that thou hast given him a son to sit upon his throne" (1 Kings 3:6).

1 Kings 5:2 Solomon sent to Hiram saying-

As noted on :1, Solomon was obsessed with living out the image of his father. As Hiram had sent messengers to David (2 Sam. 5:11), so Solomon sends to Hiram.

1 Kings 5:3 You know how that David my father could not build a house for the name of Yahweh his God for the wars which were about him on every side, until Yahweh put his enemies under the soles of his feet-

Solomon had a way of spinning things, even God’s word, in his own selfish way. David had insisted that God had told him that he couldn’t build the temple because he had shed so much blood in war (1 Chron. 22:8). But Solomon just slightly spins this when he asks Hiram to come and help him build the temple, because, he says, his father David hadn’t had the time to get around to the job because of being busy fighting wars (1 Kings 5:3). He says nothing about David shedding blood; the moral aspect of it all is nicely ignored by Solomon.

1 Kings 5:4 But now Yahweh my God has given me rest on every side. There is no adversary nor any evil occurrence-

Solomon imagines that his kingdom is the promised "rest" of the Messianic kingdom promised to David. But his degree of "rest" was only in his imagination. For he had various adversaries on the borders, Hadad, Rezon and others (1 Kings 11:14,23,25). So again, Solomon is spinning things to fit his narrative.

The Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament uses the Greek word diabolos to translate the Hebrew 'Satan'. Hence Devil and Satan are effectively parallel in meaning. Thus we read in the Septuagint of David being an adversary [Heb. Satan, Gk. diabolos] in 1 Sam. 29:4 ["turns against us"]; the sons of Zeruiah (2 Sam. 19:22), Hadad, Rezon and other opponents to Solomon (1 Kings 5:4; 11:14,23,25). We face a simple choice- if we believe that every reference to 'Satan' or 'Devil' refers to an evil cosmic being, then we have to assume that these people weren't people at all, and that even good men like David were evil. The far more natural reading of these passages is surely that 'Satan' is simply a word meaning 'adversary', and can be applied to people [good and bad], and even God Himself- it carries no pejorative, sinister meaning as a word. See on :18.

1 Kings 5:5 Behold, I purpose to build a house for the name of Yahweh my God, as Yahweh spoke to David my father saying, ‘Your son, whom I will set on your throne in your place, he shall build the house for My name’-

Again this is a spin; because it was David who had purposed to build the temple, and had prepared for it. And again we see Solomon assuming that the promises of 2 Sam. 7 were totally fulfilled in him; whereas being the Messianic son of David was conditional. And the house to be built was more essentially the house of God's family which God was to build for David rather than any physical temple. But Solomon totally missed all this.

1 Kings 5:6 Now therefore command that they cut me cedar trees out of Lebanon. My servants shall be with your servants; and I will give you wages for your servants according to all that you shall say. For you know that there is not among us any who knows how to cut timber like the Sidonians-

Perhaps this was connected with the Divine wisdom about cedar trees which God had given Solomon (1 Kings 4:33).

1 Kings 5:7 It happened, when Hiram heard the words of Solomon, that he was very pleased and said, Blessed is Yahweh this day, who has given to David a wise son over this great people-

Hiram's usage of the Yahweh Name could suggest he had become a proselyte and was therefore eager to assist with building the temple.

1 Kings 5:8 Hiram sent to Solomon saying, I have heard the message which you have sent to me. I will do all your desire concerning timber of cedar and concerning timber of fir-

"Fir" is LXX pine wood. This would have created a distinctive and pleasant smell in the temple.

1 Kings 5:9 My servants shall bring them down from Lebanon to the sea. I will make them into rafts to go by sea to the place that you shall appoint me, and will cause them to be broken up there, and you shall receive them. You shall accomplish my desire, in giving food for my household-

The appointed place was Joppa (2 Chron. 2:16). Tyre was built on a small island, and so as a maritime trading nation, regular provision of fresh food was greatly sought after by them.

1 Kings 5:10 So Hiram gave Solomon timber of cedar and timber of fir according to all his desire-

There is the hint that Solomon's work for the temple was really not so much for God, as a fulfilment of his own desires. He served God only insofar as it was attractive to him. We note from Ecclesiastes that he was obsessed with building work; and his work for the temple was just part of that. We need to learn the lesson; that service of God is not according to what we want to do, but according to what people need and what will glorify God.

1 Kings 5:11 Solomon gave Hiram twenty thousand measures of wheat for food for his household, and twenty measures of pure oil. Solomon gave this to Hiram year by year-

The different figures in 1 Kings 5:11 cp. 2 Chron. 2:10 could be because part of the amount was for Tyre generally, and part for Hiram's personal household. Twenty measure of pure oil appears relatively small; but it is the same word used for the oil of the tabernacle rituals (Ex. 27:20), and as a proselyte Hiram may well have built his own kind of tabernacle system. I suggest on Ez. 28:14 that he indeed did so, but it turned into apostacy.

1 Kings 5:12 Yahweh had given Solomon wisdom, as He promised him; and there was peace between Hiram and Solomon; and they two made a treaty together-

The implication is that the way of peace is the way of wisdom.

1 Kings 5:13 King Solomon raised a levy out of all Israel; and the levy was thirty thousand men-

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

1 Kings 5:14 He sent them to Lebanon, ten thousand a month by courses; a month they were in Lebanon, and two months at home; and Adoniram was over the men subject to forced labour-

The emphasis upon the forced labour brigades is significant (1 Kings 4:6; 5:13,14; 12:18), and it was Solomon's brutal treatment of his people which led to the complaint after his death that he had whipped the people and abused them. This was exactly as Samuel had warned the people would happen if they chose a human king rather than God as their king; for God is kinder than men. We see therefore that Solomon was no better than Saul. All his wisdom failed to make him value the meaning f the human person. It was therefore only held by him in theory not in practice.

1 Kings 5:15 Solomon had seventy thousand who bore burdens, and eighty thousand who were stone cutters in the mountains-

1 Kings 5:13-16 reveals that Solomon had 153,000  full  time  and  90,000  part  time male servants. Israel's  complaint  that  Solomon  had  whipped them implies  that  he  treated them like slaves, with himself as the slave-driver. 600,000  adults came out of Egypt (Ex. 12:37), and assuming  the  population only  rose  slightly over the next 550 years, we  have  the picture of an Israel where almost half the males  (i.e. probably the majority of the working population) were pressganged into slavery to a despotic King Solomon.

This huge number of men involved in quarrying and transportation of the stones was because of the obsession with building projects which Solomon admits he had in Ecclesiastes. Just as Solomon's abundance of wives led to having a few thousand mouths to feed, and Israel needed to provide for that; so his obsession with thousands of horses meant that there was a need for a huge amount of fodder for them (1 Kings 4:28). And all Israel had to provide this- all for the sake of Solomon's obsessive desires. That he reigned for as long as he did was truly a sign of God's grace to him for the sake of his father David, and is a tacit reflection of how much God loved David despite all his failures.

The huge amount of labour required- 80,000 men hewing stone alone- was nothing more than Solomon acting like Pharaoh, using taskmasters to trample down / rule over the people to achieve his quotas and enable his building fantasies to become reality. The Hebrew word translated "bear rule over' (Heb. 'to trample down') in 1 Kings 5:16 is that which we find in the Law's prohibition of this in Lev. 25:46: "But over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule over one another with rigour". Solomon knew the Law, and he rambles on in Proverbs about the need to read, love and obey that law. And yet he thought that he could give that one a miss, 'because I am doing God's work and building His house'. And how many a believer has ended up missing the entire point of God's law, the very essence of Christianity, because of their obsession with serving God in a form which is effectively merely serving themselves, excusing their fantasies in the name of doing God service. It's the process of Solomon's apostacy which is so instructive; for he justified himself by saying that he was doing God's work. He didn't simply quit on God.

1 Kings 5:16 besides Solomon’s chief officers who were over the work, three thousand three hundred, who bore rule over the people who laboured in the work-

See on :13. This levy was evidently one of the reasons which led the next generation to complain that Solomon had chastised the people with whips (1 Kings 12:11; the happiness of the people which the Queen of Sheba observed in 1 Kings 10:8 was therefore just an impression Solomon arranged for her to receive). Yet "this is the reason of the levy which king Solomon raised: in order to build the house of the Lord, and his own house..." (1 Kings 9:15). Solomon justified his zest for power and control by saying it was in order to do the Lord's work, to build His house... and yet had he listened to God's word more carefully, he would have realized that the true house of Yahweh was in fact people... yet Solomon abused people in order to build a visible house for God. And so very often religious people have gone down the same path- devaluing the meaning and value of persons, because they want to be seen as achieving something visible for God, no matter how many people they abuse on the way. The ends simply don't justify the means; Solomon told himself that they did, and he ended up as bad as Saul and Pharaoh, who are alluded to in the records of his levy of slaves from Israel. And yet the 1 Kings record gives the impression of all happily working together to create a great temple for God. When we probe deeper, we find this was far from the case.

David had prophesied that his great son would "have dominion from sea to sea" (Ps. 72:8). 'Have dominion' is again the Hebrew word translated 'rule over' in 1 Kings 5:15. David's vision of his Messianic son having a world-wide Kingdom, in which all people blessed him for his grace and beneficence, was abused by Solomon into justifying 'having dominion' over people as his personal slaves; and they certainly didn't bless him for it but rather complained (1 Kings 12:11). It's as if Solomon grabbed the word 'rule over / have dominion', wrenched it out of context, and used it to justify his actions, giving a quasi-Biblical justification to his pure selfishness. This is where knowledge of God's word can be a dangerous thing; leading people into a stronger self-justification than they would otherwise have had if they were guided by self-recognized greed alone.

1 Kings 5:17 The king commanded, and they cut out great stones, costly stones, to lay the foundation of the house with worked stone-

But 1 Kings 9:15 says that all this labour regarding quarrying was not simply for the temple; but also for his own house, which was far larger than God's house, and took nearly twice as long to build. He justified his own serving of his own desires under the guise of serving God.

1 Kings 5:18 Solomon’s builders along with Hiram’s builders and the Gebalites cut them, and prepared the timber and the stones to build the house-

The idea of Israelites and Gentiles working together to build God's house looks ahead to the greater fulfilment in the things of the Kingdom of the Lord Jesus. The kingdom of Solomon can indeed be viewed as a type of the future kingdom of the Lord Jesus (see on 1 Kings 4:2). But in reality it was rather that Solomon had been potentially empowered to be the Messianic seed with a Messianic kingdom as promised to David, but he failed. And the Lord Jesus fulfilled the potentials of the seed perfectly, leaving Solomon and his kingdom as a failed, marred reflection of Him.

1 Kings Chapter 6

1 Kings 6:1  It happened in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel had come out of the land of Egypt-

LXX gives the 440th year. Sometimes the Biblical record is vague, other times exact. This reflects how God is not seeking to cover His back against critics. He is of an altogether higher nature than that. There are times when the Spirit uses very approximate numbers rather than exact ("about the space of four hundred and fifty years", Acts 13:20 cp. 1 Kings 6:1). As noted on :38, the temple was built in seven and a half years, but this is summarized as seven years. The reference to "seventy" in Judges 9:56 also doesn't seem exact. Seven and a half years (2 Sam. 2:11) becomes "seven years" (1 Kings 2:11); three months and ten days (2 Chron. 36:9) becomes "three months" (2 Kings 24:8). And 1 Kings 7:23 gives the circumference of the laver as “thirty cubits”, although it was ten cubits broad. Taking ‘pi’ to be 3.14, it is apparent that the circumference would have been 31.4 cubits; but the Spirit says, summing up, “thirty”.

In the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month Ziv, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of Yahweh-

The note in the LXX at the end of 1 Kings 5 says that the preparation of the materials took three years. Which would mean that Solomon began the project immediately he came to the throne, wrongly seeing the building of the temple as some kind of proof that he was indeed the Messianic son of David promised in 2 Sam. 7.

1 Kings 6:2 The house which king Solomon built for Yahweh, its length was sixty cubits, and its breadth twenty, and its height thirty cubits-

This was twice the size of the tabernacle. Psalm 127 is prefaced with the information that it is a Psalm for Solomon- perhaps given by some nameless prophet (Gad? Nathan?) to warn him of where he was going. Verse 1 reminds him that God must be the builder of any house, or else the builders labour in vain. There is good reason to think that Solomon utterly failed to appreciate this. The records stress time and again that Solomon  built the temple (1 Kings 6:2,14; 9:10,25; 10:4; 1 Chron.6:10,32; 2 Chron. 8:1,12; 9:3; Acts 7:47); yet the house referred to in the Davidic promises was to be built by God, through David's Messianic Son, the Lord Jesus. Zechariah prophesied at the time of the rebuilding of the physical temple. It is significant, in this context, that Zech. 6:12 reminds Israel that the true temple of God will be built by the Branch, the Lord Jesus.

1 Kings 6:3 The porch before the temple of the house, twenty cubits was its length, according to the breadth of the house. Ten cubits was its breadth before the house-

The height of the porch was 120 cubits, or 180 feet (2 Chron. 3:4). This is out of proportion to the length and breadth. Perhaps what is meant is that the height of each of the four walls has been added together, which would give a height of 30 cubits. This style is to be found in 2 Chron. 3:11, where the length of the wings of the cherubim is given as 20 cubits, but this was a way of saying that each of the four wings was five cubits long. We have another example in the way that the two pillars are said to be 18 cubits high (1 Kings 7:15), but in 2 Chron. 3:15 they are 35 cubits high. What that means is that there were two cubits of 17.5 cubits high each, summarized as 18 cubits high in 1 Kings 7:15.

1 Kings 6:4 He made windows of fixed lattice work for the house-

"Windows broad within and narrow without" (AVmg.). They were for ventilation, not for light. There was no natural light in the temple just as there wasn't in the tabernacle. The hope was that it would be lit by the light of God's glory; and likewise there is no natural light in the spiritual temple, only that of God's glory.

1 Kings 6:5 Against the wall of the house he built storeys all around, against the walls of the house all around, both of the temple and of the oracle; and he made side rooms all around-

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

1 Kings 6:6 The lowest storey was five cubits broad, and the middle was six cubits broad, and the third was seven cubits broad-

This refers to the gap between the wall of the temple and the outer wall of the three stories of chambers described in :5. The temple wall was very thick at the bottom, seeing that at  five cubits height there was a kind of ledge of one cubit wide, upon which rested the floor of the middle chambers. Then five cubits above that, there was another such ledge upon which was put the floor of the third story; and finally at a point 15 cubits high there was another ledge to support the roof beams of the top story. The wall of the holy place continued up for another 15 cubits, in which there were the "windows" or, effectively, ventillation slats. Assuming that upper wall was two cubits thick, the base of the temple wall must have been five cubits thick. Remember that each story of the side chambers was one cubit wider than the one below it.

For on the outside he made offsets in the wall of the house all around, so that the supporting beams should not be inserted into the walls of the house-

The idea is that there was no hole made in the wall of the temple or holy place.

1 Kings 6:7 The house, when it was in building, was built of stone prepared at the quarry; and there was neither hammer nor axe nor any tool of iron heard in the house, while it was in building-

This was perhaps an attempt to follow the spirit of the law which commanded that no iron tool should be used in the shaping of stones for an altar (Ex. 20:25; Dt. 27:5). But typical of Solomon, it is a getting around of God's law; because all the same, iron tools were used in preparing the stones. The Lord Jesus is presented as the builder of the spiritual temple, in which the stones should fit together without strife (Eph. 2:21 alludes to 1 Kings 6:7). This means that we as the stones are being prepared in this life; every knock and blow we receive is intended to shape us to fit next to other stones, eternally. And the final assembly of the stones at the day of judgment will not be the time for shaping; that is going on now.

1 Kings 6:8 The door for the middle side rooms was in the right side of the house: and they went up by winding stairs into the middle storey, and out of the middle into the third-

LXX has "lowest" instead of "middle", which makes sense because otherwise there is no way of accessing the lowest chambers. "The right side" is Heb. 'shoulder', and refers to the face of the temple building.

1 Kings 6:9 So he built the house, and finished it-

This seems to refer to the actual temple building, as the storeys of surrounding chambers of :5 are mentioned separately as being built (:10).

And he covered the house with beams and planks of cedar-

This refers to the roof. No cedar trunk would have yielded wood long enough to cover the required length, and so there would have been supporting beams. The inspired record makes such good sense, and is not open to serious criticism from a practical point of view. This roof would have imitated the covering upon the tabernacle and would probably therefore have been pitched at an angle.

1 Kings 6:10 He built the storeys against the whole house, each five cubits high: and they were attached to the house by cedar beams-

These beams rested on the shoulders or ledges of :6.

1 Kings 6:11 The word of Yahweh came to Solomon saying-

As shown in :12, God was concerned that Solomon thought that simply having built the temple meant that he was fulfilling the promises of 2 Sam. 7 and was therefore the promised Messianic seed. God noticed how Solomon was bypassing in his mind the conditional nature of the promises.

1 Kings 6:12 Concerning this house which you are building, if you will walk in My statutes, and execute My ordinances, and keep all My commandments to walk in them; then will I establish My word with you, which I spoke to David your father- God constantly warned Solomon about the conditionality of the promises, before the building started (2 Sam. 7:14), during it (1 Kings 6:11-13) and immediately after completing it (1 Kings 9:2-9).

Thanks to Solomon’s prayer, and if he had been obedient, all Israel would have been blessed and experienced Yahweh dwelling amongst them (1 Kings 6:12,13). Moses prayed for God to forgive Israel; and He responded: “I have pardoned, according to your word” (Num. 14:20)- rather than according to their repentance and prayer. Indeed it would seem from Heb. 11:28 that Israel were delivered from the Egyptians due to Moses’  faith in the Christ whom the sprinkled Passover blood pointed forward to. And so Israel's blessing was dependent on Solomon's obedience (1 Kings 6:12,13); their joy was because of the honour God had given Solomon (2 Chron. 7:10). The blessing of others can be dependent upon a third party (e.g. Mk. 2:5).

1 Kings 6:13 I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will not forsake My people Israel-

The Lord Jesus was well aware of the connection between God's refusal to answer prayer and His recognition of sin in the person praying (2 Sam. 22:42 = Ps. 2:2-5). It is emphasized time and again that God will not forsake those who love Him (e.g. Dt. 4:31; 31:6; 1 Sam. 12:22; 1 Kings 6:13; Ps. 94:14; Is. 41:17; 42:16). Every one of these passages must have been well known to our Lord, the word made flesh. He knew that God forsaking Israel was a punishment for their sin (Jud. 6:13; 2 Kings 21:14; Is. 2:6; Jer. 23:33). God would forsake Israel only if they forsook Him (Dt. 31:16,17; 2 Chron. 15:2). We can therefore conclude that His desperate “Why have You forsaken me?” was because He was so intensely identified with our sins that in the crisis of the cross, He indeed felt forsaken because of sin. He did not sin, but felt like a sinner; He thereby knows how sinners feel.

God said that He accepted the temple not so much as a place to dwell in (as Solomon assumed it was) but as a place facilitating sacrifice, prayer etc., for the glorification of His Name through these things; He emphasized that He dwelt amongst His people (1 Kings 6:13; 2 Chron. 7:12-16). There are several other places where God’s response to Solomon’s words seems to be corrective rather than affirmatory. Thus Solomon says that God will hear the prayers of His people because the temple is called by God’s Name; but God’s response is that “my people, which are called by my name” would pray to Him themselves and be heard, quite apart from the temple (2 Chron. 6:33 cp. 7:14). He sees them as bearing His Name rather than the temple building, as Solomon perceived it. God goes on to parallel the temple and His people in 2 Chron. 7:21,22, saying that if He punishes the temple He will punish the people. Solomon seems to have thought that the temple would still stand favourably in God’s eyes even if the people were punished. The record records that the temple was “perfected” whereas Solomon’s heart wasn’t perfect [s.w.] (1 Kings 11:4 cp. 2 Chron. 8:16).

1 Kings 6:14 So Solomon built the house, and finished it-

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

1 Kings 6:15 He built the walls of the house within with boards of cedar: from the floor of the house to the walls of the ceiling, he covered them on the inside with wood; and he covered the floor of the house with boards of fir-

"Fir" is LXX "pine", which along with the huge amount of cedar would all have been brought from Hiram.

1 Kings 6:16 He built twenty cubits on the back part of the house with boards of cedar from the floor to the ceiling: he built them for it within, for an inner sanctuary, even for the most holy place-

"The back part", AV "sides", uses a word elsewhere describing inner recesses, e.g. of a cave (1 Sam. 24:4) or forest (Is. 37:24). The reference is to the 'back part' of the temple as one looked into the temple from the entrance- which was the wall at the end of the Most Holy Place. This was separated from the rest of the Holy Place by a door (:31) with "chains of gold" across it (:21) and a veil across it all (2 Chron. 3:14).

1 Kings 6:17 In front of the temple sanctuary was forty cubits-

The reference is to the holy place; the preceding verses have just described the most holy place.

1 Kings 6:18 There was cedar on the house within, carved with buds and open flowers: all was cedar; there was no stone seen-

"Buds" is a guess at translation, for the Hebrew word is very obscure, literally "wild gourds", a poisonous plant (s.w. 2 Kings 4:39). It is unlikely this plant is in view. But there are observable similarities with the decoration of Egyptian holy places. Seeing that Solomon had married an Egyptian, and the Song of Solomon reflects Solomon's deep admiration for things Egyptian, it seems likely that even in the temple, Solomon allowed Gentile influence. And that was to be a theme of this temple until its destruction. See on :29.

1 Kings 6:19 He prepared an inner sanctuary in the midst of the house within, to set there the ark of the covenant of Yahweh-

"Inner sanctuary" is AV "oracle", and is the Hebrew word usually translated "word". It refers to the most holy place, but perhaps the idea is that God's word is ultimately where we are to find the presence of God represented by the ark.

1 Kings 6:20 Within the inner sanctuary was twenty cubits in length, and twenty cubits in breadth, and twenty cubits in its height; and he overlaid it with pure gold: and he covered the altar with cedar-

The idea is that within the inner sanctuary there was a space of 20 cubits length. The altar within the Most Holy was the altar of incense. The altar is described in some manuscripts as "made" with cedar, and this surely must be the case. It was the cedar which was overlaid with pure gold as in Ex. 25:11.

1 Kings 6:21 So Solomon overlaid the house within with pure gold: and he drew chains of gold across before the inner sanctuary; and he overlaid it with gold-

The most holy place, or "inner sanctuary", was separated from the rest of the Holy Place by a door (:31) with "chains of gold" across it and a veil across it all (2 Chron. 3:14).

1 Kings 6:22 The whole house he overlaid with gold, until all the house was finished: also the whole altar that belonged to the inner sanctuary he overlaid with gold-

2 Chron. 3:8 says this was 600 talents of gold. One talent is 26 kilograms (57 pounds). 1 kilogram of gold is currently worth about 40,000 US$ [2020], meaning the value was around 625 million US$ in current terms. But in the poor, subsistence farming economy of those times, this sum was far greater in real terms. But this was not even all the gold which came to Solomon in the course of one year (1 Kings 13:18), so it was not particularly generous.

1 Kings 6:23 In the inner sanctuary he made two cherubim of olive wood, each ten cubits high-

"Olive" is s.w. "pine", and may also have been brought from Gentile Hiram- to be worked into God's glory.

1 Kings 6:24 Five cubits was the one wing of the cherub, and five cubits the other wing of the cherub: from the uttermost part of the one wing to the uttermost part of the other were ten cubits-

This means that the wings of the cherubim touched each other. There was a complete covering over the mercy seat, or top of the ark where the blood of atonement was sprinkled each year, and above that but below the wings of the cherubim the shekinah glory of God was seen. The ark and mercy seat were placed under the cherubic wings (2 Chron. 8:6). It was only a relatively small space, as noted on :26.

In the tabernacle the wings were "spread out on high" (Ex. 25:20; 27:9), but here their wings touch each other. Although Solomon claims he built everything according to Divine revelation, we wonder whether in fact he felt free to liberally reinterpret the tabernacle features. And he changes wings uplifted to God's glory to wings which are closed in upon each other; the mercy seat, or cover of the ark, is no longer exposed to Heaven, as it were, but now closed over.

1 Kings 6:25 The other cherub was ten cubits: both the cherubim were of one measure and one form-

This "one form" is significant, as the various Biblical visions of the cherubim seem to present them as having slightly different forms in each vision. Like everything to do with God's glory and manifestation, the form is constantly variable over time. They stood upon their own feet in this vision (2 Chron. 3:13).

1 Kings 6:26 The height of the one cherub was ten cubits, and so was it of the other cherub-

See on :24. The ark and mercy seat were placed under the cherubic wings (2 Chron. 8:6). The ark was one and a half cubits high (Ex. 25:10) and the cherubim were ten cubits high. In this relatively small space, the shekinah glory of God was manifest. For God doesn't need much space in which to reveal Himself; which is an abiding principle.

1 Kings 6:27 He set the cherubim within the inner house; and the wings of the cherubim were stretched forth, so that the wing of the one touched the one wall, and the wing of the other cherub touched the other wall; and their wings touched one another in the midst of the house-

We note that "the wall" refers to the interior of the wall. If this is likewise how "the walls" are described elsewhere, then the thickness of the walls is not included in the dimensions given.

1 Kings 6:28 He overlaid the cherubim with gold-

Considering the construction of the cherubim leads us to reflect that they were not somehow supernatural, they were made of ordinary materials and didn't fall down from Heaven, as claimed by many of the religious cults.

1 Kings 6:29 He carved all the walls of the house around with carved figures of cherubim-

The idea was that the glory and presence of God represented by the cherubim was not only in the most holy place, but extended beyond it. David had often perceived this in his Psalms whilst on the run from Saul.

And palm trees and open flowers-

Perhaps the reference was to David's imagery of the righteous flourishing like the palm tree (Ps. 92:12). But Solomon had likened his Egyptian lover to a palm (Song 7:7,8), and the palm and open flowers feature in Egyptian architecture. See on :18. Seeing that Solomon had married an Egyptian, and the Song of Solomon reflects Solomon's deep admiration for things Egyptian, it seems likely that even in the temple, Solomon allowed Gentile influence, although mixing it with the imagery of the cherubim of Yahweh's manifestation. And that was to be a sad theme of this temple until its destruction.

Inside and outside-

The idea is "within and without", "the inner and outer", and I suggest the reference is to the inner and outer areas just described, i.e. the most holy place ['inner'] and holy place ['outer'].

1 Kings 6:30 The floor of the house he overlaid with gold, inside and outside-

David had perceived that "Holiness adorns Your house, Yahweh, forever" (Ps. 93:5). David realized in that Psalm that if God's throne was David's throne, then David's house was to as Yahweh's house, adorned with holiness. Solomon interpreted this in physical terms, adorning the temple with symbols of holiness (the cherubim) and gold; but the real adornment was of personal holiness, which Solomon failed in ultimately because of his obsession with the external and material.

1 Kings 6:31 For the entrance of the inner sanctuary he made doors of olive wood-

The most holy place, or "inner sanctuary", was separated from the rest of the Holy Place by a door with "chains of gold" across it (:21) and a veil across it all (2 Chron. 3:14).

The lintel and door posts were a fifth part of the wall-

The wall was 20 cubits high, so the length and breadth of the door posts / lintel were 4 x 4 cubits.

1 Kings 6:32 So he made two doors of olive wood; and he carved on them carvings of cherubim and palm trees and open flowers, and overlaid them with gold; and he spread the gold on the cherubim, and on the palm trees-

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

1 Kings 6:33 In the same way he also made for the entrance of the temple door posts of olive wood, out of a fourth part of the wall-

The wall was 20 cubits high, so the length and breadth of the door posts / lintel were 5 x 5 cubits. "The entrance" in view is that into the holy place from the porch.

1 Kings 6:34 and two doors of fir wood: the two leaves of the one door were folding, and the two leaves of the other door were folding-

This means there were four leaves. Two collapsed together on one wall and two on the other. This meant that the opening could be just a quarter of the entire door, or more or less the entire aperture could be opened.

1 Kings 6:35 He carved cherubim and palm trees and open flowers; and he overlaid them with gold fitted on the engraved work-

See on :29 for the significance of the carvings. 2 Chron. 3:6 adds that the gold was from Parvaim, and that precious stones were also used.  The context is of the doors, so the idea may be that the carvings and embossed parts of the doors were overlaid rather than the entire doors.

1 Kings 6:36 He built the inner court with three courses of cut stone, and a course of cedar beams-

This other court would be the "court of the priests" (2 Chron. 4:9), the "higher court" of Jer. 36:10. Perhaps it was made "higher" by the three layers of stone and the cedar decking placed upon it. Perhaps the idea was that the people in the outer court could see what the priests were doing.

1 Kings 6:37 In the fourth year was the foundation of the house of Yahweh laid, in the month Ziv-

This was the fourth year of Solomon's reign (:1).

1 Kings 6:38 In the eleventh year, in the month Bul, which is the eighth month, was the house finished throughout all its parts, and according to all its fashion. Thus he was seven years in building it-

Comparing with :1, the period was seven and a half years. But s noted on :1, the Bible is often not exact about time periods.

1 Kings Chapter 7

1 Kings 7:1 Solomon was building his own house thirteen years, and he finished all his house-

The record of Solomon's building of his own house is clearly framed to reveal the sad fact that his zeal for God's house was only an outcome of his own natural zeal and passion for building which he comments upon in Ecclesiastes; but that tremendous energy was given far more scope in achieving his own ends. So often apparently active brethren are only so because the Truth is only compounding their own naturally active characters. For example, those who naturally like travelling can seem zealous Gospel missionaries. The style of the record makes this clear of Solomon:

"So was he seven years in building (God's house)...

but  Solomon was building his own house thirteen years" (1 Kings 6:38; 7:1).

His own house (cp. our family and mortgage) assumed almost double the importance of God's house. In this we see Solomon's apostacy.  The architectural detail given concerning Solomon's house and "the house of the forest of Lebanon" seems to be given in such a format as to compare with that concerning God's house.

1 Kings 7:2 For he built the house of the forest of Lebanon; its length was one hundred cubits, and its breadth fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits, on four rows of cedar pillars, with cedar beams on the pillars-

The Temple was smaller than Solomon's house; he took nearly twice as long to build it. Clearly he spent more effort at housing his own glory than he did housing God's. The comparisons are intended to show this. The following comparisons put the temple first, and then Solomon's house.

Length: 60 cubits, breadth 20, height 30 (1 Kings 6:2)      cp.Length: 100 cubits, breadth 50, height 30 (1 Kings 7:2)

Used cedar pillars and beams (1 Kings 6:9,10)       cp.1 Kings 7:2

Inner court built with three rows of hewn stone and a row of cedar beams (1 Kings 6:36 RV) cp. “The great court round about had three rows of hewn stones, and a row of cedar beams, like as the inner court of the house of the Lord” (1 Kings 7:12)

Hiram called in to build it (1 Kings 5:1-5)      cp.1 Kings 7:13

The Most Holy within God's house (1 Kings 7:8)      cp.The "another court within the porch" in his house seems to have been a replica of the Most Holy within God's house. Here Solomon’s wives worshipped their idols.

Built on large foundation stones cp. The record of the foundation stones (7:10) is similar to that of the temple foundations.

The temple had a “porch” (Ez. 8:7,16) cp. The porch of Solomon's house matches that of the temple (Ez. 8:7,16), which in Ezekiel's time was a place of apostacy.

Open flowers design of the temple       cp. The two pillars with their pomegranates and lily-work seem to have matched the open flowers of the temple, and they have ominous connections with Absalom's pillar of self-glorification (2 Sam. 18:18).

The way the record of Solomon's house follows straight on from that of God's house (1 Kings 6,7) seems to highlight the similarity between them.   The house of Yahweh and Solomon's house are often spoke of together (e.g. 2 Chron. 7:11;  8:1;  9:11) to make us reflect on this. Indeed, the record of Solomon's house in 1 Kings 7:1-12 is a parenthesis out of historical sequence;  5:2-6:38 and 7:13-9:9 are about the temple;  7:1-12 is a clear parenthesis to demonstrate Solomon's weakness.

1 Kings 7:3 It was covered with cedar above over the forty-five beams, that were on the pillars; fifteen in a row-

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

1 Kings 7:4 There were window frames in three rows, and window was over against window in three ranks-

The words used here are generally different to those in 1 Kings 6:4 and speaks more of windows for light. There was no natural light in the temple just as there wasn't in the tabernacle. The hope was that it would be lit by the light of God's glory; and likewise there is no natural light in the spiritual temple, only that of God's glory. But there were windows admitting natural light in Solomon's own house.

There is the implication here that the building was of three stories, as was the temple (1 Kings 6:6). His house was a conscious imitation of God's house, but on a far grander scale.

1 Kings 7:5 All the doors and posts had square frames: and window was opposite window in three tiers-

These windows were for light; AV "light against light". There was no natural light in the temple; but Solomon's house was full of natural light. The difference is significant. For the temple was to be illuminated by God's glory, whereas Solomon's own house was all about his own natural light.

1 Kings 7:6 He made the porch of pillars; its length was fifty cubits, and its breadth thirty cubits; and a porch before them; and pillars and a threshold before them-

It's hard to determine which building this porch joined to, but it was a colonnade, and perhaps a separate building; and the point to note is that it was far grander than the porch built for Yahweh's house. It was an Egyptian propylaea, a kind of "pillar hall", and reflects Egyptian influence upon Solomon.

1 Kings 7:7 He made the hall of judgment for the throne where he was to judge, even the porch of judgment: and it was covered with cedar from floor to floor-

This was effectively replicating the most holy place of the temple; and Solomon was placing his throne of judgment as the equivalent to the ark in the most holy place. He was playing God, exalting his judgment over that of Yahweh.

1 Kings 7:8 His house where he was to dwell had another court within the porch, which was of the same plan. He made also a house for Pharaoh’s daughter (whom Solomon had taken as wife), like this porch-

"His house" may differ from the one just described from :1-7, which was called the house of the forest of Lebanon, and was really a glorious law court, with Solomon's throne exalted as the judge of all (see on :7).

The porch of Solomon's house matches that of the temple (Ez. 8:7,16), which in Ezekiel's time was a place of apostacy.   Solomon's own house was undeniably larger than God's, although built with the same layout (e.g. 1 Kings 6:2 cp. 7:2;  6:36 cp. 7:12;  5:1-5 cp. 7:13). The "another court within the porch" in his house seems to have been a replica of the Most Holy within God's house (1 Kings 7:8), yet it was here that Solomon's wives worshipped their idols. Likewise the record of the foundation stones (7:10) is similar to that of the temple foundations.

1 Kings 7:9 All these were of costly stones, even of cut stone, according to measure, sawn with saws, inside and outside, even from the foundation to the coping, and so on the outside to the great court-

"According to measure" may mean as in AV that the precious stones were cut and used to a similar size as building brick, the cut stone. "Inside and outside" seems to mean that the precious stones were cut or polished on the inside as well, i.e. the side not exposed to view. This opulence and grandeur is far greater than what Solomon invested in the building of God's house.

1 Kings 7:10 The foundation was of costly stones, even great stones, stones of ten cubits, and stones of eight cubits-

This could mean that precious stones were inserted in even the foundation; see on :9. It seems these stones were smaller than those used in the temple, meaning that more effort was put into Solomon's own house than God's house. And that is the challenge of these specifications to us.

1 Kings 7:11 Above were costly stones, cut stone, according to measure, and cedar wood-

That is, above the foundation stones of :10. The stones built upon them were "cut stones", implying they were smoothed. Again as noted on :10, more effort was put into Solomon's own house than God's house.

1 Kings 7:12 The great court around had three courses of cut stone, and a course of cedar beams; like the inner court of the house of Yahweh, and the porch of the house-

Again we see Solomon playing God. His house was a conscious replica of the temple, the house of Yahweh, but to a grander scale and with far more effort put into it.

1 Kings 7:13 King Solomon sent and fetched Hiram out of Tyre-

This contrasts with how Solomon's communications with Hiram regarding the temple had been by messenger. But for the matters of building his own house, he wants him present in person. Again we see how more effort was put into Solomon's own house than God's house.

However I suggest that the actual Hiram king of Tyre is not necessarily in view, but a man called Huram (2 Chron. 4:11), of similar spelling, who is described as a "father" to Hiram the king (2 Chron. 2:13); in the sense in which Joseph was a father to Pharaoh (Gen. 45:8), his leading official. Thus we read in 2 Chron. 4:16 that "the vessels thereof did Huram his father make for king Solomon". However the point is established that a leading political figure within Tyre, who was known for his craftsmanship, was summoned personally to work on Solomon's own house, whereas this wasn't done for the work of God's house.

Another possibility is that this craftsman was Hiram's own representative, and is therefore spoken of as being "Hiram".

1 Kings 7:14 He was the son of a widow of the tribe of Naphtali, and his father was a man of Tyre, a worker in brass-

2 Chron. 2:14 says "Hiram" was "son of a woman of the daughters of Dan", whereas 1 King 7:14 says he was "the son of a widow of the tribe of Naphtali". Dan may refer to the town called Dan or Laish which was in the territory of Naphtali, but inhabited by Danites (Josh. 18:27; 19:47; Jud. 18:7). Here we see how an apparent discrepancy on a surface level reveals a deep evidence of the way the records do not contradict but dovetail perfectly, as we would expect of a Divinely inspired writing. But this is only apparent to those who respectfully search the entire scriptures, rather than bandying around a surface level contradiction with an eagerness which speaks more of their own fears the Bible is inspired than of deep factual persuasion.

And he was filled with wisdom and understanding and skill, to work all works in brass. He came to king Solomon, and performed all his work-

This is similar language as to how Solomon had been filled by God with wisdom. But this man was filled with human wisdom. The contrast is similar to the fact that God's house had no natural light, whereas Solomon's did.

1 Kings 7:15 For he fashioned the two pillars of brass, each eighteen cubits high: and a line of twelve cubits encircled both of them around-

"Fashioned" is as AV "cast", and reflects Egyptian influence.  The paintings of Thebes show this casting being done in Egypt, and it clearly was copied by Solomon. In connection with his wife being Pharaoh's daughter, he likely visited Egypt several times.

The two pillars with their pomegranates and lily-work seem to have matched the open flowers of the temple, and they have ominous connections with Absalom's pillar of self-glorification (2 Sam. 18:18). Worst of all, Solomon's throne seems to have been built with allusion to Yahweh's enthronement upon the praises of Israel in the Most Holy.

The two pillars are said to be 18 cubits high (1 Kings 7:15), but in 2 Chron. 3:15 they are 35 cubits high. What that means is that there were two cubits of 17.5 cubits high each, summarized as 18 cubits high in 1 Kings 7:15. We have another example of this kind of reckoning in the way that the   height of the porch was 120 cubits, or 180 feet (2 Chron. 3:4). This is out of proportion to the length and breadth. Perhaps what is meant is that the height of each of the four walls has been added together, which would give a height of 30 cubits. This style is to be found in 2 Chron. 3:11, where the length of the wings of the cherubim is given as 20 cubits, but this was a way of saying that each of the four wings was five cubits long.

1 Kings 7:16 He made two capitals of molten brass, to set on the tops of the pillars: the height of the one capital was five cubits, and the height of the other capital was five cubits-

The capitals were placed on the tops of the pillars. "Tops" is "heads", and the Hebrew for "capitals" suggests "crown". The idea is that everywhere in his house, Solomon was glorifying his own kingship; forgetting that it was by grace, and conditional upon his obedience. These bronze pillars replicated those before the temple (2 Kings 25:17; 2 Chron. 3:15). Solomon was modelling his house upon God's house. Although the height of the crowns in the pillars before his house was five cubits, but only three cubits for the pillars before God's house (2 Kings 25:17).

1 Kings 7:17 There were nets of chequer work, and wreaths of chain work, for the capitals which were on the top of the pillars; seven for the one capital, and seven for the other capital-

"This decoration consisted of seven twists arranged as festoons, which were hung round the capitals of the pillars" (Keil). The language is more appropriate for metalwork than stone work.

1 Kings 7:18 So he made the pillars; and there were two rows around on the one network, to cover the capitals that were on the top of the pillars: and he did so for the other capital-

LXX reads "pomegranates" for "pillars". I consider that any attempt to find spiritual significance in the pomegranates used in Solomon's building is misplaced, because I don't think he was at all thinking in that way. Rather is this another example of his simply copying what he had seen in Egypt, from where his queen came from. For such pomegranate designs are common in Egyptian architecture of the time, and Egypt was famed for pomegranates (Num. 20:5).

1 Kings 7:19 The capitals that were on the top of the pillars in the porch were of carved lilies, four cubits-

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

1 Kings 7:20 There were capitals above also on the two pillars-

This would mean that there were in fact two capitals on each pillar, as noted on :19. There was only one such capital on the pillars erected before God's house. But Solomon was far more painstaking and ornate in building his own house, and it therefore took him nearly twice as long.

Close by the cushion which was beside the network: and the pomegranates were two hundred, in rows around on the other capital-

See on :18 for "pomegranates". There were 100 in each row, but on one row there were 96 facing the courts, meaning the other four were at the corners (Jer. 52:23). The internal corroboration between records written hundreds of years apart is impressive, and reflects Divine inspiration of the entire Old Testament.

1 Kings 7:21 He set up the pillars at the porch of the temple: and he set up the right pillar-

I suggest there were two sets of pillars, one before Solomon's house and another before the temple. Now the focus of the record returns to the temple, as now we will also read of the huge laver Solomon built before the temple. But pillars before a temple was a reflection of pagan influence. "The Phoenicians used isolated metal columns as sacred ornaments, so that Hiram would be familiar with such a mode of ornamentation" (Rawlinson). "Whenever in coins or histories we get a representation of a Phoenician temple, it always has a pillar or pillars standing within or before it" (Stanley). It seems that the contact with Tyre had resulted in their religion coming to influence Solomon's design of the temple. And so it happens when we claim to serve God according to the religious ideas of pagans. This is another reason why I query whether in fact he did receive the designs of the temple from God as he claimed.

And called its name Jachin; and he set up the left pillar, and called its name Boaz-

"Jachin" means "He will establish", and Boaz "in Him [God] is strength", which is the idea in Is. 45:24. They were a statement that God would establish the line of Solomon, and perhaps Boaz is also a reference to his ancestor of that name. But that establishment of the Kingdom was conditional upon Solomon's obedience, according to the promises to David in 2 Sam. 7. But Solomon liked to think that by building these pillars, he had himself established his dynasty, and shown it to be established. Putting the two names together, we have 'He will establish by strength’, and this seems to be deconstructed by the restoration prophecy of Zech. 4:6, given after these two pillars had been removed, never to be restored.

1 Kings 7:22 On the top of the pillars was lily work: so was the work of the pillars finished-

The lily motif is stressed in the final description of the pillars, and I suggested on :19 that they were pagan lotus symbols.

1 Kings 7:23 He made the molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass, and its height was five cubits; and a line of thirty cubits encircled it-

This gives the circumference of the laver as “thirty cubits”, although it was ten cubits broad. Taking ‘pi’ to be 3.14, it is apparent that the circumference would have been 31.4 cubits; but the Spirit says, summing up, “thirty”. Sometimes the Biblical record is vague, other times exact. This reflects how God is not seeking to cover His back against critics. He is of an altogether higher nature than that. There are times when the Spirit uses very approximate numbers rather than exact ("about the space of four hundred and fifty years", Acts 13:20 cp. 1 Kings 6:1). The reference to "seventy" in Judges 9:56 also doesn't seem exact. Seven and a half years (2 Sam. 2:11) becomes "seven years" (1 Kings 2:11); three months and ten days (2 Chron. 36:9) becomes "three months" (2 Kings 24:8). This is not how we are used to history being written; but we are reading the Hebrew genre of history, not our own.

1 Kings 7:24 Under its brim around there were buds which encircled it, for ten cubits, encircling the sea: the buds were in two rows, cast when it was cast-

The size of this laver was unrealistic if it were to be useful. The huge size was therefore for show, and not because Solomon really wished there to be cleansing in practice. "Buds" is AV "knops". "Buds" is a guess at translation, for the Hebrew word is very obscure, literally "wild gourds", a poisonous plant (s.w. 2 Kings 4:39). It is unlikely this plant is in view. But there are observable similarities with the decoration of Egyptian holy places. Seeing that Solomon had married an Egyptian, and the Song of Solomon reflects Solomon's deep admiration for things Egyptian, it seems likely that even in the temple, Solomon allowed Gentile influence. And that was to be a theme of this temple until its destruction.  .

1 Kings 7:25 It stood on twelve oxen, three looking toward the north, three looking toward the west, three looking toward the south and three looking toward the east; and the sea was set on them above, and all their hinder parts were inward-

This massive laver was therefore a political statement, implying the twelve tribes of Israel were only to be cleansed by this huge laver. I discussed on 1 Kings 4 how Solomon sought to bring all Israel under his personal control. He constantly mixes spiritual appearance with his own unspiritual agendas.

1 Kings 7:26 It was a handbreadth thick: and its brim was worked like the brim of a cup, like the flower of a lily: it held two thousand baths-

We several times read of the lily motif in Solomon's building. But the word can as well refer to the lotus. And "the lotus was the religious flower of the Indian and Egyptian religions". So we have a case of Solomon allowing himself to be influenced by the pagan religions of his wives and those he traded with, and importing it into his own version of Yahweh worship.

1 Kings 7:27 He made the ten bases of brass; four cubits was the length of one base, and four cubits its breadth, and three cubits its height-

These bases or pedestals were for the ten smaller lavers which will now be described. The massive laver described above was for show, it was too large to realistically be used for ritual cleansing; in practice, the ten smaller lavers would have to be used.

1 Kings 7:28 The work of the bases was like this: they had panels; and there were panels between the ledges-

These "ledges" appear to refer to poles at the four corners of each base, onto which the panels were fixed.

1 Kings 7:29 and on the panels that were between the ledges were lions, oxen, and cherubim; and on the ledges there was a pedestal above; and beneath the lions and oxen were wreaths of hanging work-

The pedestal carrying the actual laver was fixed upon the four poles or shafts of :28, meaning that the panels didn't carry any of the weight but were purely decorative.

1 Kings 7:30 Every base had four bronze wheels, and axles of brass; and the four feet of it had supports: beneath the basin were the supports molten, with wreaths at the side of each-

The language of wheels and axles recalls the cherubim visions of Ezekiel. The bases were as it were extensions of the cherubim. We note the lions and oxen of :29 were also associated with the cherubim of Ezekiel's visions. The "supports" seem to refer to "shoulders"’ (R.V. margin), through which the axles passed through.

1 Kings 7:31 The mouth of it within the capital and above was a cubit: and its mouth was round after the work of a pedestal, a cubit and a half; and also on its mouth were engravings, and their panels were foursquare, not round-

The "mouth" appears to refer to a circular opening, into which the laver itself was hooked in.

1 Kings 7:32 The four wheels were underneath the panels; and the axles of the wheels were in the base: and the height of a wheel was a cubit and half a cubit-

The axles "were in the base" in that they were cast as art of the base. If this is correct, then the wheels didn't actually turn. They had the impression of movement, but didn't actually move- in contrast to the actual cherubim of Ezekiel's vision, whose wheels moved because of the presence of the Spirit within them. This was lacking from Solomon's creation.

1 Kings 7:33 The work of the wheels was like the work of a chariot wheel: their axles, and their rims, and their spokes, and their naves, were all molten-

Again we see the influence of Egypt. Chariots were forbidden for the king of Israel, but Solomon indulged in them. And this was reflected in how he apparently served God. This was a cherubim which couldn't move anywhere in practice but was totally ornamental and lifeless; see on :32.

1 Kings 7:34 There were four supports at the four corners of each base: its supports were of the base itself-

This follows straight on from the description of the wheels in :33, and I suggest it means that the base and the "shoulders" where the axles were (:32) were all cast as part of the same item, and therefore, as discussed on :32,33, the structure couldn't actually move anywhere.

1 Kings 7:35 In the top of the base was there a round compass half a cubit high; and on the top of the base its stays and its panels were of the same-

"Of the same" seems to mean they were cast as one piece; see on :32.

1 Kings 7:36 On the plates of its stays, and on its panels, he engraved cherubim, lions, and palm trees, according to the space of each, with wreaths all around-

Perhaps the reference was to David's imagery of the righteous flourishing like the palm tree (Ps. 92:12). But Solomon had likened his Egyptian lover to a palm (Song 7:7,8), and the palm and open flowers feature in Egyptian architecture. See on 1 Kings 6:18. Seeing that Solomon had married an Egyptian, and the Song of Solomon reflects Solomon's deep admiration for things Egyptian, it seems likely that even in the temple, Solomon allowed Gentile influence, although mixing it with the imagery of the cherubim of Yahweh's manifestation. And that was to be a sad theme of this temple until its destruction.

1 Kings 7:37 In this way, he made the ten bases: all of them had one casting, one measure, and one form-

They were all cast from  the same one mould. We enquire however why there were ten such smaller lavers and not twelve, for the twelve tribes of Israel. Perhaps Solomon thought that his favoured kingdom, of Judah and Benjamin, didn't require such cleansing.

1 Kings 7:38 He made ten basins of brass: one basin contained forty baths; and every basin was four cubits; and on every one of the ten bases one basin-

Forty baths was about 340 gallons, 1287 litres. The measurement of "four cubits" could refer to the height, or to the diameter. The presence of so many lavers implied that Solomon expected huge numbers of animals to be sacrificed at one time, as he himself did. He had not at all picked up the spirit of his father David, who perceived that God was looking for broken hearts and not sacrifices (Ps. 51:17).

1 Kings 7:39 He set the bases, five on the right side of the house, and five on the left side of the house-

The right side was the south, the left side was the north.

And he set the sea on the right side of the house eastward, toward the south-

This confirms that the right side was the south. The description is as of a person standing facing the temple from the west side of it. But this was not where the entrance was. Solomon was describing it from his perspective and not that of a worshipper entering the temple from the east.

1 Kings 7:40 Hiram made the basins, and the shovels, and the basins. So Hiram made an end of doing all the work that he worked for king Solomon in the house of Yahweh-

"Basins" is a very similar Hebrew word for "pots" (as in 2 Chron. 4:11). "Pots" is likely the best reading. There is much stress upon all the "work" done (:40,51). Solomon had quite missed the lessons learned by his father David [and his mother Bathsheba], that God wants broken, contrite hearts more than works and sacrifices.

1 Kings 7:41 the two pillars, and the two bowls of the capitals that were on the top of the pillars; and the two networks to cover the two bowls of the capitals that were on the top of the pillars-

We now have a summary of all the work done, as if Solomon itemized it all and boasted in the inventory. This glorification of human works and achievement revealed so much about his lack of true spiritual perception; see on :40.

1 Kings 7:42 and the four hundred pomegranates for the two networks; two rows of pomegranates for each network, to cover the two bowls of the capitals that were on the pillars-

The Hebrew word for "network" is used multiple times in the descriptions of Solomon's work. But it is an unusual word, and is elsewhere translated "snare" (Job 18:8). There is throughout the record the hint that all is not how it should have been spiritually.

1 Kings 7:43 and the ten bases, and the ten basins on the bases-

There was only one laver in the tabernacle, made of the brass mirrors of the repentant women of Ex. 38:8. There was to be a common experience of washing and cleansing in using the same laver; and this was rather spoilt by having ten lavers and then one huge laver, so huge nobody could effectively use it.

1 Kings 7:44 and the one sea, and the twelve oxen under the sea-

There is no record of this huge laver ever being used in practice. The urgent requirement for true cleansing was turned into mere external ritualism, something which was to be seen and admired rather than personally participated it.

1 Kings 7:45 and the pots, and the shovels, and the basins: even all these vessels, which Hiram made for king Solomon, in the house of Yahweh, were of burnished brass-

The idea is of polished copper.

1 Kings 7:46 The king cast them in the plain of the Jordan, in the clay ground between Succoth and Zarethan-

"The king cast them" suggests Solomon's personal involvement with the work. This reflects how he admits in Ecclesiastes that he followed his obsession with building and architecture to a degree not possible for most men. His zeal was therefore more an expression of his own personality type and personal interests, than true love for God.

Zarethan where Solomon cast the lavers for the temple with their pagan motifs (1 Kings 7:46) is called Zaredathah in 2 Chron. 4:17, which is a form of Zeredah (1 Kings 11:26), the birthplace of Jeroboam son of Nebat. It doesn't therefore have good connections. We wonder if the golden calves were cast there too.

1 Kings 7:47 Solomon left all the vessels unweighed, because they were exceeding many: the weight of the brass could not be found out-

As noted on :41, Solomon itemized hos work and boasted in the inventory. But he gave up weighing all the brass vessels. This glorification of human works and achievement revealed so much about his lack of true spiritual perception; see on :40.

1 Kings 7:48 Solomon made all the vessels that were in the house of Yahweh: the golden altar, and the table whereupon the show bread was, of gold-

"The golden altar" is the altar of incense. "That were in the house..." could suggest that this history was written or edited after the exile, when these things were no longer there in the temple.

1 Kings 7:49 and the lampstands, five on the right side, and five on the left, before the oracle, of pure gold; and the flowers, and the lamps, and the tongs, of gold-

"Oracle" is the Hebrew word usually translated "word". It refers to the most holy place, but perhaps the idea is that God's word is ultimately where we are to find the presence of God represented by the ark.

1 Kings 7:50 and the cups, and the snuffers, and the basins, and the spoons, and the fire pans, of pure gold; and the hinges, both for the doors of the inner house, the most holy place, and for the doors of the house, of the temple, of gold-

The inventory here is similar in style to that of the vessels of the tabernacle on Ex. 25-30. It seems Solomon wished to present what he had done in terms of building a new tabernacle, with himself thereby presented as Moses. And yet we have seen hints throughout the record that he built it with pagan influences throughout it.

1 Kings 7:51 Thus all the work that king Solomon worked in the house of Yahweh was finished-

There is much stress upon all the "work" done (:40,51). Solomon had quite missed the lessons learned by his father David [and his mother Bathsheba], that God wants broken, contrite hearts more than works and sacrifices.

Solomon brought in the things which David his father had dedicated, the silver, the gold and the vessels, and put them in the treasuries of the house of Yahweh-

These vessels were those taken in 2 Sam. 8:10. They were devoted to God's service by David and then Solomon dedicated them to the temple. The same phrase "of silver, and vessels of gold, and vessels of brass" is used of the vessels taken from Egypt and dedicated to the tabernacle (Ex. 11:2; 12:35; Josh. 6:19; 2 Sam. 8:10; 1 Kings 7:51). The generosity of others in Biblical history, their right perspective on the wealth taken from this world, was to inspire other believers in later history. And this is how the body of Christ should function today, with members inspiring others to spirituality.

Solomon's  zealous  organization  of  the  temple worship was an exact  fulfillment  of the order laid down by his father David (1 Kings 7:51; 2 Chron. 7:6; 8:14). Solomon wanted God to bless the temple as a sign of His pleasure with David his father (e.g. 2 Chron. 6:42). Solomon's  personal  enthusiasm for service to God became subsumed by the huge psychological spiritual dominance of his  parents. His zeal for the temple was almost purely a result of living out his father's expectation; he almost admits as much in  1 Kings  8:20: "I  am risen up in  the room of David my father... and have (therefore, in the context) built an house for the  name  of  the  Lord".

The promises God makes involve a solemn commitment by Him to us- the serious, binding nature of His oath to us is easy to forget. God swore to David “by my holiness” (Ps. 89:35). The Hebrew for “holiness” is the very same word translated “dedication”. David’s response to God’s dedication to him was to dedicate [s.w.] all the silver and gold which he had won from this world, to the service of God’s house (1 Kings 7:51; 1 Chron. 26:26; 2 Chron. 5:1). Our response to God’s dedication to us should be a like dedication of what we have to Him. Covenant relationship with God requires much of both Him and us. The case of David is a nice illustration of the meaning of grace. David wanted to do something for God- build Him a house, spending his wealth to do so. God replied that no, He wanted to build David a house. And He started to, in the promises He gave David. And David’s response to that grace is to still do something- to dedicate his wealth to God’s house, as God had dedicated Himself to David’s house. This is just how grace and works should be related in our experience.

1 Kings Chapter 8

1 Kings 8:1 Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel, and all the heads of the tribes, the princes of the families of the people of Israel, to king Solomon in Jerusalem, to bring up the ark of the covenant of Yahweh out of the city of David, which is Zion-

Solomon imitated David's bringing up of the ark to Zion (2 Sam. 6:2) in 1 Kings 8:1,4. He lived out his father's faith and devotion, but only on an external level. He in due course was to turn away from Yahweh to idols, and descend into the nihilism of Ecclesiastes.

1 Kings 8:2 All the men of Israel assembled themselves to king Solomon at the feast, in the month Ethanim, which is the seventh month-

This would have been the feast of tabernacles, which began on the 15th day of the seventh month and lasted seven days (Lev. 23:34). The building finished in the eighth month of Solomon's 11th year of reigning (1 Kings 6:37), so he waited almost a year before this ceremony of dedication. Perhaps for some reason he wanted to combine it specifically with the feast of tabernacles. See on :36.

1 Kings 8:3 All the elders of Israel came, and the priests took up the ark-

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

1 Kings 8:4 They brought up the ark of Yahweh, and the Tent of Meeting, and all the holy vessels that were in the Tent; all these the priests and the Levites brought up-

The priests took these things on the final part of their journey, into the most holy place; as the Levites were forbidden from doing so (Num. 4:20). But the Levites took them the first part of their journey; see on :3.

1 Kings 8:5 King Solomon and all the congregation of Israel who were assembled to him, were with him before the ark, sacrificing sheep and cattle, that could not be counted nor numbered for multitude-

He offered huge numbers of sacrifices when the ark was brought into the temple (1 Kings 8:63), just as David had sacrificed as the ark was brought to Zion (2 Sam. 6:13 = 1 Kings 8:5). Yet he failed to feel and know the truth of David’s conclusion that God doesn’t essentially want sacrifice (Ps. 40:6). David had been forced to learn that lesson through the shame of his sin with Bathsheba- Solomon was so sure of his own righteousness that he never was driven to see the inadequacy of animal sacrifice in itself, and the need in the end for the direct receipt of God’s grace.

Solomon offered sacrifices “that could not be told nor numbered for multitude”. This is evidently to be connected with the language of the promises to Abraham about the multiplication of the seed of Israel. It could be that Solomon thought that his generosity in giving of his wealth was what had brought about the fulfilment of these promises- he almost forced God to fulfil them, at least in his own mind, by his generosity.

1 Kings 8:6 The priests brought in the ark of the covenant of Yahweh to its place, into the inner sanctuary of the house, the most holy place, even under the wings of the cherubim-

The priests took these things on the final part of their journey, into the most holy place; as the Levites were forbidden from doing so (Num. 4:20). But the Levites took them the first part of their journey; see on :3.

1 Kings 8:7 For the cherubim spread forth their wings over the place of the ark, and the cherubim covered the ark and its poles above-

In the tabernacle the wings were "spread out on high" (Ex. 25:20; 27:9), but here their wings touch each other. Although Solomon claims he built everything according to Divine revelation, we wonder whether in fact he felt free to liberally reinterpret the tabernacle features. And he changes wings uplifted to God's glory to wings which are closed in upon each other; the mercy seat, or cover of the ark, is no longer exposed to Heaven, as it were, but now closed over.

1 Kings 8:8 The poles were so long that the ends of the poles were seen from the holy place before the inner sanctuary; but they were not seen outside-

This may reflect a design fault in the lengths of the staves. Although we are assured that a person looking from the outer sanctuary would not have seen them even when the entrance to the holy place was open. This kind of design fault would not have been present if indeed, as Solomon claimed, the specifications were given by God. I suggest this was just his claim, and he built the temple according to his own desire to have a go at architecture and building- which he admits in Ecclesiastes had been his passion and obsession, for a time. See on :64 for another possible design fault.

And there they are to this day-

This indicates that this record was written some time before the exile ["to this day"]. But other parts of the history suggest it was written after the exile. This means that some parts were rewritten or edited, under Divine inspiration, but others weren't.

1 Kings 8:9 There was nothing in the ark except the two tables of stone which Moses put there at Horeb, when Yahweh made a covenant with the children of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt-

Inside the ark was intended to be "the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded" (Heb. 9:4; Ex. 16:34; Num. 17:10). They had apparently been lost; so although they remained with the symbols of the covenant, they were lacking in the things which spoke of new spiritual life and the resurrection.

1 Kings 8:10 When the priests had come out of the holy place, the cloud filled the house of Yahweh-

Ex. 40:34,35 uses the same terms for God's acceptance of and dwelling in the tabernacle. For all the pagan undertones in the temple, and Solomon's unspirituality, God was eager to still dwell within this structure; even though it was not what He wanted. Just as He had used the human kingship, when it was deeply offensive to Hm.

1 Kings 8:11 so that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud; for the glory of Yahweh filled the house of Yahweh-

This was as at the erection of the tabernacle. The idea was that Yahweh's glory was far above the mere religion of the temple system.

1 Kings 8:12 Then Solomon said, Yahweh has said that He would dwell in the thick darkness-

Solomon like David (see on 2 Chron. 3:1; 2 Sam. 16:10) came to assume things about God in order to justify his passion for building a temple. He claims that God “said that He would dwell in the thick darkness”, perhaps alluding to the darkness of the most holy place in which there was no natural light; but actually there’s no record God ever said that. What He said was that He would dwell in the hearts of men and not in a house.

What we say to the Lord Jesus in His ear in the bedroom in the darkness, will be openly spoken by Christ at the judgment (Lk. 12:2,3). God dwells in darkness (Ex. 20:21; 1 Kings 8:12). Speaking in the bedroom in secret with the knowledge we will be openly rewarded is the language of prayer (Mt. 6:6). Our private relationship with the Lord now, praying to Him in our bedroom, meditating about Him there, will then be spoken out loud.

1 Kings 8:13 I have surely built You a house, a place for You to dwell in forever-

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

1 Kings 8:14 The king turned his face about-

From God to the people. The rest of this chapter is therefore Solomon praying facing the people rather than God. He was effectively praying to himself, praying to be seen of men. The Lord's criticism of such prayers seems to have in mind Solomon's example here.

And blessed all the assembly of Israel: and all the assembly of Israel stood-

This blessing of Israel suggests Solomon was acting as the high priest, although he was not of the tribe of Levi. David had done this kind of thing, but from careful reflection upon the spirit of the law, whose letter he says in Ps. 119 he studied constantly. And David came to this sense through careful reflection upon God's grace to him, and through the experience of Uzzah's death as a result of taking 'living the spirit of the law' too far.

1 Kings 8:15 He said, Blessed is Yahweh, the God of Israel, who spoke with His mouth to David my father, and has with His hand fulfilled it, saying-

As discussed on :13, the promises to David were not at all totally fulfilled at that point, just because Solomon had built a temple. They were conditional upon Solomon's obedience to the law, which from a young man he had not shown. We think of his marriage to Rehoboam's Ammonitess mother, and to Pharaoh's daughter .

1 Kings 8:16 ‘Since the day that I brought My people Israel out of Egypt, I chose no city out of all the tribes of Israel to build a house that My name might be there; but I chose David to be over My people Israel’-

This is a typical misrepresentation of God's word. What God had said through Nathan was that He had not chosen anywhere for a temple to be built, but had lived as it were a mobile life in the tent of the tabernacle. And therefore, God would build David a house in the sense of a family of believers sharing David's faith.

1 Kings 8:17 Now it was with the heart of David my father to build a house for the name of Yahweh, the God of Israel-

This much was true, but it is sandwiched between various untruths and misrepresentations in :16 and :18-20.

1 Kings 8:18 But Yahweh said to David my father, ‘Whereas it was in your heart to build a house for My name, you did well that it was in your heart-

This is not recorded in the historical account, and given Solomon's tendency to misrepresent God's word we wonder whether this was said by God at all. Because God's response had been that He didn't want a house. He wanted to build a non physical house for David. Those reasons He gave for declining David's offer are not at all in the spirit of what God is now reported to have said.

1 Kings 8:19 Nevertheless, you shall not build the house; but your son who shall come forth out of your body, he shall build the house for My name’-

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

1 Kings 8:20 Yahweh has established His word that He spoke; for I have risen up in the place of David my father, and I sit on the throne of Israel, as Yahweh promised, and have built the house for the name of Yahweh, the God of Israel-

The establishment of the promises to David was to be conditional upon David's son walking in God's ways. But now Solomon wrongly presents the promises to David as having come to total fulfilment in him, just because he had built a temple for God.

Solomon speaks about him being King in Jerusalem (Ecc. 1:1,12; Prov. 1:1) as if this was the ultimate fulfilment of the Davidic promises. Consider the implications of 2 Chron. 1:9: "O Lord God, let thy promise unto David my father be established: for thou hast made me king over a people like the dust of the earth... give me now wisdom, that I may go out and come in before (i.e. lead) this people". Solomon was asking for wisdom because he thought that he was the Messiah, and he saw wisdom as a Messianic characteristic. He failed to realize that the promises to Abraham and David were only being primarily fulfilled in him (e.g. 1 Kings 4:20); he thought that he was the ultimate fulfilment of them (1 Kings 8:20 states this in so many words). His lack of faith and vision of the future Kingdom lead him to this proud and arrogant conclusion (cp. building up our own 'Kingdom' in this life through our lack of vision of the Kingdom of God).

1 Kings 8:21 There I have set a place for the ark, in which is the covenant of Yahweh which He made with our fathers when He brought them out of the land of Egypt-

By saying this, Solomon was careful to omit mentioning that the pit of manna and Aaron's rod were now no longer within the ark. See on :9.

“There was nothing in the ark except the two tablets of stone which Moses put there at Horeb ... the ark, in which is the covenant of the Lord” (1 Kings 8:9,21). Those tablets, on which were the ten commandments, were the covenant. The old covenant is therefore the ten commandments, including the Sabbath- and this has been replaced by the new covenant, which does not require Sabbath keeping.

1 Kings 8:22 Solomon stood before the altar of Yahweh in the presence of all the assembly of Israel, and spread forth his hands toward heaven-

Solomon was hardly praying in his closet! It seems the Lord was alluding to Solomon in Mt. 6:6, interpreting what he does here in a very negative light, and a reflection of Solomon's pride rather than his spirituality.

1 Kings 8:23 and he said, Yahweh, the God of Israel, there is no God like You in heaven above nor on earth beneath; who keeps covenant and grace with Your servants who walk before You with all their heart-

David spoke of seeking and praising God's grace with his "whole heart" (Ps. 9:1; 119:58; 138:1). Solomon uses the phrase, but speaks of being obedient with the "whole heart" (1 Kings 8:23; 2 Chron. 6:14) and applying the "whole heart" to the intellectual search for God (Ecc. 1:13; 8:9). There is a difference. The idea of whole hearted devotion to God was picked up by Solomon, but instead of giving the whole heart to the praise of God's grace, he instead advocated giving the whole heart to ritualistic obedience and intellectual search for God. This has been the trap fallen into by many Protestant groups whose obsession with "truth" has obscured the wonder of God's grace.

1 Kings 8:24 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-

He failed to meditate upon the promises beyond what they seemed to offer him in the here and now; and the result was that he felt they were totally fulfilled in him (1 Kings 8:20,24). He dogmatically declared to Shimei: “And King Solomon shall be blessed, and the throne of David shall be established before the Lord for ever” (1 Kings 2:45). And in all this, of course, we see our warning.

1 Kings 8:25 Now therefore, may Yahweh, the God of Israel, keep with Your servant David my father that which You have promised him saying, ‘There shall not fail you a man in My sight to sit on the throne of Israel, if only your children take heed to their way, to walk before Me as you have walked before Me’-

The promises to David originally focused upon one individual, whom the New Testament interprets as the Lord Jesus. But David here in Ps. 89:30; 132:12 and Solomon in 1 Kings 8:25 chose to understand the "seed" as the Davidic dynasty down the generations. This loss of focus upon the future Lord Jesus was what led David and Solomon to focus instead upon their own dynasty, rather than upon the future individual son of David who would reign eternally upon David's throne. His personal  immortality came to be interpreted as the eternal continuance of the Davidic dynasty as kings of Israel throughout future generations.

Another example of Solomon misquoting God is in 2 Chron. 6:6. Solomon claims that God said: “I have chosen Jerusalem, that my name might be there”. God had chosen no resting place, although it would have been politically convenient for Solomon if the city of Jerusalem as a city was where God had chosen to dwell. And so he kept thinking that way until he persuaded himself that in fact this was what God had said. David had charged Solomon with the words which God had spoken to him about Solomon: “If thy children take heed to their way, to walk before me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul” (1 Kings 2:4). But Solomon subtly changes this when he reminds God of how He had supposedly told David: “There shall not fail thee a man to sit on the throne of Israel; so that they children take heed to their way, that they walk before me as thou hast walked before me” (1 Kings 8:25). Two things become apparent here:

- The conditionality of the promise to David about Solomon is totally overlooked.  “If thy children…” becomes “so that…”, with the implication that David would always have descendants on the throne who would walk obediently before God. The possibility of personal failure had been removed by Solomon from his own perception of God.

- God’s desire that Solomon should “walk before me in truth” was changed to “walk before me as thou [David] hast walked before me”. This defined walking before God personally as having the relationship with God which your father had. And so often we have made the same mistake. The call to personally follow the Lord has become displaced by a following Him through others.

Notice how Solomon says these words to God Himself. Solomon had persuaded himself that this truly was what God had asked of David and himself, and so he comes out with these words to God.

1 Kings 8:26 Now therefore, God of Israel, please let Your word be verified, which You spoke to Your servant David my father-

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

1 Kings 8:27 But will God in very deed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens can’t contain You; how much less this house that I have built!-

It was exactly because of this that God didn't want a physical house built for Him. Yet Solomon has misrepresented God as saying He did want such a house. So these words are fake humility from Solomon, seeking to cover his proud obsession with building projects beneath an appearance of humility.

1 Kings 8:28 Yet have respect for the prayer of Your servant, and for his supplication, Yahweh my God, to listen to the cry and to the prayer which Your servant prays before You this day-

I noted on :14 that Solomon is praying all this facing the people, to be seen of men. This prayer would have been better said facing toward God. His showmanship is apparent.

1 Kings 8:29 that Your eyes may be open toward this house night and day toward the place of which You have said, ‘My name shall be there;’ to listen to the prayer which Your servant shall pray toward this place-

God never said that. It is Solomon's twist of the word of promise to David, that if his son / seed were obedient, then "He shall build an house for My Name". But that house was to be built up from persons, and had no reference to any physical building; indeed, the very opposite. God's eyes are open upon His children wherever they are, as David had learned whilst far from the sanctuary and on the run from Saul. Nehemiah felt God's eyes were open upon him even when the temple was in ruins (Neh. 1:6).

1 Kings 8:30 Listen to the supplication of Your servant, and of Your people Israel, when they shall pray toward this place. Yes, hear in heaven, Your dwelling place; and when You hear, forgive-

The temple and ark are sometimes referred to as the heavens (2 Sam. 15:25 cp. 1 Kings 8:30; 2 Chron. 30:27; Ps. 20:2,6; 11:4; Heb. 7:26). The church is the new temple, and is therefore at times referred to as the heavenlies in the New Testament. But Solomon was not reasoning on this level at this point. Rather was he claiming that the temple building would somehow make prayer more powerful before God. But that is simply untrue; no physical building can act as some kind of mediator between God and man. This is not to say that the faithful did not later pray toward the temple; for both Daniel and Jonah did. But it was not because they thought the temple somehow gave their prayers more power and standing before God because of its existence. For in Daniel's time, and perhaps Jonah's, the temple was in ruins.

1 Kings 8:31 If a man sins against his neighbour, and an oath is laid on him to cause him to swear, and he comes and swears before Your altar in this house-

God's awareness of who was telling the truth was not, however, predicated upon the altar being situated within a physical building. God's presence and omniscience is not somehow from then on conditional upon the temple.

1 Kings 8:32 then hear in heaven, and do, and judge Your servants, condemning the wicked, to bring his way upon his own head, and justifying the righteous, to give him according to his righteousness-

In Prov. 24:24 and other Proverbs, Solomon teaches that this is how men should judge, lest they be cursed. He says that God condemns the wicked but justifies the righteous, and so should we. But by having this position, he shows his total lack of appreciation of God's grace to his father David. For David was worthy of condemnation, but by grace, he the wicked was justified, counted righteous, when he was not (Ps. 32:2 cp. Rom. 4:4-6). This lack of appreciation of grace arose from how it seems Solomon totally whitewashed the sin of his father David with his mother Bathsheba. And it resulted in his lack of grace, and failure throughout Proverbs to appreciate that human behaviour is nuanced, and is not simply divided between spotlessly righteous behaviour and terrible sinfulness.

1 Kings 8:33 When Your people Israel are struck down before the enemy, because they have sinned against You; if they turn again to You, and confess Your name, and pray and make supplication to You in this house-

Again, Solomon devalues the power of prayerful repentance and confession of God's Name; for he implies that this is made somehow more powerful through praying to the God "in this house". But Solomon is as it were bringing God down from heaven to earth by suggesting He is somehow located "in this house". Whereas He is in heaven, as he contradictorily admits in :34. It was because of this mindset that there was such a collapse of faith in Judah when they saw the temple in ruins. It meant, according to Solomon's logic, the death of God.

1 Kings 8:34 then hear in heaven, and forgive the sin of Your people Israel, and bring them again to the land which You gave to their fathers-

See on :33. The restoration to their land was to be because they, or those who remained in the land, would pray to God in the temple (:33). Solomon is hereby assuming that even if Israel sin and go into captivity, the temple will be an eternal house for God which will always be there. He is so very wrong. The temple was not eternal and was destroyed; but the exiles could still pray to God, quite independently of the existence of the temple. The destruction of the temple was for multiple reasons, but perhaps one of them was to rid God's people of these wrong ideas about God's presence in the temple building. And God answers this idea that the temple was to be eternal in 1 Kings 9:7,8.

1 Kings 8:35 When the sky is shut up, and there is no rain, because they have sinned against You; if they pray toward this place, and confess Your name, and turn from their sin, when You afflict them-

Solomon inserts parts of his father’s Bathsheba psalms in his prayers for how all Israel could be forgiven if they “confess thy name... when thou afflictest them... saying, We have sinned... forgive thy people... and all their transgressions wherein they have transgressed” (1 Kings 8:35,47,50 = Ps. 32:5 etc.). On the basis of David’s pattern, all God’s people can find forgiveness, if they make a like confession. Indeed, this has long been recognized by Jewish commentators; and many of the Psalms understood by them as relevant to the Nazi holocaust are Bathsheba Psalms. “Out of the depths” they cried like David; and at the entrance to Bergen-Belsen it stands written: “My sorrow is continually before me” (Ps. 38:17), in recognition of having received punishment for sin [note how these kind of plaques contain no trace of hatred or calling for Divine retribution upon the persecutors].

But Solomon, as ever, is mixing truth with error. Because the turning again to God was not dependent upon praying towards the temple building. It was to be destroyed, and the direction of their prayers was to be towards "the God of heaven" and not some ghost in a ruined temple. This phrase "the God of heaven" or similar is often found in the restoration histories, indicating that God's people had been forced to learn this lesson.

1 Kings 8:36 then hear in heaven, and forgive the sin of Your servants, and of Your people Israel, when You teach them the good way in which they should walk; and send rain on Your land, which You have given to Your people for an inheritance-

The reference to rain was appropriate in the immediate context because as explained on :2, Solomon was speaking in the month of Ethanim, literally, the rain month, and likely the latter rains were pouring down at this time as he was speaking. His implication would be that this rain was part of the promised blessing for obedience because of the temple. Perhaps this was why, as noted on :2, Solomon had purposefully arranged the dedication festival at this time.

1 Kings 8:37 If there is famine in the land, if there is pestilence, if there is blight, mildew, locust or caterpillar; if their enemy besieges them in their cities; whatever plague, whatever sickness there is-

These things clearly allude to the curses for breaking the covenant in Dt. 28. But those curses were to be lifted by repentance and renewed faithfulness to the covenant, and their lifting was not predicated upon the existence of the physical temple and praying in it or towards it.

1 Kings 8:38 whatever prayer and supplication is made by any man, or by all Your people Israel, who shall each know the plague of his own heart, and spread forth his hands toward this house-

As Pharaoh’s heart was plagued (Ex. 9:14), so was Israel’s (1 Kings 8:38); as Egypt was a reed, so were Israel (1 Kings 14:15). As Pharaoh-hophra was given into the hand of his enemies, so would Israel be (Jer. 44:30). She would be  “Condemned with the world...”. But the phrase 'spread forth hands' is used often in the Bible, but followed by 'to the Lord'. Solomon is praying with hands spread forth towards heaven (:22); but he is confusing prayer towards God with prayer towards the temple. He is drawing an inappropriate parallel between God and the temple.

1 Kings 8:39 then hear in heaven, Your dwelling place, and forgive, and do, and render to every man according to all his ways, whose heart You know; (for You, even You only, know the hearts of all the children of men;)-

This reference to God dwelling in heaven makes a nonsense of the idea of building a house for God to inhabit on earth. And this was exactly why God had not wanted David to build the temple. So Solomon is here merely giving lip service to these ideas.

Descriptions of God’s dwelling place clearly indicate that He has a personal location: “God is in heaven” (Ecc. 5:2); “He has looked down from the height of His sanctuary; from heaven did the Lord behold the earth” (Ps. 102:19,20); “Hear in heaven your dwelling place”. Yet more specifically than this, we read that God has a “throne” (2 Chron. 9:8; Ps. 11:4; Is. 6:1; 66:1). Such language is hard to apply to an undefined essence which exists somewhere in heavenly realms.

1 Kings 8:40 that they may fear You all the days that they live in the land which You gave to our fathers-

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

1 Kings 8:41 Moreover concerning the foreigner, who is not of Your people Israel, when he shall come out of a far country for Your name’s sake-

The acceptance of the Gentile within the community of Israel was not simply predicated upon the existence of the temple. Ruth was the classic case of coming out of a Gentile country for the sake of Yahweh's Name. And her acceptance was not at all predicated upon any temple building, because there was none in existence at her time.

1 Kings 8:42 (for they shall hear of Your great name, and of Your mighty hand, and of Your outstretched arm); when he shall come and pray toward this house-

There seems implicit in the reasoning here that the fame of Yahweh's temple would spread to the surrounding nations, and some would wish to come and worship in it. But proselytes were not to be attracted to Yahweh because of any physical temple, but because of who He is- the things implicit in His Name. No matter how cool and slick the external presentation, this is not what legitimately converts people to the true God.

1 Kings 8:43 hear in heaven, Your dwelling place, and do according to all that the foreigner calls to You for; that all the peoples of the earth may know Your name, to fear You, as do Your people Israel, and that they may know that this house which I have built is called by Your name-

As discussed on :42, God's response to Gentile proselytes, and their turning to Him, is not predicated upon the existence of a physical building. Solomon asks God to answer prayers of Gentiles made toward the temple so that the Gentiles would know that Yahweh's Name was really there- in "this house which I have built". The agenda of Solomon's pride is evident.

1 Kings 8:44 If Your people go out to battle against their enemy, by whatever way You shall send them, and they pray to Yahweh toward the city which You have chosen, and toward the house which I have built for Your name-

Solomon is alluding to Dt. 20:1, but Israel were told that when they went out to battle (s.w.), they were to remember that Yahweh was present with them. Solomon has distorted this idea, by suggesting that Yahweh's presence was specifically in the temple, and the people were to pray towards it there. When in reality, His presence was with His people on the battle front and in their hearts.

1 Kings 8:45 then hear in heaven their prayer and their supplication, and maintain their cause-

"Maintain their cause" is the same phrase translated "do judgment / justice". But Israel were to do justice (Lev. 18:4 and often, as David did, 2 Sam. 8:15), and in response, Yahweh would do justice for them (Dt. 10:18). But Solomon overlooks this conditional aspect in Israel's relationship with God, as he did in his own life. He thought that merely praying to a temple would somehow obligate God to 'do judgment' for His people. This is the mentality of mere religion, and not of relationship with God.

1 Kings 8:46 If they sin against You (for there is no man who doesn’t sin), and You are angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captive to the land of the enemy, far off or near-

Solomon often emphasized the importance of keeping ones’ heart (Prov. 2:10-16; 3:5,6; 4:23-5:5; 6:23-26); he had foreseen that the essential sin of God’s people was “the plague of his own heart” (1 Kings 8:46), and he imagined how for this sin God’s people would later pray towards the temple. And yet his wives turned away his heart, for all this awareness that the heart must be kept. It was as if the more he knew the truth of something, the more he wanted to do the very opposite. And this is exactly true of our natures. Perhaps with Solomon he reasoned that in his case, foreign wives wouldn’t turn away his heart. Just as our flesh thinks ‘Yes, but it can’t happen to me’. Perhaps too he reasoned that if the temple somehow could bring forgiveness for the plague of the heart, his heart was incorruptible because of the temple.

1 Kings 8:47 yet if they shall repent in the land where they are carried captive, and turn again, and make supplication to You in the land of those who carried them captive, saying, ‘We have sinned, and have done perversely; we have dealt wickedly'-

Again, Solomon assumes that even if Israel were to go into captivity, the temple would still stand, and prayer toward it would bring the restoration. But the temple was destroyed, so that they would be forced to quit this kind of religious tokenism and turn to God in Heaven with their hearts and souls. Daniel prayed these words (Dan. 9:5), but there was no temple then standing to add efficacy to them. And they were prayed in Ps. 106:6 before any temple stood.

1 Kings 8:48 if they return to You with all their heart and with all their soul in the land of their enemies, who carried them captive, and pray to You towards their land, which You gave to their fathers, the city which You have chosen, and the house which I have built for Your name-

The old covenant clearly taught that all Israel would be exiled from their land if they broke the covenant. Solomon's dedication of the temple seemed to assume that only the wicked would be exiled from the land, and the temple would stand eternally; to express repentance in exile, they just needed to pray towards it. But all Israel were sent into exile, and his temple was razed to the ground. But Solomon's belief that "The upright will dwell in the land; the perfect will eternally remain in it" (Prov. 2:21) meant that he totally refused to accept the extent of judgment predicted in the curses of Dt. 28. All Israel would be exiled from their land. He liked to assume that his Kingdom would eternally endure; because of his lack of faith in the nature of the future Kingdom, and his mistaken imagination that he was the eternal Messianic king. He refused to recognize that his father David in Ps. 72 had wrongly imagined that he would be that eternal king, and disregarded the conditionality of the promises made to him. And God answers this idea that the temple was to be eternal in 1 Kings 9:7,8.

1 Kings 8:49 then hear their prayer and their supplication in heaven, your dwelling place, and maintain their cause-

When exiled from Absalom, David had prayed toward God's "holy hill" of Zion, and had been regathered there (Ps. 3:4). David had fled Jerusalem and the "holy hill" of the temple mount, which was now under Absalom's control. But he believes Yahweh is still there, present as it were in the temple, and answering his prayer. He perhaps alludes to the promises that if Israel sinned and were exiled, they could always pray to God and hope for regathering to His holy hill (Dt. 30:1-4; Neh. 1:9). Solomon now develops these thoughts further, in teaching that Israel in their dispersion were to pray to God toward Jerusalem, His "holy hill" of Zion (1 Kings 8:48,49). We see therefore how Solomon would have reflected upon his father David's experience; David had prayed towards God's "holy hill" when in exile from it, and had been heard. Solomon may well have been in David's retinue at the time, and would have experienced the wonder of return to Zion because of his father's prayer towards God in Zion.

1 Kings 8:50 and forgive Your people who have sinned against You, and all their transgressions in which they have transgressed against You; and give them compassion before those who carried them captive, that they may have compassion on them-

God's giving of compassion to His people depended upon their holiness before Him (s.w. Dt. 13:17). But Solomon implies that it will be predicated upon the temple he had built. Form was replacing content, external religion was trumping true spirituality, physical symbolism was obscuring true repentance.

1 Kings 8:51 (for they are Your people, and Your inheritance, which You brought out of Egypt, from the midst of the furnace of iron)-

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

1 Kings 8:52 that Your eyes may be open to the supplication of Your servant-

God's eyes are open upon His children wherever they are, as David had learned whilst far from the sanctuary and on the run from Saul. Nehemiah felt God's eyes were open upon him even when the temple was in ruins (Neh. 1:6).

And to the supplication of Your people Israel, to listen to them whenever they cry to You-

Solomon saw himself as Moses, fully representative of Israel, and thereby their saviour (1 Kings 11:1,5-7 cp. 33; 8:52; and note the ye... thee confusion of 1 Kings 9:4-7); his prayer was their prayer (2 Chron. 6:21); his worship was theirs (2 Chron. 1:3,5).

His prayer of 2 Chron.6:33 speaks as if the heavens where God lived were actually the temple; he bid men pray towards the temple where God lived, rather than to God in Heaven. Yet theoretically he recognized the magnitude of God (2 Chron. 6:18); yet the vastness of God, both in power and Spirituality, meant little to him; it failed to humble him as it should have done.  It is a feature of human nature to be able to perceive truth and yet act the very opposite. His enthusiasm for his own works lead him to lose a true relationship with God. The idea of salvation by grace became lost on him, loving response to God's forgiveness was not on his agenda, true humility was unnecessary for him, given his certainty that he was King as God intended. He reasoned that God would hear his prayers because they were uttered in the temple of his own hands, rather than because of any personal faith (1 Kings 8:52). Indeed, Solomon legalistically demands that God maintain [as in a court of law] the legal cause or "right" of His people if they pray towards the temple (1 Kings 8:45,49). Legalism and faith are opposed to each other, and Solomon's usage and conception of the temple was legalistic rather than faith based. When dedicating the temple, Solomon asks God to incline the hearts of Israel to be obedient to His commandments (1 Kings 8:57); and whilst God can and does do this, Solomon's implication seems to be that any disobedience would therefore effectively be God's fault for not making His people obedient. He failed to see the need for personal election to obey God's ways.

1 Kings 8:53 For You separated them from among all the peoples of the earth to be Your inheritance, as You spoke by Moses Your servant, when You brought our fathers out of Egypt, Lord Yahweh-

Solomon's argument is that since God had made Israel His people, then they would always be His people and inheritance. All they needed to do if they broke their relationship with God was to pray before the temple. Solomon saw the temple as the failsafe method of keeping Israel always as God's inheritance and special people, regardless of their sins. But the truth was that God was to disinherit His people, and return them to the nations whose gods they worshipped. And no temple was going to stop that happening. Solomon likewise assumed that he was the chosen seed of David, and his having built the temple meant that sin was no ultimate problem between Yahweh and himself. He thereby overlooked the conditional nature of God's promised relationship with him. And so many have used religious symbolism likewise, to release them from any sense of personal responsibility towards God.

1 Kings 8:54 It was so, that when Solomon had made an end of praying all this prayer and supplication to Yahweh, he arose from before the altar of Yahweh, from kneeling on his knees with his hands spread forth toward heaven-

We get the impression that his prayer was but showmanship, and a parade of a fake humility. See on :14.

1 Kings 8:55 He stood, and blessed all the assembly of Israel with a loud voice saying-

This public prayer for the sake of appearance, facing men rather than God (see on :14), makes us think that the "loud voice" of prayer and blessing was hypocritical. Solomon uses the very phrase in Prov. 27:14: "He that blesses his friend with a loud voice... it shall be counted a curse to him". But he refused to perceive the personal truth of the Proverbs he spoke. A loud voice (s.w.) doesn't mean God has heard the speaker (Ez. 8:18); the phrase is used of the priests of Baal he mistakenly believed this.

1 Kings 8:56 Blessed be Yahweh, who has given rest to His people Israel, according to all that He promised. There has not failed one word of all His good promise, which He promised by Moses His servant-

God's words not falling / failing means that they were fulfilled (1 Sam. 3:19). Solomon is making the same mistake as preterism, claiming that all the prophetic word had been fulfilled. He decided this on the mere basis that he had built a temple, which he wished to see as the fulfilment of the promises to David, which he now wished to understand as meaning the promises to Moses had been totally fulfilled as well. It was this lack of any perspective of future fulfilment, of the Messianic Kingdom to come and the resurrection of the dead, which led Solomon to fail to appreciate God's grace. He also therefore had no sense of personal failure and the wonder of acceptance by grace, because he thought he had been given full acceptance right now.

1 Kings 8:57 May Yahweh our God be with us, as He was with our fathers. Let Him not leave us, nor forsake us-

This can be translated not so much as a request but as a joyful statement of present reality. He felt that his prayer and his temple would somehow guarantee the permanent presence of God. God would not leave or forsake Israel because Solomon assumed that the temple had God's presence, and it would be eternal; for he had interpreted God's promise to build an eternal house as fulfilled in his building of the temple.

1 Kings 8:58 that He may incline our hearts to Him, to walk in all His ways, and to keep His commandments, His statutes and his ordinances which He commanded our fathers-

We're wrong to think that God passionlessly waits for us to repent or pray to Him, and then He will forgive or act for us. He loves us, simply so; and with all love's manipulation of circumstances, seeks to pour out His love upon us. Thus repentance itself is a gift which God gives and is not totally upon human initiative (Dt. 4:29-31; 30:1-10; 1 Kings 8:58).

As noted on Ps. 119:36; 141:4, David believed that God could act deep within the psychology or heart of man, to incline us toward righteousness and away from evil. This is how the Holy Spirit works today. Solomon believed the same (s.w. 1 Kings 8:58), but only in theory; for his Gentile wives inclined or turned away his heart from God (s.w. 1 Kings 11:3,9). God will not turn our hearts anywhere we ourselves don't want to go. Solomon often appeals for us to incline our hearts to wisdom (s.w. Prov. 2:2; 4:20; 5:1; 22:17), but he himself was inclined to apostasy (s.w. 1 Kings 11:3,9). All his emphasis is upon the need to incline ourselves, whereas his father David trusted in the work of the Spirit to incline his heart to good and away from evil (Ps. 141:4; 119:36 etc.).

1 Kings 8:59 Let these my words, with which I have made supplication before Yahweh, be near to Yahweh our God day and night, that He may maintain the cause of His servant, and the cause of His people Israel, as each day shall require-

Just as Solomon considered the existence of the temple as the guarantee that God would ultimately be with His people, so he similarly argues that his prayer was some kind of magic incantation which would mean that God would day by day for ever and eternally maintain the cause of His people. But his whole logic is 'religious' rather than spiritual.

1 Kings 8:60 that all the peoples of the earth may know that Yahweh, He is God. There is none else-

Solomon had a genuine desire for the surrounding nations to accept Yahweh, just as his father David did. But it was all tied up with his own pride; people coming to admire Solomon's temple and thereby himself. For as mentioned above, he thought that the physical temple would be the basis of their attraction and loyalty to Yahweh.

1 Kings 8:61 Let your heart therefore be perfect with Yahweh our God, to walk in His statutes and to keep His commandments, as you do at this day-

Solomon considered that the fulfilment of the promises to Moses and David (which he was mistaken in thinking had fully happened just because he had built a temple) was because Israel "at this day" had a perfect heart with Yahweh. They didn't, but just as he assume his own perfect obedience, so he assumed theirs. Unlike David, he had not been forced by God to engage with the issues of his own sinfulness.

1 Kings 8:62 The king, and all Israel with him, offered sacrifice before Yahweh-

We again see the connection between Solomon and "all Israel", whom he considered to be as perfect as he was; see on :61.

1 Kings 8:63 Solomon offered for the sacrifice of peace offerings, which he offered to Yahweh, twenty two thousand head of cattle, and one hundred and twenty thousand sheep. So the king and all the children of Israel dedicated the house of Yahweh-

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

1 Kings 8:64 The same day the king made the middle of the court holy that was before the house of Yahweh; for there he offered the burnt offering, and the meal offering, and the fat of the peace offerings, because the bronze altar that was before Yahweh was too little to receive the burnt offering, the meal offering, and the fat of the peace offerings-

The huge numbers of animals required more altars, which were presumably placed in the middle court. Although we wonder on what basis Solomon as a non-Levite had the right to declare the court holy. We also wonder as to whether the huge laver, and the ten smaller lavers, were only built with a view to this opening dedication. For the huge laver was too large for normal usage, and there was surely no need for 10 lavers when the tabernacle had only had one. We wonder whether this sudden erection of more altars was also as it were a design fault, and indicates that what he was doing was not according to God's command, but rather his flawed human initiative. See on :8 for another possible design fault.

1 Kings 8:65 So Solomon held the feast at that time, and all Israel with him, a great assembly, from the entrance of Hamath to the brook of Egypt, before Yahweh our God, seven days and seven days, even fourteen days-

The dedication coincided with the seven day feast of tabernacles (see on :1), and to that was added this seven day feast of dedication. There were representatives from the very borders of the land promised to Abraham, implying these areas had been settled by Israelites; or perhaps those who attended from those places were Gentile proselytes.

1 Kings 8:66 On the eighth day he sent the people away; and they blessed the king, and went to their tents joyful and glad of heart for all the goodness that Yahweh had shown to David His servant, and to Israel His people-

The people rejoiced that the promises to David had been fulfilled in the temple and in the prosperity of the nation. But they had only uncritically accepted Solomon's narrative. For this was not at all the fulfilment of the promises to David. They "blessed the king" because they assumed it was Solomon who had brought about this fulfilment; and that was exactly what he thought. And they had bought into that false narrative.

1 Kings Chapter 9

1 Kings 9:1 It happened, when Solomon had finished the building of the house of Yahweh, and the king’s house, and all Solomon’s desire which he was pleased to do-

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

1 Kings 9:2 that Yahweh appeared to Solomon the second time, as He had appeared to him at Gibeon-

Clearly God was aware that Solomon was going wrong, refusing to realize the conditional nature of the promises made to David about his son, and not personally applying the wisdom given to him in the first vision. So God's response to Solomon's arrogant, mistaken prayer of 1 Kings 8 was in fact to appear to him and warn him that he needed to be obedient, or else the promises would not in fact apply to him. The clear implication was that Solomon's statements in his prayer that the promises were fulfilled in him... were wrong.

1 Kings 9:3 Yahweh said to him, I have heard your prayer and your supplication, that you have made before Me. I have made this house holy, which you have built, to put My name there forever; and My eyes and My heart shall be there constantly-

It has been argued that the Hebrew olahm, "forever", really means 'a period'. But I am unpersuaded of that argument in every case. Rather I would think that the context in this case requires that we understand God to be saying that He would indeed dwell in the temple "forever", and His particular sensitivity would be found in that place, His eyes and heart. But as He makes clear in :4-7, that was all conditional upon obedience. This highlights the tragedy- that eternity was at stake. So much depends upon human freewill decisions; for that is how much He respects us and our freedom of choice.

1 Kings 9:4 As for you, if you will walk before Me, as David your father walked, in integrity of heart, and in uprightness, to do according to all that I have commanded you, and will keep My statutes and My ordinances-

This was a hard act to follow, for David was chosen as being a man after God's own heart. Solomon considered that he was acceptable with God just because of his father, whereas Go wanted him to personally attain his father's spirituality. We note in passing God's high estimation of David, despite David's serious but out of character failings.

God constantly warned Solomon about the conditionality of the promises, before the building started (2 Sam. 7:14), during it (1 Kings 6:11-13) and immediately after completing it (1 Kings 9:2-9). Solomon reinterprets this conditional promise in Prov. 20:7: "A righteous man walks in integrity; blessed are his children after him". Solomon has here his own agenda of self justification in view. The man who 'walked in integrity' is without doubt David (s.w. 1 Kings 9:4; Ps. 26:1,11; 101:2). Solomon assumed that because his father had walked in integrity, then he as his child would automatically be blessed. But he was choosing to misunderstand the conditional nature of the promises to him in 1 Kings 9:4; if he walked himself in integrity "as David your father walked", then he would be the prophetically blessed son of David.

1 Kings 9:5 then I will establish the throne of your kingdom over Israel forever, according as I promised to David your father saying, ‘There shall not fail you a man on the throne of Israel’-

This is the same quotation made in Ps. 132:12. But God is picking up on Solomon's claim in 1 Kings 8:24 that God had already fulfilled this. He is pointing out that this promise was conditional, and Solomon had overlooked that. The promise of "a man" suggests one individual; but Solomon was wrong in assuming this referred to himself.

1 Kings 9:6 But if you turn away from following Me, you or your children, and don’t keep My commandments and My statutes which I have set before you, but shall go and serve other gods, and worship them-

This is what Solomon did finally do, and already at this stage he had married Gentile women, whom the law of Moses had warned would lead his heart away from Yahweh to "other gods". But that apparently inevitable process could still be arrested- if Solomon responded in humility to this appeal. We wait with eager ears to hear Solomon's response when the appeal ends in :9. But there is silence; see on :9.

Solomon was fully representative of Israel (1 Kings 11:1,5-7 cp. 33; 8:52; and note the ye... thee confusion of 1 Kings 9:4-7 AV); his prayer was their prayer (2 Chron. 6:21); his worship was theirs (2 Chron. 1:3,5). And his apostacy was also theirs.

1 Kings 9:7 then will I cut off Israel out of the land which I have given them; and this house, which I have made holy for my name, will I cast out of my sight; and Israel shall be a proverb and a byword among all peoples-

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

1 Kings 9:8 Though this house is so high, yet shall everyone who passes by it be astonished, and shall hiss; and they shall say, ‘Why has Yahweh done thus to this land, and to this house?’-

This is God's commentary upon the implications in Solomon's prayer that the temple and God's presence within it was to be eternal (see on 1 Kings 8:34,48). Solomon had willfully misinterpreted the promises to David to mean that the temple was the fulfilment of the promise that the seed would build an eternal house. That house David had built was not the house in view, and could easily be destroyed and even become a curse rather than a blessing- if Solomon were disobedient.

1 Kings 9:9 and they shall answer, ‘Because they forsook Yahweh their God, who brought their fathers out of the land of Egypt, and laid hold of other gods, and worshiped them, and served them. Therefore Yahweh has brought all this evil on them’-

We wait with eager ears to hear Solomon's response when the appeal ends; but there is silence. Solomon had blanked out from his perception any idea that he might fail or was less than perfect. His narrative was that he was the son of David, and the promises about David's son were now fulfilled in him. And he refused to allow anything, not even an appeal from God, disturb that internal narrative.

1 Kings 9:10 It happened at the end of twenty years, in which Solomon had built the two houses, the house of Yahweh and the king’s house-

Psalm 127 is prefaced with the information that it is a Psalm for Solomon- perhaps given by some nameless prophet (Gad? Nathan?) to warn him of where he was going. Verse 1 reminds him that God must be the builder of any house, or else the builders labour in vain. There is good reason to think that Solomon utterly failed to appreciate this. The records stress time and again that Solomon  built the temple (1 Kings 6:2,14; 9:10,25; 10:4; 1 Chron.6:10,32; 2 Chron. 8:1,12; 9:3; Acts 7:47); yet the house referred to in the Davidic promises was to be built by God, through David's Messianic Son, the Lord Jesus. Zechariah prophesied at the time of the rebuilding of the physical temple. It is significant, in this context, that Zech. 6:12 reminds Israel that the true temple of God will be built by the Branch, the Lord Jesus.

1 Kings 9:11 (now Hiram the king of Tyre had supplied Solomon with cedar trees and fir trees, and with gold, according to all his desire), that then king Solomon gave Hiram twenty cities in the land of Galilee-

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

1 Kings 9:12 Hiram came out from Tyre to see the cities which Solomon had given him; and they didn’t please him-

Solomon's sacrifice of principle, as explained on :11, didn't achieve his intended aim of getting Hiram even more onside with him. Sacrifice of principle and the true hope of Israel never works out. These cities were inhabited by Canaanites whom Israel hadn't subdued at the time of this 'gift' (2 Sam. 24:7; 2 Chron. 8:2), and so Solomon was giving to Hiram a bunch of problems. These cities were not really under Solomon's authority anyway, he had not subdued the Canaanites there, so passing them to Hiram was giving him a noose around his neck rather than a true present.

1 Kings 9:13 He said, What cities are these which you have given me, my brother? He called them the land of Cabul to this day-

"Cabul" can mean 'pawned', and the idea may be that although in some sense they did belong to Solomon, effectively they didn't because they were inhabited by Canaanites. Hence Hiram returned them to Solomon (2 Chron. 8:2), with all the damage in relationship that goes with returning a rejected gift. 2 Chron. 8:2 says that after this Solomon colonized the cities and sent Israelites to live there. But as will be noted on 1 Kings 9:21, this was not particularly in obedience to the Divine commands to subjugate the Canaanites, but rather than Solomon was desperate for huge amounts of slave labour with which to fulfil his building projects.

1 Kings 9:14 Hiram sent to the king one hundred and twenty talents of gold-

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

1 Kings 9:15 This is the reason of the levy which king Solomon raised, to build the house of Yahweh, and his own house, and Millo, and the wall of Jerusalem, and Hazor, and Megiddo, and Gezer-

Solomon figuratively chastised the people with whips in the form of the excessive tax he raised in order to build store cities (1 Kings 9:15,19), in which to store all his accumulation. Surely this is behind the Lord's parable of the rich fool, devoid of wisdom in practice, who built ever bigger barns because of his lack of understanding about the future Kingdom. The Hebrew for "store cities" (2 Chron. 8:6) is also translated "to heap up", strengthening the connection with the rich fool (Lk. 12:15-28). That parable stresses the self-centeredness of the fool- just circle all the occurrences of the word "I". A similar over-use of personal pronouns in Ecc. 2:4-8 makes the same point. Ecc. 2:26 records how Solomon reflected that the sinner "heaped up" treasures- using the same word as for his "store cities". He saw his error, but wasn't bothered to do anything about it.

1 Kings 9:16 Pharaoh king of Egypt had gone up, and taken Gezer, and burnt it with fire, and slain the Canaanites who lived in the city, and given it for a present to his daughter, Solomon’s wife-

The LXX interprets this as a marriage gift, and the Hebrew for "present" implies this. We know from Jud. 1:15 that it was not unknown for the father of the bride to give a dowry payment to the groom. Gezer was a Philistine city, and it has been suggested that they had sailed to the coast of Egypt and were acting as pirates, also pillaging the Egyptian coastline. Hence Pharaoh's attack upon them.

1 Kings 9:17 Solomon built Gezer, and Beth Horon the lower-

Gezer had been a Philistine or Canaanite city (:16), and as with the colonization of the wilderness outpost of Tamar (:18)and the Canaanite held cities in Galilee (2 Chron. 8:2; 1 Kings 9:13), this building of cities in these areas would only have made sense if Israelites were then sent to live there. This would therefore have resulted in a huge forced deportation of Israelites away from their homes and tribal areas to populate remote areas surrounded by recently vanquished Canaanites. This would not have been popular.

1 Kings 9:18 and Baalath, and Tamar in the wilderness, in the land-

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

1 Kings 9:19 and all the storage cities that Solomon had, and the cities for his chariots, and the cities for his horsemen-

The building of store cities by slave labour is exactly what Pharaoh did to the Israelites (Ex. 1:11). The impression is given that he followed Egypt in this way, as well as marrying Pharaoh's daughter and incorporating Egyptian stylism into the temple building, as noted on 1 Kings 8. His love of horses and chariots likewise reflects his love of Egypt, despite it being forbidden for Israel's king in Deuteronomy.

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

And that which Solomon desired to build for his pleasure in Jerusalem, and in Lebanon, and in all the land of his dominion-

Solomon loved building (Ecc. 2:4-6)- he built cities and buildings because it was “the desire of Solomon which he desired” (1 Kings 9:19 AVmg.), i.e. one of his dominant desires. So when we read that it was the desire of Solomon to build the temple (1 Kings 9:1,11), he was merely serving God in a way that naturally appealed to him anyway. And when he had finished that desire when the temple was completed (9:1), he was in the same position as when in Ecclesiastes he describes how he indulged every desire up to the very end, and then was left with the emptiness of vanity.

The fortification of Lebanon was because of the threat from Rezin in Damascus (1 Kings 11:24).

1 Kings 9:20 As for all the people who were left of the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, who were not of the children of Israel-

Of the seven nations earlier listed as inhabiting Canaan, only these five had apparently survived. Two had been absorbed into the Israelite population or destroyed. They were clearly distinct from the "children of Israel". Instead of trying to absorb them into Israel or destroy them, Solomon was so desperate for workers that he capitalized on that situation and demanded they provide him with slaves for his building works, as opposed to the Israelite labour which was classified as 'servants' (:22).

1 Kings 9:21 their children who were left after them in the land, whom the children of Israel were not able utterly to destroy, of them Solomon raised a levy of bondservants to this day-

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

1 Kings 9:22 But of the children of Israel Solomon made no bondservants; but they were the men of war, and his servants, and his princes, and his captains, and rulers of his chariots and of his horsemen-

This sounds very much like the fulfilment of Samuel's warning as to how a human king would abuse the Israelites. He made the Canaanites slaves (:21), but he made the Israelites his servants, to the point of whipping them with whips, as they later complained after his death. The difference between being his slaves and his servants was therefore not that significant.

Solomon had obsessive tendencies. We know that he became addicted to finding pleasure in women, and Ecc. 2 shows him racing down the road of obsession with architecture, alcohol, food, gold etc. The historical narratives so often mention his gold and silver (e.g. 2 Chron. 9:13-21,24,27). This repetition reflects Solomon's obsession. The same fact explains the record's repetition of Solomon's enthusiasm for horses (1 Kings 10:25-29; 4:26,28; 9:19,22; 2 Chron. 1:14,16,17; 8:6,9; 9:24,25,28). Yet amassing of gold, silver and horses was explicitly forbidden for the King of Israel (Dt. 17:17). There is a powerful point to be made here: we can deceive ourselves that God is blessing us, when actually we are breaching explicit commands. Would Solomon had understood the concept of self-examination.

1 Kings 9:23 These were the chief officers who were over Solomon’s work, five hundred and fifty, who bore rule over the people who laboured in the work-

The number of these overseers varies from 3,300 when the temple was being built (1 Kings 5:16) to 550 in 1 Kings 9:23 and then 250 in the Chronicles record. I suggested on 1 Kings 9:14,21 that all was not well in Solomon's apparently opulent kingdom. His building obsessions had led him to borrow money from Hiram to find it, and to excessively tax both Israel and the Canaanites amongst them to provide workers. And so the decreasing numbers of overseers may reflect his declining human resources, despite making every effort to try to pressgang more labourers he got fewer and fewer on the jobs in practice.

1 Kings 9:24 But Pharaoh’s daughter came up out of the city of David to her house which Solomon had built for her: then he built Millo-

If this is the woman of the Song of Solomon, then we can deduce they had a stormy relationship. It apparently ends at the end of Song 8 (see notes there), and yet with the hints of resumption. So perhaps it was not a blessed marriage, and Solomon ended up building her a separate house to live in outside his immediate citadel.

1 Kings 9:25 Solomon offered burnt offerings and peace offerings on the altar which he built to Yahweh three times a year, burning incense with them, on the altar that was before Yahweh. So he finished the house-

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

1 Kings 9:26 King Solomon made a navy of ships in Ezion Geber, which is beside Eloth, on the shore of the Red Sea, in the land of Edom-

The navy appears to have either been owned by Hiram or at least included his ships (2 Chron. 8:18). It is spoken of as Solomon's in the same way as he is spoken of as being the personal builder of the temple, when clearly his subordinates did the actual work. See on :27.

1 Kings 9:27 Hiram sent in the navy his servants, sailors who had knowledge of the sea, with the servants of Solomon-

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

1 Kings 9:28 They came to Ophir, and fetched from there gold, four hundred and twenty talents, and brought it to king Solomon-

Chronicles says 450, but perhaps the 30 talents difference were paid to Hiram for his transport services, as the navy of :27 appears to have either been owned by Hiram or at least included his ships (2 Chron. 8:18). "Ophir" may have been a generic name for areas to the east, including southern Arabia (famed for gold in Ps. 72:15; Ez. 27:22) and India; Ophir was in Arabia according to Gen. 10:29. Sheba was nearby and was famed for gold, so it was through this trading that the Queen of Sheba heard of the wisdom of Solomon. The next verse (1 Kings 10:1) goes on to speak of her, connecting her with this gold trade with Ophir.

1 Kings Chapter 10

1 Kings 10:1 When the queen of Sheba heard of the fame of Solomon concerning the name of Yahweh, she came to test him with hard questions-

As explained on 1 Kings 9:28, she would have first encountered Solomon's servants when they came to Sheba in search of gold, for which Sheba was famous. "Hard questions" is the word for "riddle". And it seems Solomon answered her riddles using his book of Proverbs. For he uses the word in Prov. 1:5,6 about how his Divinely inspired Proverbs were the answers to such "riddles" of the wise: "These proverbs can even add to the knowledge of the wise and give guidance to the educated, so that they can understand the hidden meanings of proverbs and the problems [s.w. "riddles", "hard questions"] that the wise raise" (GNB). He may have this wise queen of Sheba in mind, as it was her who raised these "riddles" / "problems" with him.

1 Kings 10:2 She came to Jerusalem with a very great train, with camels that carried spices, and very much gold and precious stones; and when she had come to Solomon, she talked with him of all that was in her heart-

This woman obviously had genuine questions which were more than mere intellectual tests of Solomon (:1). She presumably accompanied the latest shipment to Solomon of the things Israel traded with Sheba for, although we note she came by land with camels rather than by sea. It seems from the closing verses of 1 Kings 9 that the Israelites usually traded with Sheba by sea. "Great train" is elsewhere translated "great army", as if the wealth of what was being brought was so great that it needed major military escort. The same terms "spices... gold... precious stones" is used of what the queen of Sheba brought to Solomon, and what was brought to Hezekiah after his healing (2 Chron. 32:27). Perhaps the conversion of the queen of Sheba to Israel's God meant that her people continued to be sympathetic to Judah even in Hezekiah's time, and they were the source of these things in his time.

David had prayed that Solomon would be the Messianic king who would receive gold and gifts from the ruler of Sheba (Ps. 72:10,15), and this appeared an exact fulfilment of that. But although :1 implies the visit was of her initiative, we wonder whether Solomon's obsession with living out his father's expectations led him to actually invite her, in order to fulfil the words of Ps. 72 and as it were force a fulfilment in him. For they had been trading partners before this, as 1 Kings 9 makes clear. And yet the majority of Ps. 72 was not fulfilled by Solomon, and will only come true in the Lord Jesus.

1 Kings 10:3 Solomon told her all her questions: there was not anything hidden from the king which he didn’t tell her-

The idea is as in GNB "there was nothing too difficult for him to explain". "Told her" translates the word used for solving riddles (Jud. 14:13) and interpreting dreams (Gen. 41:24; Dan. 5:12). See on :1.

1 Kings 10:4 When the queen of Sheba had seen all the wisdom of Solomon, and the house that he had built-

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

1 Kings 10:5 and the food of his table, and the sitting of his servants, and the attendance of his ministers, and their clothing, and his cup bearers, and his ascent by which he went up to the house of Yahweh; there was no more spirit in her- Josh. 2:11; 5:1

The way the Queen of Sheba was given a guided tour of Solomon's wealth makes ominous connection with Hezekiah's proud parading of his blessings to the Babylonian ambassadors. I noted another connection with Hezekiah on :2. The "ascent" was the king's personal entry into the temple (2 Kings 16:18) and Hezekiah is also associated with this in that he wrote the songs of degrees after his healing. They allude to how the sun went back on the sundial of Ahaz, which appears to have been a development of these grandiose steps of the king's entrance to the temple into a sundial. It is this very striking "ascent" which is described in :12.

1 Kings 10:6 She said to the king, It was a true report that I heard in my own land of your acts, and of your wisdom-

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

1 Kings 10:7 However I didn’t believe the words, until I came, and my eyes had seen it. Behold, the half was not told me! Your wisdom and prosperity exceed the fame which I heard-

As explained on :6, it is hard for people to believe mere words. They have to see the word made flesh. This is why simply distributing propositional truths on various media will not of itself convert many people. The word must be made flesh, and then it is believed. This is why the person of the Lord Jesus, the word made flesh, must be absolutely and utterly paramount in our teaching of the Gospel. And it is why public lecturing about various Gospel truths will never convert as many people as witnessing that word in the flesh. It is encounter with real persons which converts real persons, rather than encounter with words and ideas. That is not to say God's word is not alive and powerful of itself. But people are people, they are weak, and often they have lacked access to God's word in its written form. It is the word made flesh in believers of that word which will be the most powerful witness in practice.

1 Kings 10:8 Happy are your men-

It is as if she wishes to see David's words about the blessedness or happiness of the righteous nation and people being fulfilled, or perhaps it was Solomon trying to fulfil those words (Ps. 1:1; 33:12 etc.). But it seems this was all an impression Solomon was giving her, for many things were "rotten in the state of Denmark" as noted throughout 1 Kings 8,9. LXX gives "wives" for "men", as if she was struck by the happiness of the wives in his harem, which was unusual. But surely this too was only an appearance, because Ecclesiastes betrays an unhappy family life in Solomon's experience.

Happy are these your servants, who stand continually before you, who hear your wisdom-

The next generation were to complain that Solomon had chastised the people with whips (1 Kings 12:11). The happiness of the people which the Queen of Sheba observed was therefore just an impression Solomon arranged for her to receive.

1 Kings 10:9 Blessed is Yahweh your God, who delighted in you, to set you on the throne of Israel. Because Yahweh loved Israel forever, therefore He made you king, to do justice and righteousness-

These are identical words as in 1 Kings 5:7, of Hiram's response. We are given the impression that they became proselytes because they used the Yahweh Name; although polytheists could take the name of other gods, such as Yahweh, without it meaning they had accepted them as their own gods.

Because of God's enthusiasm for human response to His ways, the exalted language in which He describes believers, even in their weakness, is a further essay in His humility. The way the Father runs to the prodigal and falls on his neck in tears is a superb essay in this (Lk. 15:20). Thus God "delighted" in Solomon (1 Kings 10:9)- translating a Hebrew word meaning literally 'to bend down to'. It's used about men in love (Gen. 34:19; Dt. 21:14; 25:7), and about Jonathan's deferential attitude to David (1 Sam. 19:2).

1 Kings 10:10 She gave the king one hundred and twenty talents of gold-

This was about one third of his annual income (:14), which could imply she was more wealthy than he was.

And of spices very great store, and precious stones. There came no more such abundance of spices as these which the queen of Sheba gave to king Solomon-

This note seems to imply that spices were never again imported into Israel, the implication being as Josephus states (Antiquities, 8.6.6), "that the cultivation of the balsam in Palestine dates from this visit; the plant having been one of the queen’s gifts".

1 Kings 10:11 The navy also of Hiram-

Built and operated by him on Solomon's behalf (1 Kings 9:26-28).

That brought gold from Ophir, brought in from Ophir a great quantity of almug trees and precious stones-

"Almug" appears to refer to sandalwood, "the Hebraized form of the Deccan word for sandal". This points to "Ophir" as being in the east, possibly as far as the Indian coast where these trees grow.

1 Kings 10:12 The king made of the almug trees pillars for the house of Yahweh, and for the king’s house, harps also and stringed instruments for the singers: there came no such almug trees, nor were seen, to this day-

"Pillars" is "steps" in 2 Chron. 9:11, so the idea is of a magnificent staircase with elaborate banisters. This appears to be the king's "ascent" into the temple which so amazed the queen of Sheba (:5). This verse is referring back before her visit, because the almug trees were brought for the temple and for the king's house, which were already built by the time she visited.

1 Kings 10:13 King Solomon gave to the queen of Sheba all her desire, whatever she asked, besides that which Solomon gave her of his royal bounty. So she turned, and went to her own land, she and her servants-

It is unclear whether this was a genuine gift, or whether it was part of a trade deal. For she had brought a huge caravan of gifts, and in return Solomon gave her what she asked for, as well as his own presents ("his royal bounty").

According to Ethiopian tradition, Solomon slept with the queen of Sheba and she bore Solomon a son called Melimelek. It is possible to interpret Ps. 45 as a reference to Solomon's relationship with the Queen of Sheba.

1 Kings 10:14 Now the weight of gold that came to Solomon in one year was six hundred and sixty-six talents of gold-

This number occurs in the description of the mark of the beast in Rev. 13:18. It is one of the biggest hints that in fact Solomon's kingdom was the kingdom of the flesh, and not at all God's Kingdom as had been promised to David. The apostate religious system called "Babylon" in Revelation is evidently presented in the language of Solomon - at the time his kingdom was apparently flourishing, due to his righteousness. 1 Kings 10:14 = Rev. 13:17,18; 1 Kings 10:23 = Rev. 18:11,12,15; 1 Kings 11:1,2 = Rev. 17:1,2; 1 Kings 10:22 = Rev. 18:17,19; 1 Kings 10:23 = Rev. 18:3,17; 1 Kings 10:21,22 = Rev. 18:12; 1 Kings 10:11 = Rev. 18:12; 1 Kings 10:22 = Rev. 18:12; 1 Kings 10:10,25 = Rev. 18:13; 1 Kings 10:23 = Rev. 18:3,9; 1 Kings 10:28 = Rev. 18:12; 1 Kings 9:22 = Rev. 18:13. These allusions of themselves suggest Solomon's spirituality was a mere appearance. The latter day system which his kingdom looked ahead to may therefore be Jewish or Jerusalem based, with elements of apparent obedience to God.

2 Chron. 3:8 says that Solomon used 600 talents of gold on the temple. Seeing he received 666 talents / year, plus the large income from :16, this means that it was not particularly generous. One talent is 26 kilograms (57 pounds). 1 kilogram of gold is currently worth about 40,000 US$ [2020].

1 Kings 10:15 besides that which the traders brought, and the traffic of the merchants, and of all the kings of the mixed people, and of the governors of the country-

LXX understand this as tribute, the taxes he charged on trading with his ships or through his territory; and in addition there was the income from the taxation system described in 1 Kings 4.

1 Kings 10:16 King Solomon made two hundred bucklers of beaten gold; six hundred shekels of gold went to one buckler-

LXX "spears"; the Hebrew idea is of a large shield. David had taken shields of gold in 2 Sam. 8:7, and it seems Solomon was as ever seeking to imitate his father, at least externally, by making shields of gold. It was this almost pitiable imitation of his father which led to his undoing; for he was never his own man, never personally engaging with God. And when he finally matured in much later life, he had no faith in God at all, and turned to idols.

1 Kings 10:17 he made three hundred shields of beaten gold; three minas of gold went to one shield: and the king put them in the house of the forest of Lebanon-

2 Chron. 9:16 says they weighed 300 shekels each, meaning that one mina was 100 shekels; although the definitions seemed to vary over time (Ez. 45:12). There were 60 shekels to one talent. But this hanging of shields on the walls was exactly what was done in Tyre (Ez. 27:11,12), so as noted earlier, it seems Solomon was copying Tyre as well as other Gentiles. Song 4:4 speaks of 1000 shields hanging "on the tower of David". This may be an exaggerated number, or it could be that these shields combined with those David had taken (see on :16) were 1000 in number.

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

1 Kings 10:18 Moreover the king made a great throne of ivory, and overlaid it with the finest gold-

"Ivory" is literally "tooth" as in :22. It was likely made of wood overlaid with ivory and then gold, just as the 'house of ivory' (1 Kings 22:39) and 'bed of ivory' (Am. 6:4) were likewise not made of solid ivory. Ivory thrones were typical of the kings of Assyria, and we wonder if again this is evidence of pagan influence upon Solomon. God had promised to establish David's throne for ever, and Solomon wrongly assumed this was fulfilled in him and therefore he glorified his literal throne. This is typical of his total lack of spiritual perspective.

1 Kings 10:19 There were six steps to the throne, and the top of the throne was round behind; and there were stays on either side by the place of the seat, and two lions standing beside the stays-

The six steps stressed the elevation of the throne. It is God's throne which alone is exalted (Is. 6:1). But Solomon justified his self exaltation on the basis that he had been exalted by God, and his throne was God's throne. He repeatedly refused to accept the conditionality of what had been promised to him. The two lions were surely part of the 12 lions of :20. Clearly two of the 12 lions [tribes of Israel] were seen as more exalted. This implies the supremacy of Judah over the ten tribes- and yet this kind of human point scoring was built in to what was supposed to be a replica of God's throne. Solomon was quite unawed by God's glory. For if he had been, he would have realized that before Him, all the tribes were equal.

1 Kings 10:20 Twelve lions stood there on the one side and on the other on the six steps: there was nothing like it made in any kingdom-

This extraordinary throne received so much attention from Solomon because he was convinced that the promises about David's throne being eternal were fulfilled in him. And so he effectively portrayed it as God's throne, with the 12 lions representing the tribes of Israel ruled over by him. After the division of the kingdom, the throne would have been a sad piece of furniture. But the 12 lions were found on each side of the steps, making 24. This is a number associated with the throne room of God, with 24 elders or division of Angels before it (Rev. 4:4; 5:8; 11:16; 19:4). Perhaps Solomon was aware of this, and so he was making his throne an imitation of God's. The lion was specifically the symbol of Judah (Gen. 49:9); again, Solomon was inserting a subtext of Judah's domination of the rest of Israel. All Israel were to fall under the overall characterization of Judah.

The way Solomon built a huge physical throne, defended by impressive lions of his own creation (1 Kings 10:19,20), rather indicates how he missed the entire point- of ruling on God's throne, over a dynasty or 'throne' which God would perpetuate by grace; rather than establishing or creating the throne himself.

1 Kings 10:21 All king Solomon’s drinking vessels were of gold, and all the vessels of the house of the forest of Lebanon were of pure gold: none were of silver; it was nothing accounted of in the days of Solomon-

However, Solomon only received 666 talents of gold / year (:13); and Alexander’s pillage of Ectabana was estimated at 120,000 talents of gold. So Solomon's wealth was not so great, relatively speaking. But it appeared like that, relative to the earlier poverty of a subsistence farming economy like Israel had been before Solomon.

“He that loves silver (as Solomon did, Ecc. 2:8; 1 Kings 10:21-29) shall not be satisfied with silver (as he wasn’t- see Ecc. 2); nor he that loves abundance (s.w. used about the abundance of Solomon’s wives, 2 Chron. 11:23) with increase. When goods increase, they are increased that eat them (cp. the large numbers at his table, 1 Kings 4:27)” (Ecc. 5:10,11). The Hebrew word translated “not be satisfied” occurs around 25 times in the Proverbs, with Solomon warning of how the way of the flesh couldn’t satisfy. Solomon said all this with an eye on himself. He preached it to others, he felt deeply the truth of it, but he saw no personal way out of it. All he had was the accurate knowledge of his situation, but no real motivation to change- like the alcoholic or drug abuser who knows every aspect of the harm of his habit.

1 Kings 10:22 For the king had at sea a navy of Tarshish with the navy of Hiram: once every three years came the navy of Tarshish, bringing gold, and silver, ivory, and apes, and peacocks-

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

1 Kings 10:23 So king Solomon exceeded all the kings of the earth in riches and in wisdom-

These are the kings of the earth / land promised to Abraham, which is the same reference of :24. These are the kings of :26 LXX "and he ruled over all the kings from the river to the land of the Philistines, and to the borders of Egypt". The river Euphrates and the borders of Egypt were the eretz promised to Abraham.

1 Kings 10:24 All the earth sought the presence of Solomon, to hear his wisdom, which God had put in his heart-

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

1 Kings 10:25 They brought every man his tribute, vessels of silver, and vessels of gold, and clothing, and armour, and spices, horses, and mules, a rate year by year-

The first mention of mules in the Bible is associated with Absalom's murder of Amnon his brother (2 Sam. 13:29). They were cross bred in disobedience to Lev. 19:19. We get the impression that a generally slack attitude to what might have been considered minor matters of the law was associated with the major sin of murder. This is the problem when we start to think that some parts of God's laws can just be ignored. David was fond of them, having his own mule (1 Kings 1:33), and Solomon was willing to receive them as tribute (1 Kings 10:25).

1 Kings 10:26 Solomon gathered together chariots and horsemen: and he had a thousand and four hundred chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen, that he placed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem-

Solomon had obsessive tendencies. We know that he became addicted to finding pleasure in women, and Ecc. 2 shows him racing down the road of obsession with architecture, alcohol, food, gold etc. The historical narratives so often mention his gold and silver (e.g. 2 Chron. 9:13-21,24,27). This repetition reflects Solomon's obsession. The same fact explains the record's repetition of Solomon's enthusiasm for horses (1 Kings 10:25-29; 4:26,28; 9:19,22; 2 Chron. 1:14,16,17; 8:6,9; 9:24,25,28). Yet amassing of gold, silver and horses was explicitly forbidden for the King of Israel (Dt. 17:17). There is a powerful point to be made here: we can deceive ourselves that God is blessing us, when actually we are breaching explicit commands. Would Solomon had understood the concept of self-examination.

LXX adds: "and he ruled over all the kings from the river to the land of the Philistines, and to the borders of Egypt".

1 Kings 10:27 The king made silver to be in Jerusalem as stones, and cedars made he to be as the sycamore trees that are in the lowland, for abundance-

This could mean that he planted cedars in Israel, perhaps transplanting them from Lebanon; for his wisdom included being given wisdom about plants. And that wisdom was for the sake of the blessing and wise leadership of God's people Israel.

1 Kings 10:28 The horses which Solomon had were brought out of Egypt; and the king’s merchants received them in droves, each drove at a price-

Solomon started off as a middleman in the horse trade, buying horses from Egypt and selling them to the Hittite and Syrian kings (2  Chron. 1:16,17; 1 Kings 10:25,29); but he was playing with fire, and  he soon came to flout the spirit of the command not to buy horses from  Egypt. It’s rather like the brother who works in a video store starting to watch the blue movies which he handles daily. Solomon would have  justified it initially by saying  that  the horses were not for himself; just as we saw he justified  his  Egyptian  wife  by  the thought that Joseph also married  an Egyptian girl.

1 Kings 10:29 A chariot came up and went out of Egypt for six hundred shekels of silver, and a horse for one hundred and fifty; and so for all the kings of the Hittites, and for the kings of Syria, they brought them out by their traders-

The description of Solomon's trading with Egypt is described with an unusual phrase- he brought forth chariots and horses out of Egypt by his hand. But the Hebrew phrase 'to bring forth by the hand' is used so very often to described how God's might hand brought forth His people from Egypt- destroying the horses and chariots of Egypt in the process (Ex. 7:4,5; 13:3,14,16; 14:8; 32:11 and so often). This is such a major theme in Biblical history that the inspired choice of words is surely intentional and allusive in 1 Kings 10:29- for Solomon did the very opposite to what God did for His people. Solomon's hand brought forth and glorified the chariots and horses of Egypt, bringing them all the way from Egypt to Canaan. Solomon is thus being subtly set up as an anti-God figure- although apparently, all was well, the promises of blessing were being fulfilled etc.

1 Kings Chapter 11

1 Kings 11:1 Now king Solomon loved many foreign women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians, and Hittites-

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

1 Kings 11:2 of the nations concerning which Yahweh said to the children of Israel, You shall not go among them, neither shall they come among you; for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods. Solomon joined to these in love-

The implication is that Solomon took those wives thinking 'Well, I know the law says they will surely turn away my heart, but actually they won't, I can handle it'; and he didn't handle it. Solomon seems to have realized, in the bitterness of Ecclesiastes, that he had made the same mistake as Samson: "I find more bitter than death [i.e. it would be better to be dead than be in this position] the woman, whose heart is snares and nets, and her hands as bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her" (Ecc. 7:26). These were surely Samson's thoughts in those eyeless weeks in Gaza: better to have died than to have been snared by Gentile women.

Solomon "clave unto  these in  love", surely alluding to God's definition of marriage  as a leaving father and mother and cleaving to a wife. Solomon really loved those women; they weren't just political strings to his bow. They would not have turned away his heart if they  were  only  political  relationships.  1000 seems a rather exorbitant  number  of  political alliances to have in any case. And Ecc. 2:8 RV says that Solomon sought “the delights of the sons of men, concubines of all sorts”. He took sex to its maximum extent- he had every possible type of woman in his harem. Every hair colour, size, type. “Whatsoever mine eyes desired [this is language elsewhere used about sexual desire] I kept not from them” (Ecc. 2:10). And yet still, he never found one… counting one by one, as he put it. If ever there is a warning against immorality, it is here. The more relationships one has- and our world glorifies this- the less ultimate satisfaction there can be. God’s way has to be best.

1 Kings 11:3 He had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines; and his wives turned away his heart-

This lack of self examination and confidence that he could not spiritually fail is reflected in 1 Kings 11:2,3, where we are reminded that God had said that foreign wives would "surely... turn away your heart after their gods". How "surely" this would happen was not believed by Solomon. "He had seven hundred wives... and his wives turned away his heart". He started marrying these foreign wives when he was young; presumably he reasoned that they could never turn away his heart because he was the Son of David, the Messianic King. In Prov. 6:27 he soberly warns against the strange (i.e. Gentile) woman, observing that a man cannot take this kind of fire into his bosom and not be burned by it. Yet this is exactly what he was doing at the time he wrote that. His public removal of his Egyptian wife from the house of David " because the places are holy" (2 Chron. 8:11) is therefore to be seen as spiritual pride, appearing to do the right thing, when his heart was far from it.

Solomon's heart was "turned away", or 'influenced' by his wives towards idols (1 Kings 11:3). Yet Solomon uses this very idea of the heart being turned or influenced in Prov. 2:2; 22:17 about the need to turn our hearts towards God's word. He taught, but did the very opposite. And perhaps Prov. 21:1 explains why he did this- he says there that Yahweh turns the heart of the King wherever He wishes- and so perhaps he thought that control of our thinking and inclinations is unnecessary, because somehow God will do it for us. And there's a lesson there for us, who may assume at times that God will somehow control our hearts for us, rather than our making a conscious effort towards mind control.

Many passages make the connection between marriage out of the covenant, and adopting idolatry: Ex. 34:12-16; Dt. 7:2-9; Jud. 3:6,7; 1 Kings 11:2,3; Mal. 2:11; 2 Cor. 6:14. Dt. 7:4 RV dogmatically predicts that a Gentile man will definitely turn away the heart of his Hebrew son-in-law… So certain is it that marriage to Gentiles leads to accepting their idols that Ezra 9:1,2 reasons that Israel hadn't separated from idols because they had married Gentiles. Time and again, those who marry out of the covenant claim that they feel strong enough to cope with it, that marriage is only a human thing, and that their spiritual relationship with God is between them and God, and unaffected by their worldly partner. Yet this is exactly the opposite of what God's word says. It's not true that you can marry into the world and be unaffected in your own spirituality.

1 Kings 11:4 For it happened, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods; and his heart was not perfect with Yahweh his God, as was the heart of David his father-

"Turned away" is the word used by Solomon in warning his son about the dangers of bad women: "With persuasive words she led him astray" (Prov. 7:21). "Led him astray" is the very term used of how Solomon's wives turned his heart astray from God (1 Kings 11:4,9). The more Solomon knew Divine truth, the more he seems to have considered himself free to ignore it and in fact do the very opposite. He clearly thought that mere possession of that truth was the basis for his justification, and dismissed any idea of self examination or awareness that he might in fact personally fail in obedience.

God said that He accepted the temple not so much as a place to dwell in (as Solomon assumed it was) but as a place facilitating sacrifice, prayer etc., for the glorification of His Name through these things; He emphasized that He dwelt amongst His people (1 Kings 6:13; 2 Chron. 7:12-16). There are several other places where God’s response to Solomon’s words seems to be corrective rather than affirmatory. Thus Solomon says that God will hear the prayers of His people because the temple is called by God’s Name; but God’s response is that “my people, which are called by my name” would pray to Him themselves and be heard, quite apart from the temple (2 Chron. 6:33 cp. 7:14). He sees them as bearing His Name rather than the temple building, as Solomon perceived it. God goes on to parallel the temple and His people in 2 Chron. 7:21,22, saying that if He punishes the temple He will punish the people. Solomon seems to have thought that the temple would still stand favourably in God’s eyes even if the people were punished. The record records that the temple was “perfected” whereas Solomon’s heart wasn’t perfect [s.w.] (1 Kings 11:4 cp. 2 Chron. 8:16).

There are copious connections between Solomon's  writings:  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes  and the Song; and also  between  then and the historical record of his life. These serve  to demonstrate how he clearly contradicted the principles of  the Gospel which he taught both to Israel and the world. One of  the  clearest  examples  of  this  is in Prov. 7:16,17, which describes the bed of the strange (i.e. Gentile) woman with which she  allures  the simple young Israelite: "I have decked my bed with  coverings  of tapestry, with carved works, with fine linen of  Egypt.  I  have  perfumed  my  bed  with  myrrh,  aloes, and cinnamon".  Yet  these  are  the  very  descriptions  of the bed Solomon  shared  with  Miss Egypt (Song 3:6-10). The young man's heart  was made to go astray because of her (Prov. 7:25), and her house  led him to death (Prov. 7:27). Miss Egypt caused Solomon's heart  to  go astray (1 Kings 11:1-4), he built her a house, and her house became an idol temple which destroyed Solomon's faith. Yet  Solomon  warned  the  young men of Israel all about this in Prov. 7; and he even pointed out that such a woman would have all the  outward  trappings  of  Yahweh  worship; she would claim an enthusiasm  for  keeping  peace  offerings and vows (Prov. 7:14). Solomon was  the young  man  whose picture he was painting. In Ecc. 9:12  he  says  that he suffered the fate of all men in that soon  he would die, he would suddenly be caught like a bird in a snare,  although  he knew not his time. These are the very ideas of  Prov. 7:23  concerning the snaring of the simple young man by the  Gentile woman: "As a bird hasteth to the snare, and knoweth not that it is for his life".

1 Kings 11:5 For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites-

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

1 Kings 11:6 Solomon did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh, and didn’t go fully after Yahweh, as did David his father-

Solomon didn't go "fully" after Yahweh (1 Kings 11:6)- and yet this same Hebrew word is often on his lips in describing how God has "fulfilled" His promises to David through Solomon. Thus he saw the promises of God as some kind of unconditional offer of blessing- rather than grasping that their fulfillments to us actually demand a 'fulfillment' from us. So for all Solomon's references to the promises to David, he didn't see that they required something from him. And we can be so very similar, knowing God's promises and rejoicing in their fulfillment, without perceiving that this of itself requires response from us.

Having spoken of the need to tolerate our brother, the Lord Jesus repeated His common theme: that there is no third road: "For a good tree brings not forth corrupt fruit; neither does a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit" (Lk. 6:41-43). There's no third position. Either we love our brother, and bring forth good fruit; or we don't get down to it, and bring forth bad fruit. We can't sometimes bring forth good, sometimes bad. At heart, we are either loving or selfishly hateful. Anything less than following Yahweh with all our heart is seen as doing evil in His eyes (1 Kings 11:6).

1 Kings 11:7 Then Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the abomination of Moab, on the mountain that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech the abomination of the children of Ammon-

Solomon could calmly warn others in Prov. 5:8 "don't go near the house of the Gentile woman". But he built his Gentile woman a house and then a house for her gods.

What a contrast with Ps. 125:2 "As the mountains surround Jerusalem, so Yahweh surrounds His people from this time forth and forever". The hills around Jerusalem are not huge mountains. They are small hills, and this is the picture of God's protection; not hugely visible, but there. But the mountains around Jerusalem became the "high places" of idolatry (1 Kings 11:7; 2 Kings 23:13; 2 Chron. 21:11); what should have been the symbols of Yahweh's protection became perverted.

1 Kings 11:8 So he did for all his foreign wives, who burnt incense and sacrificed to their gods-

I suggest on Ecc. 5:1,2 that we are reading there Solomon's regret that David had taken the oath about building the temple, because he is now rejecting the temple cult. He built "houses" of worship for the gods of his wives, and worshipped them instead of Yahweh (1 Kings 11:4-8), worshipping in those temples rather than in Yahweh's temple. So we can understand his reflections in Ecc. 5 as meaning that he was regretting David had vowed to build the temple, leaving him to fulfil it; and his references there to Yahweh dwelling in the temple are therefore to be read as sarcastic.

1 Kings 11:9 Yahweh was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned away from Yahweh, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice-

As noted on Ps. 119:36; 141:4, David believed that God could act deep within the psychology or heart of man, to incline us toward righteousness and away from evil. This is how the Holy Spirit works today. Solomon believed the same (s.w. 1 Kings 8:58), but only in theory; for his Gentile wives inclined or turned away his heart from God (s.w. 1 Kings 11:3,9). God will not turn our hearts anywhere we ourselves don't want to go. Solomon often appeals for us to incline our hearts to wisdom (s.w. Prov. 2:2; 4:20; 5:1; 22:17), but he himself was inclined to apostasy (s.w. 1 Kings 11:3,9). All his emphasis is upon the need to incline ourselves, whereas his father David trusted in the work of the Spirit to incline his heart to good and away from evil (Ps. 141:4; 119:36 etc.).

1 Kings 11:10 and had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods: but he didn’t keep that which Yahweh commanded-

God is clearly stating that Solomon had failed to meet the conditions required for him to be the Messianic son of David according to the promises of 2 Sam. 7. This made all Solomon's reasoning about the nature of the temple null and void. Not keeping that which was commanded by Yahweh is the language of the breaking of the covenant in Dt. 28:45, and therefore "all these curses shall come upon you". But by grace they didn't come upon Solomon, because of God's great respect for his father David. Considering the extent of God's wrath with Solomon (:9), this of itself reflects the high opinion God had of David. His various out of character failures did not ultimately change God's very high and fond opinion of a man who gave his heart to Him.

1 Kings 11:11 Therefore Yahweh said to Solomon, Because this is done by you, and you have not kept my covenant and my statutes, which I have commanded you, I will surely tear the kingdom from you, and will give it to your servant-

The same punishment which came upon Saul was to come upon Solomon (s.w. 1 Sam. 15:28). And yet Solomon's Proverbs are full of indirect allusions to Saul, presenting him as the archetypical fool. Now, Solomon is told that he will suffer the same fate as Saul.

Solomon's prophetic sonship of David was conditional upon him preserving or observing Yahweh's ways (1 Kings 2:4; 1 Chron. 22:13; 2 Chron. 7:17); but he didn't preserve of observe them (1 Kings 11:10,11); despite David praying that Solomon would be given a heart to observe them (1 Chron. 29:19). We can pray for God to work upon the hearts of others, but He will not force people against their own deepest will and heart position. Solomon stresses overmuch how God would keep or preserve the righteous (Prov. 2:8; 3:26), without recognizing the conditional aspect of this. Why did Solomon go wrong? His Proverbs are true enough, but he stresses that obedience to his wisdom and teaching would preserve his hearers (Prov. 4:4; 6:22; 7:1; 8:32; 15:5), preservation was through following the example of the wise (Prov. 2:20); rather than stressing obedience to God's ways, and replacing David his father's simple love of God with a love of academic wisdom: "Yahweh preserves all those who love Him" (Ps. 145:20).

1 Kings 11:12 Notwithstanding I will not do it in your days, for David your father’s sake; but I will tear it out of the hand of your son-

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

1 Kings 11:13 However I will not tear away all the kingdom; but I will give one tribe to your son, for David My servant’s sake, and for Jerusalem’s sake which I have chosen-

The extent of grace explains countless apparent contradictions and paradoxes throughout God's relationships with men- e.g. God repeatedly said that He would leave David with “one tribe” (1 Kings 11:13). But actually by grace He gave David and Judah two and a half tribes. As discussed on :12,  Solomon's reaping the results of his sins was ameliorated for him in this life, because of his father. The 'choosing' of Jerusalem doesn't simply mean God chose it in the sense of selecting it from all the other cities of the earth. For Zech. 1:17; 2:12 speak of God choosing Jerusalem again at the restoration, implying His choice of it had somehow been annulled. So we need to understand 'choosing' as meaning 'choosing to manifest His presence there'.

1 Kings 11:14 Yahweh raised up an adversary to Solomon, Hadad the Edomite: he was of the king’s seed in Edom-

The Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament uses the Greek word diabolos to translate the Hebrew 'Satan'. Hence Devil and Satan are effectively parallel in meaning. Thus we read in the Septuagint of David being an adversary [Heb. Satan, Gk. diabolos] in 1 Sam. 29:4 ["turns against us"]; the sons of Zeruiah (2 Sam. 19:22), Hadad, Rezon and other opponents to Solomon (1 Kings 5:4; 11:14,23,25). We face a simple choice- if we believe that every reference to 'Satan' or 'Devil' refers to an evil cosmic being, then we have to assume that these people weren't people at all, and that even good men like David were evil. The far more natural reading of these passages is surely that 'Satan' is simply a word meaning 'adversary', and can be applied to people [good and bad], and even God Himself- it carries no pejorative, sinister meaning as a word. We note too that Yahweh raised up this 'satan'. The 'satan' was not outside God's control; there is no radical evil in the cosmos. For God is almighty.

1 Kings 11:15 For it happened, when David was in Edom, and Joab the captain of the army was gone up to bury the slain, and had struck every male in Edom-

David made the captives lay down in three lines. He arbitrarily chose one line to keep alive, and killed the other two lines (2 Sam. 8:2). This can’t be justified as some careful obedience to some Mosaic law. It reads like something out of the Holocaust, an arbitrary slaying of some in order to exercise the whim of one’s own power. No wonder David was barred from building the temple because of his attitude to bloodshed. Likewise when Rabbah is captured, David proudly puts the crown of the king on his head, grabs their spoil for himself (not following Abraham's example), “and he brought forth the people that were therein, and put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and made them pass through the brick kiln: and thus did he unto all the cities of the children of Ammon” (2 Sam. 12:31). Now all that is torture. It’s one thing to obey Divine commands about slaying enemies; it’s another to willfully torture them, Auschwitz-style. These incidents reveal David at his worst. And again- did he really have to ensure that every male in Edom was murdered (1 Kings 11:15,16)- was that really necessary? What about the mums, wives, sisters left weeping, and the fatherless daughters, left to grow up in the dysfunction of a leaderless Middle Eastern home? Those men were all somebody’s sons, brothers, fathers, grandfathers. Was David really obeying some Divine command here, or was this the dictate of his own anger and dysfunctional bloodlust? We get the impression this was another example of his wrong attitude to the shedding of blood (1 Chron. 22:8).

1 Kings 11:16 (for Joab and all Israel remained there six months, until he had cut off every male in Edom)-

The cutting of every male must be understood in the context of :14, which says that Hadad was of the king's seed in Edom. I suggest it means that all the royal family of Edom were cut off, but Hadad was the only one who managed to escape. So "every male", rather like "all Israel", is not to be read as globally "every" and "all".

1 Kings 11:17 that Hadad fled, he and certain Edomites of his father’s servants with him, to go into Egypt, Hadad being yet a little child-

"His father's servants" suggests Hadad was the son of the king of Edo m who had been killed by David's men. The flight to Egypt could be seen as looking ahead to the experience of the Lord Jesus, because as explained on :28, Jeroboam was set up as a potential Messianic figure. Had he succeeded as intended, then the flight to Egypt would have become clear in its typical significance. We marvel at the detailed effort God puts in to setting up so much potential which so often comes to nothing.

1 Kings 11:18 They arose out of Midian-

This would be better read as "Maon", the area where Nabal was from (1 Sam. 25:2), and is near Paran. Nabal's people were perhaps like him, against David.

And came to Paran; and they took men with them out of Paran, and they came to Egypt, to Pharaoh king of Egypt, who gave him a house, and appointed him food, and gave him land-

Even in the time of David, when the Edomites were subdued, Pharaoh was very open to supporting the enemies of Israel. This is why Solomon's marriage to his daughter at the start of his reign, not so long after Hadad's establishment in Egypt, was foolhardy. At best it put his wife in an impossibly compromised position of conflicting loyalties, which we sense beginning even during their romance as recorded in the Song of Solomon. For there she so wishes that she and Solomon could live together in Egypt, and decide wholeheartedly for the sake of their romance to be Egyptians and live there in her homeland.

1 Kings 11:19 Hadad found great favour in the sight of Pharaoh, so that he gave him as wife the sister of his own wife, the sister of Tahpenes the queen-

Solomon had married Pharaoh's daughter, and so Hadad may have ended up related to Solomon by marriage. This would have put Solomon's wife in an impossible position of conflicted loyalties. That may be one reason Solomon moved her out of the palace area and built her a separate house. See on :18.

1 Kings 11:20 The sister of Tahpenes bore him Genubath his son, whom Tahpenes weaned in Pharaoh’s house; and Genubath was in Pharaoh’s house among the sons of Pharaoh-

This was very high honour, meaning that Hadad's son was effectively amongst the contenders for the Egyptian throne as one of the "sons of Pharaoh". None less than the queen Tahpenes had performed the weaning ceremony which was seen as so significant (Gen. 21:8).

1 Kings 11:21 When Hadad heard in Egypt that David slept with his fathers, and that Joab the captain of the army was dead, Hadad said to Pharaoh, Let me depart, that I may go to my own country-

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

1 Kings 11:22 Then Pharaoh said to him, But what have you lacked with me, that behold, you seek to go to your own country? He answered, Nothing, however please only let me depart-

Pharaoh had just married off his daughter to Solomon and so he was not initially enthusiastic for his adopted son's desire to lead an insurrection against Solomon in Edom. All this complex web is the stuff of human politics and not love marriage.

1 Kings 11:23 God raised up an adversary to him, Rezon the son of Eliada, who had fled from his lord Hadadezer king of Zobah-

The later king of Syria Benhadad was the grandson of Hezion (1 Kings 15:18), a name which uses similar characters to Rezon who led the first attempted revival of Zobah and Damascus (1 Kings 11:23) after David's victories against them in 2 Sam. 8:3-8. Rezon perhaps didn't so much as flee from Hadadezer, but rather fled from the area at the time when David had conquered Hadadezer.

1 Kings 11:24 He gathered men to him, and became captain over a troop, when David killed them of Zobah: and they went to Damascus, and lived therein, and reigned in Damascus-

2 Sam. 8:3-8 says that David had subdued both Zobah and Damascus, to the point of placing a garrison in Damascus (2 Sam. 8:6). But for all his worship of his father and attempt to give the impression of a territory totally under his control, Solomon failed to maintain what David had done. For he had clearly lost control of Damascus and the Israelite garrison had had to retreat.

1 Kings 11:25 He was an adversary to Israel all the days of Solomon, besides the mischief of Hadad: and he abhorred Israel, and reigned over Syria-

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

1 Kings 11:26 Jeroboam the son of Nebat, an Ephraimite of Zeredah-

Zarethan where Solomon cast the lavers for the temple with their pagan motifs (1 Kings 7:46) is called Zaredathah in 2 Chron. 4:17, which is a form of Zeredah (1 Kings 11:26), the birthplace of Jeroboam son of Nebat. It doesn't therefore have good connections. We wonder if the golden calves were cast there too.

A servant of Solomon, whose mother’s name was Zeruah, a widow, he also opposed the king-

Solomon alludes to Jeroboam in Prov. 14:35: "The king’s favour is toward a servant who deals wisely, but his wrath is toward one who causes shame". Although what Solomon writes is true and inspired, he clearly has in view his favour and then wrath against his servant Jeroboam (1 Kings 11:26). Solomon uses his own feelings against Jeroboam as a basis for a global truth about kings and their servants. His Proverbs were indeed inspired, but there was a human element behind his words, ever seeking to use God's truths in order to justify himself.

Solomon was so confident that he was or would be the Messiah that he seems to have felt that he was beyond the possibility of sinning; real self-examination and the sense of the possibility of failure just didn’t exist for him. He says that the land of Israel is “blessed” because her king is the son of a noble, and she will be cursed if her ruler is a servant (Ecc. 10:16,17 RVmg.). Solomon proudly presented himself as the son of King David- and he makes a clear swipe at Jeroboam, the pretender to the throne who was a servant (1 Kings 11:26). By reasoning like this, Solomon sets himself in direct opposition to the spirit of Jesus, who declared that the servant is to be the King of all.

1 Kings 11:27 This was the reason why he opposed the king: Solomon built Millo, and repaired the breach of the city of David his father-

Solomon began repairing the breaches (cp. Jud. 21:15), but this contrasts with how Solomon's later behaviour led to the rending apart of David's kingdom. Perhaps the breaches in the wall David had built had happened during some unrecorded invasion or attack upon Jerusalem. "Millo" means 'rampart' and refers to the fortifications built around the citadel where David's palace was. But "the breach" is singular, and "repair" can be 'to close up'. The reference may be to Solomon building a wall between the mounts of Zion and Moriah, i.e. across the Tyropean valley, extending David's city walls in order to include the temple within them.

"Opposed" is Heb. 'lifted up his hand against'. It is the same word translated "exalted" when we read that God exalted / lifted up Jeroboam (1 Kings 14:7), so that ultimately he became king of the ten tribes. His opposition or lifting up his hand against Solomon was therefore of God and confirmed by God.

1 Kings 11:28 The man Jeroboam was a brave man; and Solomon saw the young man that he was industrious, and he put him in charge of all the labour of the house of Joseph-

That is, the tribe of Ephraim, the largest tribe, who would have been the most resentful and resistant to sending their men to work on the new capital of Judah. And so this largest and most difficult group of workers were put under Jeroboam's control, indicating the senior nature of his role.

The final comment upon Jeroboam is that he was not as God’s servant David (1 Kings 14:7-9). And yet he was set up with that potential possibility. Consider:

Jeroboam (1Kings 11) - David

Man of valour v. 28- As David 1 Sam. 16:18 RV;

Young man v. 28 - 1 Sam. 17:58

Ruler over all v. 28 - 1 Sam. 18:5

I will take you and you shall reign over Israel v. 37 - 2 Sam. 7:8

Build a house v. 38 - 2 Sam. 7:11

v. 40 - 1 Sam. 19:2,10

And it works the other way, too. Prophecies of doom can be turned round by our repentance. Nineveh avoiding certain destruction on account of their repentance is a clear example.

1 Kings 11:29 It happened at that time, when Jeroboam went out of Jerusalem, that the prophet Ahijah the Shilonite found him in the way; now Ahijah had put on a new garment; and they two were alone in the field-

God never essentially recognized that division; for there was one Israel, one body. Indeed, He said that the division was the greatest tragedy to come upon His people (Is. 7:17). The way the new garment of Ahijah was torn up to symbolize the division, reflects the utter waste (1 Kings 11:29). For an outer cloke was a garment a man could wear for life; to have a new one was something significant. Significantly, the road to Jericho which features in the parable of the good Samaritan was the very dividing line between Judah and Ephraim (Josh. 16:1). The significance of this may be in the implication within the parable that Israel fell among thieves, needing the Messianic grace and rescue, as a result of their division into two kingdoms. And so many other spiritual lives have been shipwrecked over the rocks of division. Indeed, the Greek words for "division" and "stumbling block" are related; divisions are a stumblingblock to so many, even if they externally remain within their faith communities.

1 Kings 11:30 Ahijah laid hold of the new garment that was on him, and tore it in twelve pieces-

The Lord’s robe was not to be torn, schizein. There was to be no schism in it. Ahijah tore his garment into twelve pieces to symbolize the division of Israel (1 Kings 11:30,31). The Lord’s coat being unrent may therefore be another reflection of how His death brought about unity amongst His people (Jn. 11:52; 17:21,22). Before Him, there, we simply cannot be divided amongst ourselves. Likewise the net through which the Lord gathers His people was unbroken (Jn. 21:11). Note how all these references are in John- as if he perceived this theme of unity through the cross.

1 Kings 11:31 He said to Jeroboam, Take ten pieces; for thus says Yahweh the God of Israel, ‘Behold, I will tear the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and will give ten tribes to you-

The word "tear" is used several times in this chapter, and it is the word used multiple times when describing the rending of garments in grief and distress. The same idea is in view; but whose was the grief, and who as it were rent their garments? It was God. His intense grief was because of the division of His people. This judgment hurt Himself, and was not simply thrown by Him at His people without personal grief. And His grief about the division of His people continues to this day.

1 Kings 11:32 (but he shall have one tribe, for My servant David’s sake and for Jerusalem’s sake, the city which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel)-

As noted earlier, by grace, David was given not just one tribe but two and a half tribes. The whole Bible is really the story of God's endless grace in ameliorating the just judgments He has given; perhaps partly because, as explained on :31, they are so painful to Himself.

1 Kings 11:33 because they have forsaken Me, and have worshiped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, Chemosh the god of Moab, and Milcom the god of the children of Ammon. They have not walked in My ways, to do that which is right in My eyes, and to keep My statutes and My ordinances, as David his father did-

Notice the "they", of Israel, who were effectively guilty of the very same apostacy as Solomon. Solomon was fully representative of Israel (1 Kings 11:1,5-7 cp. 33; 8:52; and note the ye... thee confusion of 1 Kings 9:4-7 AV); his prayer was their prayer (2 Chron. 6:21); his worship was theirs (2 Chron. 1:3,5).

1 Kings 11:34 However I will not take the whole kingdom out of his hand; but I will make him prince all the days of his life, for David My servant’s sake whom I chose, who kept My commandments and My statutes-

"Make him prince" suggests that in God's eyes, Solomon was demoted from king to prince. Solomon of course acted as if he were still king, as if God's appearance to him hadn't really happened; but his status changed in God's sight.

1 Kings 11:35 but I will take the kingdom out of his son’s hand, and will give it to you, even ten tribes-

If Rehoboam had listened to the advice of the older men and relaxed Solomon's oppressive taxation system, then Israel would likely have remained loyal to him. But he didn't take that good advice, because it was "of the Lord" to fulfill prophecies like this (1 Kings 12:15). There is a hand greater than our own, a factor beyond our freewill receipt and processing of information, which works to fulfil God's will. And that is why we cannot judge human behaviour, because it reflects such a complex of factors which only God knows.

1 Kings 11:36 To his son will I give one tribe, that David My servant may have a lamp always before Me in Jerusalem, the city which I have chosen for Me to put My name there-

This was God's intended purpose, but its fulfilment was precluded by the unfaithfulness of the seed. He did not chose Jerusalem for ever; because it was to be destroyed, and was only to be chosen "again" at the restoration (Zech. 2:12). The lamp in Jerusalem was the budding of the horn of David (Ps. 132:17). And this was to finally come true in the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, David's great son. But that lamp could have "always" burned in Jerusalem- potentially. But the various potential fulfillments failed to realize the potential.

1 Kings 11:37 I will take you, and you shall reign according to all that your soul desires, and shall be king over Israel-

This seems to be saying that Jeroboam had absolute freewill, he could reign as he wished- but God had set him up with the amazing potential of being the seed through whom He would rule Israel (:38).

1 Kings 11:38 It shall be, if you will listen to all that I command you, and will walk in My ways, and do that which is right in My eyes, to keep My statutes and My commandments, as David My servant did; that I will be with you, and will build you a sure house, as I built for David, and will give Israel to you-

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

1 Kings 11:39 I will for this afflict the seed of David, but not forever’-

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

1 Kings 11:40 Solomon sought therefore to kill Jeroboam-

We see here how little Solomon respected God's word. He though that by murdering someone he could stop the fulfilment of the prophecies. He was acting just like Saul, who tried to kill David when told that David was to have the kingdom.

But Jeroboam arose, and fled into Egypt, to Shishak king of Egypt, and was in Egypt until the death of Solomon-

Even politically, his marriages with all those Gentile women  didn't  seem  to  achieve him the support he desired from their  home  countries; Egypt gave refuge to Jeroboam, Solomon's main rival (1 Kings 11:40), even though he always acquiesced to his wives and even in his very old age he still didn’t destroy the idol temples he built for them (2 Kings 23:13).

1 Kings 11:41 Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, and all that he did, and his wisdom, aren’t they written in the book of the acts of Solomon?-

This book may have been a compilation from various prophetic writings, for the equivalent in 2 Chron. 9:29 is "the history of Nathan the prophet, the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and the visions of Iddo the seer concerning Jeroboam".

1 Kings 11:42 The time that Solomon reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel was forty years-

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

1 Kings 11:43 Solomon slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David his father: and Rehoboam his son reigned in his place-

The description of death as sleeping with fathers is clear evidence that death is seen as a sleep, unconsciousness, and not as the start of an immortal soul going to heaven or 'hell'. Good and bad, David and Solomon, are gathered together in death. The division between them will only therefore come at the resurrection of the dead, and the granting of immortality at the judgment seat of the Lord Jesus.

1 Kings Chapter 12

1 Kings 12:1 Rehoboam went to Shechem: for all Israel had come to Shechem to make him king-

The LXX addition on :24 adds: "And Jeroboam went to Shechem in mount Ephraim, and assembled there the tribes of Israel; and Roboam the son of Solomon went up thither". This would explain why this gathering to instate Rehoboam as king was held in Shechem and not in Jerusalem. And yet although Jeroboam was present with supporters, it appears that "all Israel" favoured the idea of Rehoboam as king. The old men truly advised him that if he would only ease the taxation, all Israel would remain loyal to him (:7). It could even be that the ten tribes had invited Rehoboam from Jerusalem to their great meeting place in Shechem specifically because they wanted him to be king. But this had to change, according to God's judgment upon Solomon- the ten tribes had to be removed from the control of his dynasty.

1 Kings 12:2 It happened, when Jeroboam the son of Nebat heard of it (for he was still in Egypt, where he had fled from the presence of king Solomon, and Jeroboam therefore lived in Egypt-

It seems this verse and :3 should follow 1 Kings 11:43 as in LXX and some Hebrew manuscripts.

1 Kings 12:3 and they sent and called him), that Jeroboam and all the assembly of Israel came and spoke to Rehoboam saying-

We note that Jeroboam didn't immediately begin by demanding the throne, but rather led the people in asking Rehoboam to reduce his father's excessive taxation system. But his return from Egypt, and his awareness of the prophecy about him ruling over Israel, surely meant he had in view the possibility of Rehoboam rejecting the request.

In a distorted way, Jeroboam was almost a type of Christ; for as made clear at the end of 1 Kings 11, he could have been the Messianic ruler over Israel had he chosen Yahweh's way. I'd suggest that many wicked Old Testament characters could have been types of Christ if they had lived righteously, and the record indirectly indicates this. Jeroboam fled to Egypt because of the persecution of Solomon, as did the Lord. When Solomon died, "they sent and called him", connecting with the record of the Lord Jesus going to Egypt and coming back after Herod's death. Jeroboam came back on the third day (:12) and offered freedom from bondage to Israel, as did Christ on his resurrection. In 1 Kings 13:10 we read of the prophet who came to prophesy about Jeroboam; we are told that he didn't return the way he came, but went back another way. That's an echo of the wise men, who came to see Jesus, and returned another way.

1 Kings 12:4 Your father made our yoke grievous: now therefore make the grievous service of your father, and his heavy yoke which he put on us, lighter, and we will serve you-

Ephraim had been specifically targetted as a provider of labour and tax revenues (1 Kings 11:28). The influence of Egypt upon Solomon is reflected by the way in which he is described as making the people serve him with "hard bondage" (2 Chron. 10:4; 1 Kings 12:4). This is the very Hebrew phrase used to describe what the Egyptians did to Israel (Ex. 1:14; 6:9; Dt. 26:6). Solomon put his people under a yoke (2 Chron. 10:4), just as Egypt did to them (Lev. 26:13). And so we see the progression. Solomon loved an Egyptian woman, came to serve her gods, traded with Egypt... and the attitude of Egypt to God's people became Solomon's attitude to them. There is something unique about God's people; and yet the closer we come to the world, the more we come to see our own community, God's special family, just as this world sees us. The world's attitude to us can so easily become our attitude to our brethren- no longer seeing them as the specially chosen little children of God, sensitive to them as our very own brothers and sisters.

The very possession of wisdom and teaching of it to others can of itself make a man or woman demotivated to personally apply it. He foretold that the people would sign when a wicked man ruled them (Prov. 29:2 RV)- and they did "sigh" because of the heavy burdens he placed upon them (1 Kings 12:4). He imposed the "yoke" of tribute upon the people (2 Chron. 10:4), whereas he himself had warned that a king that imposes tribute on his people "overthrows" a country (Prov. 29:4 RV mg.). He saw it all as true- and yet it was far from him personally.

1 Kings 12:5 He said to them, Depart for three days, then come back to me. The people departed-

The three days may have been in order to allow the advisers to be summoned from Jerusalem.

1 Kings 12:6 King Rehoboam took advice with the old men, who had stood before Solomon his father while he yet lived, saying, What advice do you give me to return answer to this people?-

If Solomon was 41 at this time and the "young men" were those who had grown up with him, these men would have been really quite "old", old enough to have lived through much of David's reign and to have been influenced by his spirituality. Or the word may be used here to simply refer to the elders, whereas Rehoboam had also surrounded himself with his own peer group as advisers.

In this context, we may consider Solomon's frequent proverbs about the wisdom of having advisors, and his words in Prov. 20:18: "Plans are established by advice". Solomon's advice to his son sounds all well and good; but Rehoboam was given two different paths of advice by his advisors. Again, Solomon's words are true, but simplistic. Because as Rehoboam's case shows, the issue is not so much having advisors per se, but deciding which advisors to listen to. Solomon too had advisors, but did what he wanted, making this Proverb somewhat hollow when applied to himself.

1 Kings 12:7 They said, If you will be a servant to this people this day, and will serve them, and answer them, and speak good words to them, then they will be your servants forever-

See on :1. The general will of Israel was for Rehoboam and not Jeroboam, but the taxation issue was crucial.

The paradox of servant leadership is found here- if Rehoboam had been a servant of his people, then he would have ruled over them. In all ways, the Lord is our pattern. He was a servant of all, and so should we be. His servanthood dominated His consciousness. He said that He came not [so much as] to be ministered unto, but so as to minister, with the end that He gave His life for others (Mk. 10:45).

1 Kings 12:8 But he ignored the advice of the old men which they had given him, and took advice with the young men who had grown up with him, who stood before him-

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

1 Kings 12:9 He said to them, What advice do you give, that we may return answer to this people, who have spoken to me saying, ‘Make the yoke that your father put on us lighter?’-

He had written in his Proverbs that the ruler who lacks wisdom will oppress his people (Prov. 28:16); and although his wisdom remained with him right to the end, in terms of knowledge (Ecc. 2:9; 12:10), yet at the end of his reign Solomon was the ruler who did oppress his people (1 Kings 12:11). And he had gone on in Prov. 28:16 to warn against covetousness in a ruler, even though he went ahead with practicing every conceivable form of it in Ecc. 2. “Therefore remove sorrow from thy heart, and put away evil from thy flesh” (Ecc. 11:10) Solomon taught- and yet Solomon in Ecclesiastes is the very picture of such a person.  Like  the experienced pilot who takes off with frozen wings and then crashes, so Solomon’s very wisdom somehow disinclined him to living it out in practice. This is the perversity of our nature- the higher we may rise, the deeper we are inclined to fall.

1 Kings 12:10 The young men who had grown up with him spoke to him saying, Thus you shall tell this people who spoke to you saying, ‘Your father made our yoke heavy, but make it lighter to us;’ you shall say to them, ‘My little finger is thicker than my father’s waist-

The Lord appears to allude to this when He invites all those burdened and heavy laden to come to Him because His yoke is easy and the burden light (Mt. 11:28). It could be argued that He is thereby acknowledging that Jeroboam, who offered the easier burden, could have been as Him, a fulfilment of the promise of the Messianic king (1 Kings 11:38). He saw in those people abused by Solomon the religiously abused people who were suffering under the burdens placed upon them by their religious leaders; and He saw those Jews as represented by Solomon, whom He continually reads in a bad light.

1 Kings 12:11 Now whereas my father burdened you with a heavy yoke, I will add to your yoke: my father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions’-

The contrast is not between whips and scorpions, but the idea is rather than he would use a far heavier whip known as a scorpion. The Romans had a whip called a "scorpio", used for punishment.

We have an insight into why Solomon was like this in Prov. 10:13 LXX: "He that brings forth wisdom from his lips smites the fool with a rod". Solomon has himself in view, but now instead of attributing wisdom to Divine inspiration, he starts to consider that it emanated from himself. When he died, the people complained that he had whipped [Heb. 'beaten'] them unreasonably. It was Solomon's false view of his wisdom which led him to do this. He assumed that he must be right, he was infallible, because of his possession of Divine truths. He justified indulging his natural human tendency to be overly harsh on others because he claimed he was the source of all wisdom. And again we see a parallel in fundamentalist Christian groups; where the more dogmatic are the claimants to possession of absolute truth about everything, the more they tend to abuse others and show no mercy to any who fail to attain to their supposed wisdom. Prov. 26:3 is also relevant, in the LXX "As a whip for a horse, and a goad for an ass, so is a rod for a simple nation". It was this attitude which led Solomon to beat his own people. Like many who hold God's truth, the mere holding of it lifted Solomon up in pride, and he came to despise all others who didn't accept his wisdom.

Despite having such knowledge and wisdom with which to rule Israel (for this was the primary purpose of the gift of wisdom to him), Solomon oppressed his people. With evident reference to himself, he commented: “Because the king’s word has power, who may say unto him, What doest thou?” (Ecc. 8:4 RV). It is only God who cannot be questioned in this way. But Solomon felt that because he possessed God’s wisdom, he could therefore act as God: “I counsel you, Keep the King’s command, and that in regard of the oath of God” (Ecc. 8:2) could suggest that he thought that his commandments were in fact God’s. So the possession of Truth, which we too have, can lead to an incredible arrogance, a lack of openness to others’ comments upon us, and a certainty that we are right in all that we do and are beyond criticism. The hardness of a man is changed by true wisdom (Ecc. 8:1 RV), but knowing this, Solomon became hard hearted. He had the wisdom- but as he said, it was far from him personally.

“Surely oppression maketh a wise man foolish” (Ecc. 7:7 RV), he commented at the end of his life- even though right then he was chastising the people with whips, oppressing them (1 Kings 12:11). He knew the true wisdom, he saw his reflection so accurately in the mirror, but resigned from its personal implications. He could even write that “I returned and considered all the oppression that are done under the sun [by himself!]: and behold the tears of such as were oppressed, and they had no comforter; and on the side of their oppressors there was power [Solomon was king and had set up the tax system in a clever and biased way]; but they had no comforter” (Ecc. 4:1; 5:8). It was a real case of spiritual schizophrenia- he sorrowed for the people he oppressed.

1 Kings 12:12 So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam the third day, as the king asked, saying, Come to me again the third day-

We the readers are drawn into a sense of expectation; we ourselves know what Rehoboam is going to say, but we are placed in the position of the suffering people, who didn't yet know what Rehoboam was going to answer.

1 Kings 12:13 The king answered the people roughly, and forsook the advice of the old men which they had given him-

"Roughly" is the word used of how the Egyptians treated the Israelites in whipping them and giving them heavy burdens to carry (Ex. 1:14). This was how he was behaving. It is the word the people have just used when they complained that Solomon had treated them 'grievously' (:4); and Rehoboam confirms that he is going to do the same. Solomon had frequently warned against forsaking the advice of elders (s.w. Prov. 2:17; 4:2 and especially the warning of Prov. 27:10 not to forsake the advice of your father's friend). But Rehoboam had probably not even read or heard all these Proverbs, as Solomon himself had ignored his own Proverbs and lived quite opposite to them. And so did his son.

1 Kings 12:14 and spoke to them according to the advice of the young men, saying, My father made your yoke heavy, but I will add to your yoke. My father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions-

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

1 Kings 12:15 So the king didn’t listen to the people; for it was a thing brought about of Yahweh, that He might establish His word which Yahweh spoke by Ahijah the Shilonite to Jeroboam the son of Nebat-

There are times when God has influenced men not to respond to the evidently wise words of other men, in order to fulfill His purpose (e.g. 1 Kings 12:15; 2 Chron. 25:20). There are a number of other passages which mention how "it was of the Lord" that certain attitudes were adopted by men, resulting in the sequence of events which He desired (Dt. 2:39; Josh. 11:20; 1 Sam. 2:25; 1 Kings 12:15; 2 Chron. 10:15; 22:7; 25:20). It is tempting to read Jud. 14:4 in this context, meaning that God somehow made Samson desire that woman in order to bring about His purpose of freeing Israel from Philistine domination. God through His Spirit works to confirm men in the path they wish to go. And this is the huge significance of the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives today.

1 Kings 12:16 When all Israel saw that the king didn’t listen to them, the people answered the king saying, What portion have we in David? Neither do we have an inheritance in the son of Jesse. To your tents, Israel! Now see to your own house, David. So Israel departed to their tents-

This was the cry of Sheba in 2 Sam. 20:1. But the promises of 2 Sam. 7 were to David and his seed / house. By resigning from any association with that house, they were walking out of the hope of Israel which was in those promises. This has been done so many times by those who [understandably] become disillusioned with the family of believers, but their break with them develops into a break with the things of God's Kingdom.

1 Kings 12:17 But as for the children of Israel who lived in the cities of Judah, Rehoboam reigned over them-

This means that there were people from the ten tribes living in Judah, particularly those who had been transported there by Solomon to live in the various defensive outpost towns he had built in southern Judah. And they remained under Rehoboam. See on :23.

1 Kings 12:18 Then king Rehoboam sent Adoram, who was over the men subject to forced labour; and all Israel stoned him to death with stones. King Rehoboam made speed to get himself up to his chariot, to escape to Jerusalem-

If the forced labour quotas of Solomon were to now be multiplied, life would literally be impossible for the ten tribes. It is no surprise therefore that Adoram was stoned and Rehoboam had to flee for his life back to Jerusalem- reflecting on the folly of his young advisors.

1 Kings 12:19 So Israel rebelled against the house of David to this day-

The same phrase used of Edom in 2 Kings 8:22. The word for "rebelled" is also translated "transgressed". Their division from the house of David was a division away from the promises about the eternal establishment of that house, as noted on :16. In this sense it was therefore sinful.

1 Kings 12:20 It happened, when all Israel heard that Jeroboam had returned, that they sent and called him to the congregation, and made him king over all Israel: there was none who followed the house of David, but the tribe of Judah only-

They presumably made him king by anointing him. "All Israel" may therefore imply that those present at the meeting with Rehoboam in Shechem had largely been more local people. The mention of "Judah only" is a nod to the fulfilment of the promise that Rehoboam would be left with but one tribe; but :21 goes on to say that Benjamin were also given to him, by grace. For Benjamin was the tribe of Saul who had for many years been bitterly opposed to David and his tribe of Judah. It was the men of Benjamin who had supported previous revolts against Davidic rulership (2 Sam. 19:17; 20:1). Perhaps they were simply influence by the fact that Jerusalem was technically in their tribal allotment (Josh. 18:28). If they were not with Judah, then they would apparently have to accept Shechem or some other northern city as their capital and effectively abandon Jerusalem, which Solomon had built up to be the most impressive city of the whole Middle East at the time.

1 Kings 12:21 When Rehoboam had come to Jerusalem, he assembled all the house of Judah and the tribe of Benjamin, a hundred and eighty thousand chosen men who were warriors, to fight against the house of Israel, to bring the kingdom again to Rehoboam the son of Solomon-

Benjamin was a small tribe (1 Sam. 9:21; Ps. 68:27). 18 years later, there were 400,000 warriors in Judah (2 Chron. 13:3), so this was a very significant proportion of warriors.

1 Kings 12:22 But the word of God came to Shemaiah the man of God saying-

This may be now a quotation from the history written by Shemaiah about Rehoboam (2 Chron. 12:15).

1 Kings 12:23 Speak to Rehoboam the son of Solomon, king of Judah, and to all the house of Judah and Benjamin, and to the rest of the people saying-

"The rest of the people" presumably refers to those of the ten tribes who lived in Judah and were loyal to Rehoboam (:17). The records dovetail so perfectly, as we would expect of a history written ultimately under Divine inspiration.

1 Kings 12:24 ‘Thus says Yahweh, You shall not go up, nor fight against your brothers, the children of Israel. Everyone return to his house; for this thing is of Me’. So they listened to the word of Yahweh, and returned and went their way, according to the word of Yahweh-

This was significant humility, involving a recognition that what had happened was "of God", in judgment for Solomon's sins. To fight against our brothers can never be justified. 1 Kings 14:30 "There was war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam continually" would indicate disobedience to this command to Rehoboam not to fight the ten tribes.

At this point, LXX adds to the record: "Roboam his son reigned in his stead in Jerusalem, being sixteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned twelve years... And there was a man of mount Ephraim, a servant to Solomon, and his name was Jeroboam: and the name of his mother was Sarira, a harlot: and Solomon made him head of the levies of the house of Joseph: and he built for Solomon Sarira in mount Ephraim; and he had three hundred chariots of horses: he built the citadel with the levies of the house of Ephraim; he fortified the city of David, and aspired to the kingdom... ".

1 Kings 12:25 Then Jeroboam built Shechem in the hill country of Ephraim, and lived in it; and he went out from there, and built Penuel-

Shechem was ideally centrally situated within his territory. Penuel was on the east side of Jordan, and would consolidate his power there, as well as controlling the fords of Jordan.

1 Kings 12:26 Jeroboam said in his heart, Now the kingdom will return to the house of David-

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

1 Kings 12:27 If this people goes up to offer sacrifices in the house of Yahweh at Jerusalem, then the heart of this people will turn again to their lord, to Rehoboam king of Judah; and they will kill me, and return to Rehoboam king of Judah-

This reasoning was maybe true enough on a secular level, but it reflects a lack of faith in the promise made to Jeroboam in 1 Kings 11:38. Jeroboam simply didn't have the faith to believe in this wonderful grace; that he, son of a whore (:24 LXX) could be empowered by God to be the Divinely chosen king of Israel and the fulfilment of the promises to David. Perhaps Jeroboam was forced into this way of thinking by the approach of a feast, probably tabernacles (:32), when his people would usually go up to Jerusalem to worship.

1 Kings 12:28 Whereupon the king took counsel, and made two calves of gold; and he said to them, It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem. Look and see your gods, Israel, which brought you up out of the land of Egypt!-

It's been suggested that theses calves were false cherubim. There is certainly a connection between the calf and the cherubim. In Ez. 1:10 we read that the living creatures had "the face of an ox on the left side". In Ez. 10:14 we learn that this face was that of a cherub. Jeroboam placed the calves at each end of the land of Israel, as if it was the ark (the ark had the cherubim at each end of it). By doing so, Jeroboam excluded Jerusalem, the temple, from God's presence. He excluded others from the presence of God. The calves were therefore a mixture of true religious symbolism with gross apostasy. In Hosea 8:2,3 we read a prophecy against Jeroboam: "Israel shall cry unto me, My God, we know thee. Israel hath cast off the thing that is good... of their silver and their gold have they made them idols... thy calf, O Samaria hath cast thee off... (it) shall be broken in pieces", as they were later by Josiah. So Israel thought that they knew God at this time, they felt in fellowship with Him, when actually the anger of God was deeply against them. Jeroboam was the one on whom the sin of Israel's later idolatry is blamed. But Jeroboam is not called an idolater. He no doubt had an element of good spiritual motivation in him. 2 Kings 3:2,3 implies that Jeroboam did not actually worship Baal. Jehoram put away the image of Baal, but he cleaved to the sins of Jeroboam. The implication is that Jeroboam was not a Baal worshipper, which is what the majority of the wicked kings were guilty of.

Jeroboam quotes the words of Ex. 32:4 "These be your gods, O Israel, which brought you up from the land of Egypt". The connection is conscious and intentional. His argument was presumably that the golden calf was quite legitimate and built by none other than Aaron. What was wrong, so he perhaps reasoned, was that the people had worshipped it as an idol. Whereas Jeroboam was initially arguing that his calves were a legitimate part of Yahweh worship.

1 Kings 12:29 He set the one in Bethel, and the other he put in Dan-

These were at the far north and south of his territory. Perhaps if indeed his calves were alluding to the cherubim (:28), his idea was that they were as the cherubim overshadowing the land.

1 Kings 12:30 This thing became a sin; for the people went to worship before the one, even to Dan-

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

1 Kings 12:31 He made houses on high places, and made priests from among all the people, who were not of the sons of Levi-

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

1 Kings 12:32 Jeroboam ordained a feast in the eighth month, on the fifteenth day of the month, like the feast that is in Judah, and he went up to the altar; he did so in Bethel, sacrificing to the calves that he had made: and he placed in Bethel the priests of the high places that he had made-

Jeroboam was full of works, of activity in fighting the Lord's battles. He was active in the Truth, as we would say. He ordained a feast "Like the feast which was in Judah". He ordained a new feast on the 15th day of the 8th month, no doubt copying the feast of tabernacles, on the 15th of the 7th month. See on :27. So Jeroboam lacked an attention to detail, despite an appearance of spirituality. 1 Chron. 5:17 says that in Jeroboam's reign, the genealogies we read in the early chapters of Chronicles were written. So in some ways, he gave great attention to detail- when it suited him.

1 Kings 12:33 He went up to the altar which he had made in Bethel on the fifteenth day in the eighth month, even in the month which he had devised of his own heart: and he ordained a feast for the children of Israel, and went up to the altar, to burn incense-

He went up to the altar, making himself the priest. It seems that he was copying David and Solomon, who did just this. But he lacked David's motivation and spirituality. Another example of his mixture of truth and error is shown by the way he built an altar at Bethel. Now this had many religious associations; Jacob offered there, Samuel held regular gatherings there; and as with trying to be like David and Solomon, it seems that Jeroboam went in for even more self-conscious spiritual exhibitionism and seeking to publicly associate himself with righteous men. In :28 we read that the idea of the calves was a result of taking counsel with others; but the idea of ordaining an alternative feast of tabernacles, picking a random date near enough to the Mosaic one, was purely "devised of his own heart". He has to take much personal responsibility, and so "Jeroboam the son of Nebat who made Israel to sin" is the continual judgment of the records upon him personally.

1 Kings Chapter 13

1 Kings 13:1 There came a man of God out of Judah by the word of Yahweh to Beth El: and Jeroboam was standing by the altar to burn incense-

This prophet would have been tempted to reason that he need not make this long and dangerous journey; for after all, the ten tribes had chosen to secede from Judah. But we learn here of our responsibility to all our brethren, even if they have separated from us wrongfully. And this prophet was willing to risk death to do so (:4).

1 Kings 13:2 He cried against the altar by the word of Yahweh and said, Altar, altar, thus says Yahweh: ‘Behold, a son shall be born to the house of David, Josiah by name. On you he shall sacrifice the priests of the high places who burn incense on you, and they will burn men’s bones on you’-

The fulfillment came 330 years later (2 Kings 23:15,16). This is one of the few prophecies which apparently had no short term fulfilment to validate it; but there was therefore a dramatic sign given at the time (:3).

1 Kings 13:3 He gave a sign the same day saying, This is the sign which Yahweh has spoken: Behold, the altar will be split apart, and the ashes that are on it will be poured out-

LXX and Hebrew "fat" instead of "ashes". "Split" is the word used for the 'rending' of the kingdom from Judah to Jeroboam (1 Kings 11:13,30,31). But the lesson was that Jeroboam's false religious system would now be rent apart. The potential promised to Jeroboam of becoming king of the 'split / rent' kingdom on God's behalf, experiencing the fulfilment of God's promises to David (1 Kings 11:38) had now in turn been rent.

1 Kings 13:4 It happened, when the king heard the saying of the man of God which he cried against the altar in Bethel, that Jeroboam put out his hand from the altar, saying, Seize him! His hand, which he put out against him, dried up, so that he could not draw it back again to himself-

Jeroboam's reaction to the prophet was exactly that of Saul to David and Solomon to Jeroboam. They all thought that their action in murdering people could somehow stop the fulfilment of God's word. Jeroboam's action is a typical example of anger with the messenger because of the message. And we experience this often in our preaching of God's word to others.

1 Kings 13:5 The altar also was split apart, and the ashes poured out from the altar, according to the sign which the man of God had given by the word of Yahweh-

I noted on :2 that the prophecy about Josiah was not to be fulfilled for 330 years. But most prophecies had a short term fulfilment, for according to the Mosaic law, this was how a prophet could be tested and validated. Therefore this dramatic sign was given. An earthquake or earth tremour split the altar, and the ashes or "fat" fell to the ground.

1 Kings 13:6 The king answered the man of God, Now entreat the favour of Yahweh your God, and pray for me, that my hand may be restored to me again. The man of God entreated Yahweh, and the king’s hand was restored him again, and became as it was before-

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

1 Kings 13:7 The king said to the man of God, Come home with me, and refresh yourself, and I will give you a reward-

"Home" was presumably to Shechem. For they were at Bethel at the time. Jeroboam still saw things in a very materialistic way, reasoning as did Saul (1 Sam. 9:7), and had utterly failed to appreciate the great spiritual potentials offered to him in 1 Kings 11:38. We see internal corroboration of the record in the character presentation of Jeroboam; in 1 Kings 13:7 and also 1 Kings 14:3, Jeroboam thinks that prophets must be paid for their services.

1 Kings 13:8 The man of God said to the king, Even if you gave me half of your house, I would not go in with you, neither would I eat bread nor drink water in this place-

The prophet is tempted to break the commandment received not to do so (:9), but he overcomes it. He is then to be tested in a similar way again, and he fails it. God tests us and then repeats the test, that we might learn; or that our apparent obedience may be tested and proven to ourselves as real.

1 Kings 13:9 for so was it commanded me by the word of Yahweh saying, ‘You shall eat no bread, nor drink water, neither return by the way that you came’-

There was possibly the idea that eating and drinking together with others was a sign of religious fellowship (1 Cor. 5:11). But likely the prophet was being empowered miraculously as Elijah was later, to make a journey in God's strength. And the lack of food and water was to make him closer to God through fasting. Bethel was south of Shechem, so the prophet coming from Judah would not have travelled on this road. Perhaps the command not to return was because God wanted the prophet not to be delayed by people who had seen him coming wanting to congratulate him or otherwise delay him on his return journey. His whole period outside the border of Judah was to be without eating or drinking, so he was being told to make the journey as quickly as possible, and not allow himself to be delayed.

1 Kings 13:10 So he went another way, and didn’t return by the way that he came to Bethel-

See on :9. However the exact reason for this is unclear. It may have been just a simple test. The first part of the commandment, not to eat food, he had obeyed. Now he was to be tested regarding the second part of the commandment.

1 Kings 13:11 Now there lived an old prophet in Bethel; and one of his sons came and told him all the works that the man of God had done that day in Bethel. They also told their father the words which he had spoken to the king-

The prophet was returning to Judah, so he was moving south of Bethel. To go back to Bethel would require him to return by the way he had come, in spirit, although he may have argued that seeing he was travelling a different road back home (:10), his return to Bethel by that road was not strictly returning by "the way that he came to Bethel". But such legalism leads into sin, as we see here. We wonder why this prophet was still in Bethel and had not joined the Levites in going to live in Judah. Perhaps it was because he was old. Yet his subsequent behaviour makes us wonder whether he was in fact a prophet of Yahweh, or just a "prophet" in a general sense.

1 Kings 13:12 Their father said to them, Which way did he go? Now his sons had seen which way the man of God went, who came from Judah-

We note the emphasis upon "the way". He had been told by his sons all the words spoken (:11), so he knew the prophet from Judah was not to eat or drink, nor return by "the way" he had come. Perhaps as discussed on :11 he reasoned that returning to his house would not be returning by the way the prophet had come to Bethel- because he was on a different route. But knowing he had been forbidden to eat and drink, it was surely wrong of him to fake a word from Yahweh commanding him now to eat and drink. Perhaps he reasoned that the command not to eat and drink meant not to do so with Jeroboam. We can see the wrong thinking which his legalism led him to.

1 Kings 13:13 He said to his sons, Saddle the donkey for me. So they saddled the donkey for him; and he rode on it-

The focus of the Divine cameraman is zoomed in close up. Sometimes we have scant detail, at others, such as this, we get much detail. We are thereby invited to imagine what the man was thinking as they saddled the donkey and he mounted it, and why he was doing this...

1 Kings 13:14 He went after the man of God, and found him sitting under an oak. He said to him, Are you the man of God who came from Judah? He said, I am-

If he had not eaten nor drunken, he was presumably tired. This would militate against my earlier suggestion that he was given miraculous power with which to make the journey without eating or drinking.

1 Kings 13:15 Then he said to him, Come home with me, and eat bread-

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

1 Kings 13:16 He said, I may not return with you, nor go in with you; neither will I eat bread nor drink water with you in this place-

"This place" presumably refers to the ten tribes, although perhaps Bethel and its environs is specifically in view.

1 Kings 13:17 For it was said to me by the word of Yahweh, ‘You shall eat no bread nor drink water there, nor turn again to go by the way that you came’-

By taking a different route home, the prophet had fulfilled this. But he rightly interpreted the spirit of it as meaning that he must not return at all by any road he had travelled on.

1 Kings 13:18 He said to him, I also am a prophet as you are; and an angel spoke to me by the word of Yahweh, saying, ‘Bring him back with you into your house, that he may eat bread and drink water’. He lied to him-

The whole incident underlines the importance of personal relationship with God. If we are given a word from the Lord to do something, we are to do it, and not let that be overridden by the words of others, even if they claim to also be reasoning according to God's word. Our personal understanding of God's word is to be utterly paramount. No matter how apparently credible is another argument against it. And we must remember that the man had not eaten nor drunk for some time, and was resting, exhausted, beneath a tree (:14). Perhaps in his weakness he wondered whether this was God's way of sustaining him. But God will not send help to us in any way which so fragrantly breaks His own word to us.

1 Kings 13:19 So he went back with him, and ate bread in his house, and drank water-

LXX "So he turned him back". The problem with what he did was that the prophet of Judah's word to Jeroboam now appeared compromised. For Jeroboam had tried to seize him after his condemnation of the altar, but had been stopped. But now it seemed God had intervened to slay His prophet, and so there was no need to take his word seriously.

1 Kings 13:20 It happened, as they sat at the table, that the word of Yahweh came to the prophet who brought him back-

Whether or not this old man was a true prophet of Yahweh, he was used to speak Yahweh's word to the prophet of Judah.

1 Kings 13:21 and he cried to the man of God who came from Judah, saying-

"Cried" is s.w. in :2 for how the prophet cried against Jeroboam for his disobedience. For all his bravery, he was no better; at least in this moment of his life. He is condemned to death, not perhaps because he will not be saved, but as a lesson for us as to the importance of very personal obedience to God's word. The old prophet apparently sinned worse, but wasn't immediately slain. That point is so obvious in the story, and we are surely to conclude from it that sometimes men are punished with death for far 'less', apparently, than others sin. We think of Uzzah being slain for touching the ark in an apparently well meaning way, and David preserved after the sin with Uriah. The outcomes of our sins are sometimes so that others may hopefully learn something. Everything in our lives is so multi factorial. See on :24.

Thus says Yahweh, ‘Because you have been disobedient to the mouth of Yahweh, and have not kept the commandment which Yahweh your God commanded you-

God's word is His actual word. The prophet heard "the mouth of Yahweh". And those words have been recorded. When we read His word, we hear His voice. Jeremiah spoke "from the mouth of the Lord" (2 Chron. 36:12). His word brings Him that near to us, if we will perceive it for what it is. Jeremiah also was "disobedient to the mouth of Yahweh" (same phrase in Lam. 1:18), but wasn't immediately slain; see commentary on the first half of this verse.

1 Kings 13:22 but came back, and have eaten bread and drunk water in the place of which He said to you, Eat no bread, and drink no water; your body shall not come to the tomb of your fathers’-

"The place" was the apostate area of the ten tribes, and Bethel in particular. The old prophet's house is included within that, another indication that he was perhaps not untainted by the apostacy around him. On :30 I will note that the prophet's body didn't come to the tomb of his fathers, but rather to the tomb of the old prophet. But this came about through the old prophet's deep respect for the prophet of Judah.

1 Kings 13:23 It happened, after he had eaten bread, and after he had drunk, that he saddled the donkey for the prophet whom he had brought back-

His sons had saddled the donkey for their father, but now the old prophet, despite his age, does this menial task for the prophet of Judah, as a sign of respect. We note that the old prophet carries the blame- "he had brought back" the prophet of Judah, resulting in his death.

1 Kings 13:24 When he had gone, a lion met him by the way, and killed him. His body was cast in the way, and the donkey stood by it. The lion also stood by the body-

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

1 Kings 13:25 Behold, men passed by, and saw the body cast in the way, and the lion standing by the body; and they came and told it in the city where the old prophet lived-

See on :24. The public nature of the strange slaying would have been gossiped far and wide, as it was such an unusual scene that was described. For everyone knew that lions kill only to eat.

1 Kings 13:26 When the prophet who brought him back from the way heard of it, he said, It is the man of God who was disobedient to the mouth of Yahweh. Therefore Yahweh has delivered him to the lion, which has mauled him and slain him, according to the word of Yahweh, which He spoke to him-

The old prophet realized that he had been merely a channel. He doesn't say "the word of Yahweh which I spoke to him", but rather "which He spoke to him". "Mauled" is 'ripped', and the same Hebrew phrase for "mauled / ripped and slain" is used of the death of Eli, also by Divine judgment (1 Sam. 4:18). As the altar had been ripped (:3), showing how the kingdom had been ripped from Jeroboam as it had been from Solomon, so now the prophet of Judah was ripped or torn by the lion. He is presented as representative of Jeroboam and all disobedient to God's word.

1 Kings 13:27 He spoke to his sons saying, Saddle the donkey for me. They saddled it-

The repeated emphasis upon saddling donkeys in this story (:13,23,27) may be to connect with how the false prophet Balaam likewise saddled his ass and disobeyed God's word (Num. 22:21 s.w.).

1 Kings 13:28 He went and found his body cast in the way, and the donkey and the lion standing by the body. The lion had not eaten the body, nor mauled the donkey-

There was a fair chance that the old prophet would be killed by the lion, and realizing he too deserved Divine judgment for faking His word, he went there prepared to be slain too. He went therefore out of very deep respect, willing to pay with his life for that respect.

1 Kings 13:29 The prophet took up the body of the man of God, and laid it on the donkey, and brought it back. He came to the city of the old prophet to mourn, and to bury him-

The old prophet, despite his age, travelled the road which the prophet of Judah would have travelled had he survived. This was a sign of identity with the prophet of Judah, again indicating that he felt this man had done what he ought to have done.

1 Kings 13:30 He laid his body in his own grave; and they mourned over him saying, Alas, my brother!-

It seems that the old prophet kept the body, laid it in the grave prepared for himself, and then went to the old prophet's city to mourn there (:29). This keeping of the body is unusual and may suggest the prophet had no living family. Again we see the Divine economy in how things worked out; for the old prophet's desire to identify himself with the death of the prophet of Judah, placing that man's body where his should have gone, resulted in the fulfilment of God's judgment of :22.

1 Kings 13:31 It happened, after he had buried him, that he spoke to his sons saying, When I am dead, then bury me in the tomb in which the man of God is buried. Lay my bones beside his bones-

This was a final act of identity with the prophet of Judah. The old prophet shows himself to be sincere in his devotion to God's word and the cause of the prophet. Despite faking Yahweh's word and bringing that prophet to his death. We see here what we are confronted by in our own lives and those around us- a sincere belief in Yahweh and genuine love of His ways, despite terrible failure at specific points (such as his faking of Yahweh's word and thereby leading a good prophet to his death), as well as general failure to attain our highest potentials (in this case, the old prophet ought to have delivered the message to Jeroboam, since he lived in Bethel. But he didn't). LXX adds "in order that my bones may be preserved along with his bones", suggesting he believed in a resurrection of the body for them both, by grace.

1 Kings 13:32 For the saying which he cried by the word of Yahweh against the altar in Bethel, and against all the houses of the high places which are in the cities of Samaria, will surely happen-

This may imply that the prophet's message was against the other high places as well. The city of Samaria is not in view, but the towns in the region of Samaria (1 Kings 16:24). "Will surely happen" was faith indeed, for Josiah didn't fulfil the prophecies for another 330 years. The old prophet loved the prophet of Judah for what he had done and for his message, and although he lived in Bethel and was likely to be persecuted by Jeroboam for his stance, the death of the prophet from Judah inspired him to speak out as he ought to have done earlier.

1 Kings 13:33 After this thing Jeroboam didn’t return from his evil way-

The implication may be that he could have done, according to the spiritual potential he had explained on 1 Kings 11:38.

But again made priests of the high places from among all the people. Whoever wanted to, he consecrated him, that there might be priests of the high places-

"Again" doing this suggests the incident with his hand withering and then the subsequent slaying of the prophet were all intended to make him stop and change his policy. But he didn't.

1 Kings 13:34 This thing became sin to the house of Jeroboam, even to cut it off, and to destroy it from off the surface of the earth-

The language here is slightly strange, as if the sin became sin and the sin was intended to destroy them. The idea is that God confirms people in their sins, and sin has its own downward dynamic, leading to destruction.

1 Kings Chapter 14

1 Kings 14:1 At that time Abijah the son of Jeroboam fell sick-

"Abijah" is 'father of Yah' but that effectively means 'worshipper of Yah', and his naming further indicates that Jeroboam was initially aware of Yahweh worship. He had the potential of being the Divinely blessed king of Israel, with the promises to David fulfilled through him (1 Kings 11:38). His twisting of Yahweh worship is therefore the more reprehensible. Abijah is not to be imagined as a little child; see on :13.

1 Kings 14:2 Jeroboam said to his wife, Please get up and disguise yourself, that you won’t be recognized as the wife of Jeroboam. Go to Shiloh. Behold, there is Ahijah the prophet, who spoke concerning me that I should be king over this people-

This turning to Yahweh in time of need, rather than to other gods, indicates that he had a conscience toward Yahweh and after the healing of his withered hand by the prophet from Judah, he knew that Yahweh was really the only God who could heal. "Ahijah" is 'brother of Yah' but that effectively means 'worshipper of Yah'. It is very similar to "Abijah", and we wonder if Jeroboam initially believed Ahijah's prophecies of 1 Kings 11:38, and named his child after the prophet, as well as making a statement of his commitment to Yahweh worship.

1 Kings 14:3 Take with you ten loaves, cakes and a jar of honey, and go to him-

The possible death of the child would confirm the annulling of the promises about Jeroboam fulfilling the promises about the house of David. That had been made clear by the prophet from Judah in 1 Kings 13, and now at this same time (:1) the message was being confirmed by the death of Jeroboam's son Abijah, who symbolized his weak attempt at fulfilling the potential of the prophecies of Ahijah about him. We see internal corroboration of the record in the character presentation of Jeroboam; in 1 Kings 13:7 and also 1 Kings 14:3, Jeroboam thinks that prophets must be paid for their services.

He will tell you what will become of the child-

Again we sense Jeroboam's recognition of the power and truth of Yahweh and His prophets, although he preferred his own power and kingdom to His.

1 Kings 14:4 Jeroboam’s wife did so, and arose, and went to Shiloh, and came to the house of Ahijah. Now Ahijah could not see; for his eyes were set by reason of his age-

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

1 Kings 14:5 Yahweh said to Ahijah, The wife of Jeroboam is coming to inquire of you concerning her son; for he is sick. This is what you shall tell her; for it will be, when she comes in, that she will pretend to be another woman-

Jeroboam knew that Ahijah was likely to condemn him and his wife for the golden calves and other idolatry. We have an insight into human nature here. Jeroboam and his wife believed Ahijah had God's help and power to know the future for their child, and the power to heal him. But they thought they could deceive him, so that his blindness stopped him perceiving that she was not Jeroboam's wife. We may believe in God's knowledge of the future and His power; but yet disbelieve His ability to see us and know us right now for who we really are. This is why the tendency of some to focus upon Bible prophecy, God's knowledge of the future and power in future history, can become an obsession which somehow mutes our awareness of His knowledge of us personally right now.

1 Kings 14:6 It was so, when Ahijah heard the sound of her feet, as she came in at the door, that he said, Come in, you wife of Jeroboam! Why do you pretend to be another? For I am sent to you with heavy news-

The woman came to Ahijah, having been sent by Jeroboam; but Ahijah was "sent" to him. This is part of a wider theme of God's word 'coming' to us, and God 'coming' to us, through His word. God Himself is spoken of as coming, descending etc. when He ‘preaches’ to humanity (e.g. Gen. 11:5; Ex. 19:20; Num. 11:25; 2 Sam. 22:10). In Jer. 39:16, the imprisoned Jeremiah is told to “go, tell Ebed-melech...” a word from the Lord about him. Jeremiah couldn’t have literally left prison to do so – but the idea is that a person encountering the Lord’s word has as it were experienced the Lord ‘going’ to him or her. And in this sense the message of the Lord Jesus (in its essence) could ‘go’ to persons without Him physically going anywhere or even existing consciously at the time (1 Pet. 3:19).

1 Kings 14:7 Go, tell Jeroboam, ‘Thus says Yahweh, the God of Israel: Because I exalted you from among the people, and made you prince over My people Israel-

The "Because... therefore" judgment (:10) shows that those who are called to potentials are held responsible for their failure to realize them, and are judged accordingly. And we are all called to various potential good works (Eph. 2:10). Jeroboam had been the son of a prostitute (LXX) whom God exalted very far. But he used it for himself rather than God's service. "Exalted" is the same word used of how Jeroboam "lifted up his hand" against Solomon (1 Kings 11:26,27). But God exalted / lifted up Jeroboam, and ultimately he became king of the ten tribes. His revolt or lifting up his hand against Solomon was therefore of God.

Baasha was intended to learn from the path of Jeroboam, for he too was "exalted" (s.w. 1 Kings 16:2) from nothing to be prince over Israel. But Baasha like Jeroboam made the people sin. We are intended to learn from the life path of others. This is why we have Biblical history, and it is why God controls the encounters of those we meet in life.

1 Kings 14:8 and tore the kingdom away from the house of David, and gave it you; and yet you have not been as My servant David who kept My commandments, and who followed Me with all his heart, to do only that which was right in My eyes-

The final comment upon Jeroboam is that he was not as God’s servant David (1 Kings 14:7-9). And yet he was set up with that potential possibility. Consider:

Jeroboam (1Kings 11) - David

Man of valour v. 28- As David 1 Sam. 16:18 RV;

Young man v. 28 - 1 Sam. 17:58

Ruler over all v. 28 - 1 Sam. 18:5

I will take you and you shall reign over Israel v. 37 - 2 Sam. 7:8

Build a house v. 38 - 2 Sam. 7:11

v. 40 - 1 Sam. 19:2,10

And it works the other way, too. Prophecies of doom can be turned round by our repentance. Nineveh avoiding certain destruction on account of their repentance is a clear example.

1 Kings 14:9 but you have done evil above all who were before you, and have gone and made you other gods and molten images, to provoke Me to anger-

God can be grieved [s.w. 'provoke to anger']. He has emotions, and His potential foreknowledge doesn't mean that these feelings are not legitimate. They are presented as occurring in human time, as responses to human behaviour. This is the degree to which He has accommodated Himself to human time-space limits, in order to fully enter relationship and experience with us. As He can limit His omnipotence, so God can limit His omniscience, in order to feel and respond along with us.

And have cast Me behind your back-

The same phrase is used in Neh. 9:26 of how Israel cast God's law behind their backs. "The word was God", attitudes to God's word are attitudes to Him.

1 Kings 14:10 therefore, behold, I will bring evil on the house of Jeroboam, and will cut off from Jeroboam every male, he who is shut up and he who is left free in Israel, and will utterly sweep away the house of Jeroboam, as a man sweeps away dung, until it is all gone-

The preceding verses show that the extreme judgment pronounced was because of the great potentials God had enabled for Jeroboam (see 1 Kings 11:38). But he refused to realize them. We live in an age of great potentials. We are generally literate, mobile, with easy access to God's word; and many members of the body of Christ live in relative ease and luxury, free from persecution. The potentials for service are far higher for the average believer today than they were centuries ago. So this issue of judgment according to wasted potentials is so relevant to our age. "He who is shut up and he who is left free" is apparently an idiom referring to children still shut up at home, and those who are free to move about independently. The meaning would then be "young and old".

1 Kings 14:11 He who dies of Jeroboam in the city shall the dogs eat; and he who dies in the field shall the birds of the sky eat: for Yahweh has spoken it’-

The next verse goes on to state that Jeroboam's child "in the city" was to die. But then the judgment that he would be eaten by dogs is not applied to him in :13. To not "come to the grave" (:13) meant being thrown onto the rubbish tip like Gehenna, and eaten by dogs. The Lord's New Testament references to Gehenna are another way of saying 'Those put there will not have a decent burial', which was the greatest fear of the Semitic mind.

1 Kings 14:12 Arise therefore, and go to your house. When your feet enter into the city, the child shall die-

See on :11. By returning home, she was bringing about the death of her child. There could have been here an appeal for repentance; if she had not returned to her home in Tirzah, thereby resigning her position as queen of the apostate kingdom, then she might have saved her child's life. See on :17.

1 Kings 14:13 All Israel shall mourn for him, and bury him; for he only of Jeroboam shall come to the grave, because in him there is found some good thing toward Yahweh, the God of Israel, in the house of Jeroboam-

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

1 Kings 14:14 Moreover Yahweh will raise Him up a king over Israel, who shall cut off the house of Jeroboam. This is the day! What? Even now-

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

1 Kings 14:15 Yahweh will strike Israel, as a reed is shaken in the water; and He will root up Israel out of this good land which He gave to their fathers, and will scatter them beyond the River, because they have made their Asherim, provoking Yahweh to anger-

As Egypt was a reed, so were Israel (1 Kings 14:15). As Pharaoh’s heart was plagued (Ex. 9:14), so was Israel’s (1 Kings 8:38); as Pharaoh-hophra was given into the hand of his enemies, so would Israel be (Jer. 44:30). She would be  “Condemned with the world...”. There is a major Biblical theme that when God's people lose faith, they are described and treated as the world. The uprooting of Israel was because they as a people had broken covenant (Dt. 29:28). But the same word is used in Jer. 18:7; if God says He will uproot a nation, then they can still repent and change the otherwise inevitable outcome. This is why there is a gap between the statement of judgment, and its fulfilment. The statement that God's people would no longer be uprooted (s.w. Am. 9:15) therefore means that the good news of the Kingdom is that God's people will no longer sin and have to be judged.

1 Kings 14:16 He will give Israel up because of the sins of Jeroboam, which he has sinned, and with which he has made Israel to sin-

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

1 Kings 14:17 Jeroboam’s wife arose, and departed, and came to Tirzah. As she came to the threshold of the house, the child died-

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

1 Kings 14:18 All Israel buried him and mourned for him, according to the word of Yahweh, which He spoke by His servant Ahijah the prophet-

This fulfilment of :13 suggests Abijah was not a small child but was known in Israel.

1 Kings 14:19 The rest of the acts of Jeroboam, how he warred and how he reigned, behold, they are written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel-

This is not necessarily the same as the "book of Chronicles" which we have in the Bible. However, 2 Chron. 13:3-20 describes the wars of Jeroboam with Judah, and how Judah captured cities from Jeroboam.

1 Kings 14:20 Jeroboam reigned for twenty two years: and he slept with his fathers, and Nadab his son reigned in his place-

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

1 Kings 14:21 Rehoboam the son of Solomon reigned in Judah. Rehoboam was forty-one years old when he began to reign, and he reigned seventeen years in Jerusalem-

1 Kings 14:21; 2 Chron. 12:13 says Rehoboam was 41 when he became king. But he was "young and tender hearted" (2 Chron. 13:7). The LXX addition at 1 Kings 12:24 says he was 16 when he began to reign. He was surrounded by young men who had grown up with him. I suggest on balance that he was indeed 41 and the "young men" were "young" in comparison to the older men present. The description "young and tender hearted" could simply be a purposeful repetition of the description of his father Solomon when he ascended the throne; or it could mean that he was a rather weak and child like man.

The city which Yahweh had chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, to put His name there: and his mother’s name was Naamah the Ammonitess-

The  criticism  of Solomon for marrying Gentile women also applies to  his  first  marriage  with  the daughter of Pharaoh; besides marrying  her,  he  married  the  others too, and the criticisms which  follow  are  spoken in the context of both these actions. Yet Solomon married Pharaoh's daughter in his early days, before he asked for wisdom. This is another indication that Solomon did not  start  off well and then go wrong; right from the beginning he  had this incredible dualism in his spirituality. The Talmud (Shabbath F, 56,2) records that “When Solomon married the daughter of Pharaoh she brought to him 1000 kinds of musical instruments, and taught him the chants to the various idols”. Even when Solomon was young, he evidently loved wine (Song 1:2,4)- which was later to be something he (temporarily) abandonned himself to. He had a child by an Ammonite girl one year before he became king (1 Kings 14:21)- so his relationships with foreign women cannot be put down to mere political alliances. If the Song of Solomon is about her rather than the Egyptian woman he married, one can only say that one early error, unrepentended of, paved the way for his later disasters with foreign women.

1 Kings 14:22 Judah did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh, and they provoked Him to jealousy with their sins which they committed, even worse than all that their fathers had done-

Jealousy is a lead feature within Yahweh's personality (Ex. 20:5; 34:14). It speaks specifically of the jealousy of a man concerning the faithfulness of his wife (Num. 5:14). God was the passionate lover and husband of His people, and it is inevitable therefore that the extent of that love would produce jealousy when they spurned Him and went after other men, the idols. At this point they only began to do this evil after Rehoboam had established his kingdom and felt strong (2 Chron. 12:1). Yahweh was no longer apparently needed by them, and so they turned to other gods. Maachah his beloved wife (2 Chron. 11:20-22) was an idolater (2 Chron. 15:16).

1 Kings 14:23 For they also built themselves high places, and pillars and Asherim on every high hill, and under every green tree-

Houses of worship were built on the high places as Jeroboam had done (1 Kings 12:31), and these became Jeroboam's answer to centralized worship on one building, the temple, in one place, Jerusalem. But Judah "also" did this, they were influenced by Jeroboam's style of worship.

1 Kings 14:24 and there were also sodomites in the land: they did according to all the abominations of the nations which Yahweh drove out before the children of Israel-

These sodomites were associated with the idol shrines (1 Kings 14:23; 1 Kings 15:12). They may well have been Gentiles from Phoenicia, hence they were expelled from the land rather than killed (1 Kings 15:12). They may well have been involved with homosexual practices, but the Hebrew qadesh means literally a devoted person.

1 Kings 14:25 It happened in the fifth year of king Rehoboam-

This was after Rehoboam was established in his own strength; see on :22.

That Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem-

Shishak had given refuge to Jeroboam (1 Kings 11:40), so it could be that he urged Shishak to attack Judah once Rehoboam became established as king of Judah. "A monument of this king, the first of the 22nd dynasty, has been discovered at Karnak in Upper Egypt, recording his conquests and the names of certain towns which he had taken in Palestine". Inscriptions on the wall of the temple at Karnak list many conquered cities, including three of the "cities for defence" which Rehoboam had built, Shoco, Adoraim and Aijalon (2 Chron. 11:7-10). The list also includes many cities within the ten tribes, suggesting that if Jeroboam got Shishak to invade Judah, Shishak then turned against his one time protégé Jeroboam and invaded the ten tribes also.

1 Kings 14:26 and he took away the treasures of the house of Yahweh, and the treasures of the king’s house; he took away all: and he took away all the shields of gold which Solomon had made-

LXX mentions that David took golden spears from Hadadezer: “And the golden spears which David took from the hand of the servants of Adraazar king of Soba and carried to Jerusalem, he took them all”.  These would not have been used as real spears, but were part of the worship of the golden sun which was the main religion in Syria at the time. David would have been better destroying them, rather than bringing idol paraphernalia into Jerusalem. For it later contributed towards the freedom Judah felt to worship sun gods. These spears would have been taken at the time of 2 Sam. 8:7: "David took the shields of gold that were on the servants of Hadadezer, and brought them to Jerusalem". "Hadad" was the god of the sun, "Hadadezer" had not been 'helped by Hadad' as his name means, and so David brought these golden imitations of the sun to Yahweh's temple. It is perhaps questionable whether David should have brought idols into Jerusalem; we note that later Judah worshipped sun gods. David's actions here were not blessed, for the LXX adds “And Susakim [i.e. Shishak] king of Egypt took them, when he went up to Jerusalem in the days of Roboam the son of Solomon”.

2 Chron. 12:5-8 recounts the temporary repentance of Rehoboam as a result of the challenge of the prophet Shemaiah at this time.

1 Kings 14:27 King Rehoboam made in their place shields of brass, and committed them to the hands of the captains of the guard, who kept the door of the king’s house-

Gold being downgraded to brass reflects the decline of faith in Rehoboam, for gold is a symbol of faith (1 Pet. 1:7).

1 Kings 14:28 It was so, that as often as the king went into the house of Yahweh, the guard bore them, and brought them back into the guard room-

This indicates that there was a very low level of security even in the Jerusalem temple. Rehoboam wished by all means to imitate the worship of his father Solomon, but it was on a pathetically lower level. Despite all his idolatry, he still entered the temple for public worship of Yahweh. This was Israel's recurrent problem, to worship both Yahweh and the idols.

1 Kings 14:29 Now the rest of the acts of Rehoboam, and all that he did, aren’t they written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?-

This may not be a reference to the books we know as "Chronicles", but it is noteworthy that the parallel record in Chronicles is far more detailed at this point than what we are reading in Kings.

1 Kings 14:30 There was war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam continually-

This would indicate disobedience to the command to Rehoboam not to fight the ten tribes (1 Kings 12:24).

1 Kings 14:31 Rehoboam slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David: and his mother’s name was Naamah the Ammonitess. Abijam his son reigned in his place-

His mother's name is twice stressed (see on :21). The records of the kings so often mention their mothers, in reflection of the huge spiritual influence of a mother upon her children.

1 Kings Chapter 15

1 Kings 15:1 Now in the eighteenth year of king Jeroboam the son of Nebat began Abijam to reign over Judah-

Abijam means "father of the sea", but 'father of' can mean 'worshipper of', as 'Abijah' means 'father / worshipper of Yah'. The sea god was worshipped, and so we conclude this was reflective of pagan devotions. He is called Abijah in 2 Chronicles, 'worshipper of Yah'. Having both a pagan and Yahwistic name was typical of the times, and Maacah / Michaiah his mother had a similar two names (see on :2). 2 Chron. 11:20-22 shows that Rehoboam had 28 sons. Abijam wasn't the firstborn, but rather the firstborn son of the favoured wife. Abijam had 38 children (2 Chron. 13:21), so he must have been a reasonable age when he came to the throne.

1 Kings 15:2 He reigned three years in Jerusalem: and his mother’s name was Maacah the daughter of Abishalom-

Maachah, Rehoboam's beloved wife (2 Chron. 11:20-22) was an idolater (2 Chron. 15:16). She is called Michaiah in 2 Chron. 13:12, "Who is like Jehovah?", but was known by her more pagan name Maachah, "oppression". She was the granddaughter of Absalom, but "son" and "daughter" are used in Hebrew with wide latitude.

The records of the kings so often mention their mothers, in reflection of the huge spiritual influence of a mother upon her children. The three years is a figure inclusive of parts of years, as he became king in the 18th year of Jeroboam's reign in Israel and died in his 20th year. "Three days / years" is often not a literal figure, and this must be recalled when considering the chronology of the Lord's three days in the tomb.

1 Kings 15:3 He walked in all the sins of his father, which he had done before him; and his heart was not perfect with Yahweh his God, as the heart of David his father-

And yet we read of Abijah's apparent devotion in :15 and 2 Chron. 13:10-12. The comment of 1 Kings 15:3 is that his heart wasn't perfect with Yahweh as David's was. David clearly sinned and seems to have suffered a decline in his ethics and spirituality as he got older. But he was judged on the overall dominant desire of his heart, to the point that having a heart perfect with Yahweh seems to effectively mean 'He was wholeheartedly devoted to Yahweh and never worshipped other gods'. Whereas Abijah, despite peaks of spirituality, did not have that total devotion to Yahweh as the dominant position of his heart throughout his life. Whatever peaks of obedience and devotion we may attain at points in our lives, it is the overall core position of our heart which is judged. Men like David may sin terribly at some points, those like Abijah may achieve wonderful levels of devotion at some points. But those high or low points play no major part in the final, unknowable equilibrium of Divine judgment. We need to remember this, as we encounter our brethren and ponder what to make of them, in their pits of sin and heights of devotion. Those points on their graph ought not to unduly weight our overall position on them.

1 Kings 15:4 Nevertheless for David’s sake, Yahweh his God gave him a lamp in Jerusalem, to set up his son after him, and to establish Jerusalem-

The way God allowed David's dynasty to continue for nearly 400 years therefore reflects His deeply positive overall impression of David. See on :3. By contrast, there were nine different dynasties in the ten tribe kingdom over 250 years.

1 Kings 15:5 because David had done that which was right in the eyes of Yahweh, and didn’t turn aside from anything that He commanded him all the days of his life, except only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite-

As noted on :3, David was seen as having had a perfect heart for Yahweh all his days. The highs and lows of his graph were not unduly significant in that overall judgment. But the matter of Uriah was so awful that it did weigh heavily. I suggest this was because it had many ongoing implications, and I have noted throughout the Psalms that David failed to maintain his intensity of contrition about it, and came to rationalize it as he entered older age.

These words must be given their due weight, as they would appear to imply that David's feeling of guilt and sin over taking the census in 2 Sam. 24:10 was therefore a case of a man taking false guilt. For it was allowable to take a census of Israel, although there was to be a half shekel tax paid at the time, which if not paid would result in plague (Ex. 30:12-15). Joab perhaps guessed that those numbered would not pay this and therefore the census would lead Israel into sin. This is why God chose the punishment of plague; not upon David, but upon Israel. Yet David perhaps realized all that, but knew that his lack of faith in wanting a census, his lack of consideration for the weakness of others, would lead them into sin and punishment. And therefore he felt guilty. It could be argued that his sacrifice atoned for himself and for the people, but they still suffered for not having paid the required "atonement money". But then we must balance against this the comment that "David had done that which was right in the eyes of Yahweh, and didn’t turn aside from anything that He commanded him all the days of his life, except only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite" (1 Kings 15:5). No mention is made of the matter of the census. There is true guilt, the guilt we should take for our actual sins; and false guilt, the guilt put on us by others and the malfunctioning of the human conscience. In this matter of David's guilt about the census, we may have an example of a man taking false guilt. The fact Israel and not David were punished with plague would rather confirm this. It may be impossible for us to sort out within us what is true guilt or false guilt, at least not be any intellectual process. But we can rest assured that all our guilt, of whatever kind, is met in the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus, the ultimate guilt offering.

1 Kings 15:6 Now there was war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam all the days of his life-

This would indicate disobedience to the command to Rehoboam not to fight the ten tribes (1 Kings 12:24). The terrible sin and tragedy of fighting ones own brethren is noted twice (also in 1 Kings 14:30).

1 Kings 15:7 The rest of the acts of Abijam, and all that he did, aren’t they written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? There was war between Abijam and Jeroboam-

Again, the sin of fighting ones own brethren is stressed as in :6,16; see on 1 Kings 12:24.

1 Kings 15:8 Abijam slept with his fathers; and they buried him in the city of David: and Asa his son reigned in his place-

One meaning of "Asa" is "physician", and he ended his days trusting physicians rather than Yahweh. Perhaps he trained as a physician and ended up therefore having more faith in science than in Yahweh.

1 Kings 15:9 In the twentieth year of Jeroboam king of Israel began Asa to reign over Judah-

Far more information is given in 2 Chron. 14:1-16, where we learn about the Ethiopian conflict, the prophecies of Azariah and Hanani and his covenant with Syria.

1 Kings 15:10 He reigned forty-one years in Jerusalem: and his mother’s name was Maacah the daughter of Abishalom-

The reference seems to be to his grandmother Maachah, Rehoboam’s favourite wife, who seems to have retained her position, perhaps because Asa’s mother was dead. The word for "mother" here can specifically mean 'the queen mother', an official title.

1 Kings 15:11 Asa did that which was right in the eyes of Yahweh, as did David his father-

Asa is recorded as serving God just as well as David, when actually this wasn't the case; but God counted him as righteous. The incomplete faith of men like Baruch was counted as full faith by later inspiration (Jud. 4:8,9 cp. Heb. 11:32). Sometimes the purges of idolatry by the kings is described in undoubtedly exaggerated language- such was God's joy that at least something was being done? As discussed on :3, Asa was not perfect, nor was David; but God's overall judgment was that he "did right", despite doing wrong at specific points in his life. Indeed as noted on :23, Asa died at a low point for him spiritually. But the judgment overall was that he "did right".

1 Kings 15:12 He put away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made-

These sodomites were associated with the idol shrines (1 Kings 14:23,24). They may well have been Gentiles from Phoenicia, hence they were expelled from the land rather than killed. They may well have been involved with homosexual practices, but the Hebrew qadesh means literally a devoted person.

1 Kings 15:13 Also Maacah his mother he removed from being queen, because she had made an abominable image for an Asherah; and Asa cut down her image, and burnt it at the brook Kidron-

I suggested on :10 that this may refer to Maachah, Rehoboam’s favourite wife, who seems to have retained her position, perhaps because Asa’s mother was dead. The word for "mother" here can specifically mean 'the queen mother', an official title. The Lord Jesus may well have recollected the bravery of this act when He crossed the Kidron just before His final sacrifice.

1 Kings 15:14 But the high places were not taken away: nevertheless the heart of Asa was perfect with Yahweh all his days-

Asa and Jehoshaphat removed the high places, but in a sense they didn't (1 Kings 15:14 cp. 2 Chron. 14:5; 17:6 cp. 20:33). We read of how the land was purged of Baal, Sodomites etc.; but in a very short time, we read of another purge being necessary. Partial cleansing of idolatry amounted to no cleansing. Hezekiah, Manasseh and Josiah all made major purges within a space of 80 years. Jeremiah therefore condemns the Jews who lived at the time of Josiah's reformation for not knowing God in their hearts. See on :18. Many a Western Christian has this very same tendency. We too must ask ourselves whether our spirituality is really just a product of the crowd mentality; as the crowd shouted one day "Hosanna to the Son of David", a few days later they wanted Jesus to be delivered rather than Barabbas, but within minutes they were persuaded to cry for the crucifixion of the Son of God. Church life, Bible studies, the breaking of bread... inevitably, there is a crowd mentality developed here. There is a feeling of devotion which wells up within us as a community, as an audience, as we sit there, as we stand in praise and worship together. But the real spirituality is far deeper than this. We must seriously ask whether our spirituality, our feelings of devotion, our true repentance, are only stimulated by these meetings?

As discussed on :3, Asa like David clearly sinned and seems to have suffered a decline in his faith as he got older, as the Chronicles record shows. But he was judged on the overall dominant desire of his heart, to the point that having a heart perfect with Yahweh seems to effectively mean 'He was wholeheartedly devoted to Yahweh and never worshipped other gods'. Despite all the ups and downs, of which his final faith in doctors rather than Yahweh was one of the down points, his overall deepest heart was for Yahweh.

1 Kings 15:15 He brought into the house of Yahweh the things that his father had dedicated, and the things that himself had dedicated, silver, and gold, and vessels-

We note that Abijah did dedicate things to Yahweh, but as discussed on :3, despite peaks of devotion and generosity, the dominant desire of his heart was not to Yahweh. And it is this dominant desire which is critically important to God.

1 Kings 15:16 There was war between Asa and Baasha king of Israel all their days-

Again, the sin of fighting ones own brethren is stressed as in :6,7; see on 1 Kings 12:24.

1 Kings 15:17 Baasha king of Israel went up against Judah and built Ramah, that he might not allow anyone to go out or come in to Asa king of Judah-

Ramah was a strategic point on the road which led to Jerusalem from the north. He maybe particularly feared that his people were still attracted to the idea of worship at the Jerusalem temple; for it seems it was access to Jerusalem which he particularly wanted to cut off.

1 Kings 15:18 Then Asa took all the silver and the gold that were left in the treasures of the house of Yahweh, and the treasures of the king’s house, and delivered them into the hand of his servants; and king Asa sent them to Ben Hadad son of Tabrimmon son of Hezion, king of Syria, who lived at Damascus, saying-

Benhadad was the grandson of Hezion, a name which uses similar characters to Rezon who led the first attempted revival of Zobah and Damascus (1 Kings 11:23) after David's victories against them in 2 Sam. 8:3-8.

Asa gathered the gold and silver vessels back into the temple- and then went and used them to make a political treaty. He apparently treated them as God's riches, but then in reality he used them as his own (1 Kings 15:18, 15). See on :14.

1 Kings 15:19 There is a treaty between me and you, between my father and your father. Behold, I have sent to you a present of silver and gold. Go, break your treaty with Baasha king of Israel, that he may depart from me-

The intent of the treaty, however, was that Benhadad would attack Baasha (:20). Perhaps this was not stated specifically because Asa wanted to give lip service obedience to the command not to fight with his own brethren in (1 Kings 12:24. So the Lord's money was spent on effectively getting others to fight their own brethren; and in essence the same can happen today in church politics. We also see how fickle are relationships when not governed by Divine principle; Benhadad's treaty with Baasha was broken when money was received from a third party, and he not only trashed the treaty but attacked him.

1 Kings 15:20 Ben Hadad listened to king Asa, and sent the captains of his armies against the cities of Israel, and struck Ijon, Dan, Abel Beth Maacah and all Chinneroth, with all the land of Naphtali-

These cities were in the far north of Israel. It was an invasion of the border area rather than of all Israel.

1 Kings 15:21 It happened, when Baasha heard of it, that he left off building Ramah, and lived in Tirzah-

Asa's plan appeared to have worked. Baasha stopped the attempted blockade of Jerusalem. Even though Asa did wrong in how he used the Lord's money / wealth, that isn't commented upon. It all seemed to work out. But we are left, naturally, with the question as to whether this was right or not.

1 Kings 15:22 Then king Asa made a proclamation to all Judah; none was exempted: and they carried away the stones of Ramah, and its timber, with which Baasha had built; and king Asa built with them Geba of Benjamin and Mizpah-

We see here the value of stones and timber and the huge amount of labour needed to move them. This corroborates the way that Solomon's huge demand for these things led him into debt financially (see on 1 Kings 9:14) and into abusing his people for labour.

1 Kings 15:23 Now the rest of all the acts of Asa, and all his might, and all that he did, and the cities which he built, aren’t they written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?-

These are the "fortified cities" of 2 Chron. 14:6. See on 1 Kings 16:27.

But in the time of his old age he was diseased in his feet-

The record of Asa here is far more positive than that in Chronicles. For in 2 Chron. 16:12 we read that "his disease was exceeding great... yet in his disease he sought not to the Lord, but to the physicians". As discussed on :3,11, Asa was not perfect, nor was David; but God's overall judgment was that he "did right in the eyes of Yahweh" (:11), despite doing wrong at specific points in his life. Indeed it seems from 2 Chron. 26:12  that Asa died at a low point for him spiritually. But the judgment overall was that he "did right". This surely affects our thinking about those who die in the low point of suicide. This doesn't necessarily preclude them from God's salvation.

1 Kings 15:24 Asa slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David his father; and Jehoshaphat his son reigned in his place-

2 Chron. 16:14 gives far more information about the funeral: "They buried him in his own sepulchres, which he had made for himself in the city of David, and laid him in the bed which was filled with sweet odours and divers kinds of spices prepared by the apothecaries’ art, and they made a very great burning for him".

1 Kings 15:25 Nadab the son of Jeroboam began to reign over Israel in the second year of Asa king of Judah; and he reigned over Israel two years-

"Nadab" means "liberal". "Two years" means parts of two years, rather than 24 months. Because his reign began in the second year of Asa and the next king began reigning in Asa's third year.

1 Kings 15:26 He did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh, and walked in the way of his father, and in his sin with which he made Israel to sin-

If the "sin" in view were simply the worship of the golden calves, it is hard to see how all Israel sinned in this; for not all worshipped them. "His sin" may therefore refer to the sin of schism amongst God's people, in which all Israel were involved, and the sin of division in that sense therefore touched all Israel literally, including Judah.

1 Kings 15:27 Baasha the son of Ahijah, of the house of Issachar, conspired against him; and Baasha struck him at Gibbethon, which belonged to the Philistines; for Nadab and all Israel were laying siege to Gibbethon-

It appears that the prophet Jehu had apparently sanctioned what Baasha did (1 Kings 14:1,2). But it was tragic that whilst fighting their common enemy the Philistines, tribal jealousies led to God's people being less effective and fighting amongst themselves. Jeroboam’s family were from Ephraim (1 Kings 11:26), so perhaps there was a tribal jealousy factor in someone from Issachar now trying to exterminate the whole family of Jeroboam, and thereby found a new dynasty. The infighting amongst the Israelites led to the siege being lifted, because in 1 Kings 16:15 we find the siege resumed, and again a king of Israel is slain during a siege of the same city. We see here how Biblical history intentionally repeats itself. Situations repeat in our lives, so that we may learn from them. And often we fail, as Israel did in this matter. Within a period of 25 years at the most, two kings of Israel (Nadab and Elah) were killed by usurpers whilst the same city was being besieged.

1 Kings 15:28 Even in the third year of Asa king of Judah, Baasha killed him, and reigned in his place-

"Reigned" is literally 'to be made king', perhaps suggesting he was anointed.

1 Kings 15:29 As soon as he was king, he struck all the house of Jeroboam: he didn’t leave to Jeroboam any who breathed, until he had destroyed him; according to the saying of Yahweh which He spoke by His servant Ahijah the Shilonite-

The fact this had been prophesied didn't mean it was the right thing for him to do. We note the radical difference with David, who expressly sought to show grace to the family of Saul the previous ruler- when the usual thing was to destroy the family of the previous king.

1 Kings 15:30 for the sins of Jeroboam which he sinned, and with which he made Israel to sin, because of his provocation with which he provoked Yahweh the God of Israel, to anger-

God can be grieved [s.w. 'provoke to anger']. He has emotions, and His potential foreknowledge doesn't mean that these feelings are not legitimate. They are presented as occurring in human time, as responses to human behaviour. This is the degree to which He has accommodated Himself to human time-space limits, in order to fully enter relationship and experience with us. As He can limit His omnipotence, so God can limit His omniscience, in order to feel and respond along with us.

1 Kings 15:31 Now the rest of the acts of Nadab and all that he did, aren’t they written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?-

These comments suggest that this volume was available to the initial audience. It seems that the school of the prophets in Babylonian exile had access to the Old Testament scriptures, and I have often suggested that under Divine inspiration, they rewrote and reapplied parts of them with relevance for the exiles.

1 Kings 15:32 There was war between Asa and Baasha king of Israel all their days-

These notes about the conflict between Judah and Israel run as the saddest refrain throughout the historical records; for the division amongst God's people, and their conflicts, were the greatest tragedy for God. The wars were all in defiance of His command not to do this (1 Kings 12:24).

1 Kings 15:33 In the third year of Asa king of Judah, Baasha the son of Ahijah began to reign over all Israel in Tirzah for twenty-four years-

It seems the capital of the ten tribes moved away from Shechem to Tirzah, a location famed for its beauty (Song 6:4). These 24 years are reckoning as usual that parts of years are whole years (1 Kings 15:33 cp. 1 Kings 16:8).

1 Kings 15:34 He did evil in the sight of Yahweh, and walked in the way of Jeroboam, and in his sin with which he made Israel to sin-

The eyes of Yahweh may refer specifically to His Angels (2 Chron. 16:9; Zech. 4:10), who informed Yahweh, as it were, of human actions on earth. Whilst God is omniscient and omnipotent, He always seems to prefer to work through some human or Angelic mechanism.

1 Kings Chapter 16

1 Kings 16:1 The word of Yahweh came to Jehu the son of Hanani against Baasha, saying-

The prophet Jehu rebuked Baasha (1 Kings 16:1) and yet he also wrote a history of Jehoshaphat's reign (2 Chron. 20:34), implying that he outlived Jehoshaphat. This means that Jehu must have been a young man at the time of his rebuke of Baasha. It's hard to keep on keeping on in ministry over a long lifetime, and those who do should be deeply respected. His father Hanani had rebuked Asa for his alliance with the Syrians against Baasha (2 Chron. 16:7-10), and now Jehu rebukes Baasha. Having to be constantly critical of people is not a nice ministry.

1 Kings 16:2 Because I exalted you out of the dust, and made you prince over My people Israel, and you have walked in the way of Jeroboam, and have made My people Israel to sin, to provoke Me to anger with their sins-

Baasha was intended to learn from the path of Jeroboam, who had also been "exalted" (s.w. 1 Kings 14:7) from nothing to be prince over Israel, having been the son of a whore (1 Kings 12:24 LXX). Baasha like Jeroboam made the people sin. We are intended to learn from the life path of others. This is why we have Biblical history, and it is why God controls the encounters of those we meet in life.

We can limit God's plans to save others in the ecclesia by our attitude to them. We can make others stumble from the path to His salvation. Baasha made other people sin and thus provoke God to anger; his own sin and that of the people are described in identical language, to portray how he influenced them (1 Kings 16:2,7).

1 Kings 16:3 behold, I will utterly sweep away Baasha and his house; and I will make your house like the house of Jeroboam the son of Nebat-

This was the language of Jeroboam's judgment (1 Kings 14:10). Baasha had failed to learn the lessons of Jeroboam and so he was judged in the same way.

1 Kings 16:4 The dogs will eat Baasha’s descendants who die in the city; and he who dies of his in the field- the birds of the sky will eat-

This repeats the language of Jeroboam's judgment (1 Kings 14:11). As noted on :3, Baasha was really intended to discern the wrong path of Jeroboam. As we may be with people who come into our lives. And he didn't, so he went to the same destination which Jeroboam's "way" led to.

1 Kings 16:5 Now the rest of the acts of Baasha, and what he did, and his might, aren’t they written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?-

These comments suggest that this volume was available to the initial audience. It seems that the school of the prophets in Babylonian exile had access to the Old Testament scriptures, and I have often suggested that under Divine inspiration, they rewrote and reapplied parts of them with relevance for the exiles.

1 Kings 16:6 Baasha slept with his fathers, and was buried in Tirzah; and Elah his son reigned in his place-

The idiom of 'sleeping' for death implies resurrection (Dan. 12:2). We will see these men again, at the day of judgment- and yet presumably they will be condemned to the "second death".

1 Kings 16:7 Moreover by the prophet Jehu the son of Hanani came the word of Yahweh against Baasha, and against his house, both because of all the evil that he did in the sight of Yahweh, to provoke Him to anger with the work of his hands, in being like the house of Jeroboam-

God can be grieved [s.w. 'provoke to anger']. This is a major theme of this chapter (:2,7,13,26,33). He has emotions, and His potential foreknowledge doesn't mean that these feelings are not legitimate. They are presented as occurring in human time, as responses to human behaviour. This is the degree to which He has accommodated Himself to human time-space limits, in order to fully enter relationship and experience with us. As He can limit His omnipotence, so God can limit His omniscience, in order to feel and respond along with us.

And because he struck him-

Yet God had raised up Baasha to strike the house of Jeroboam. Perhaps we have a similar position was in Is. 47:6, where the nations raised up to judge Judah are themselves judged because they did so without showing mercy. There are times when we have to judge, not in the sense of condemning (Mt. 7:1), but in the sense of judging righteous judgment (Jn. 7:24). But we shall be condemned if we do so without the mercy which we ourselves are saved by. And this seems to be the reason for Baasha's condemnation, amongst other things.

1 Kings 16:8 In the twenty-sixth year of Asa king of Judah, Elah the son of Baasha began to reign over Israel in Tirzah for two years-

"Elah" means "oak", which was associated with idolatry (s.w. Ez. 6:13; Hos. 4:13). This reflects upon Baasha's idolatry.

1 Kings 16:9 His servant Zimri, captain of half his chariots, conspired against him. Now he was in Tirzah, drinking himself drunk in the house of Arza, who was over the household in Tirzah-

"Arza" is 'man of the earth'; "Zimri" means 'musical'. We note the lack of the 'Yah' suffix in the names, and how Elah was drunk when he was killed.

1 Kings 16:10 and Zimri went in and struck him and killed him, in the twenty-seventh year of Asa king of Judah, and reigned in his place-

Elah began to reign in the 26th year of Asa, died in Asa's 27th year, and is counted as having reigned two years (:8). This means that the 'years' are counted as parts of years rather than literally 24 months.

1 Kings 16:11 It happened, when he began to reign, as soon as he sat on his throne, that he struck all the house of Baasha: he didn’t leave him a single male, neither of his relatives, nor of his friends-

We note the radical difference with David, who expressly sought to show grace to the family of Saul the previous ruler- when the usual thing was to destroy the family of the previous king. David's behaviour was radically counter cultural, as is all displays of grace.

1 Kings 16:12 Thus Zimri destroyed all the house of Baasha, according to the word of Yahweh, which He spoke against Baasha by Jehu the prophet-

As noted on :11, such destruction of the family of the usurped king was typical of secular behaviour at the time, but was not the way of grace. And yet God worked through this failure to fulfil His prophetic word. We learn from this that we may be used by God to do His will, but that doesn't of itself mean that what we are doing is right, nor are we justified by means of having been used to fulfil His will.

1 Kings 16:13 for all the sins of Baasha, and the sins of Elah his son, which they sinned, and with which they made Israel to sin, to provoke Yahweh, the God of Israel, to anger with their vanities-

We frequently read of the sins by which men sinned (AV "the sins of Baasha and the sins of Elah by which they sinned, and by which they made Israel to sin"). How do you 'sin by a sin'? Surely in the sense that sin leads to sin.

1 Kings 16:14 Now the rest of the acts of Elah and all that he did, aren’t they written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?-

See on :5. This "book" may not be the book of Chronicles which we have in our Bibles.

1 Kings 16:15 In the twenty-seventh year of Asa king of Judah, Zimri reigned seven days in Tirzah. Now the people were encamped against Gibbethon, which belonged to the Philistines-

The infighting amongst the Israelites led to the siege being lifted at the time of 1 Kings 15:27, because here in 1 Kings 16:15 we find the siege resumed, and again a king of Israel is slain during a siege of the same city. We see here how Biblical history intentionally repeats itself. Situations repeat in our lives, so that we may learn from them. And often we fail, as Israel did in this matter. Within a period of 25 years at the most, two kings of Israel (Nadab and Elah) were killed by usurpers whilst the same city was being besieged.

1 Kings 16:16 The people who were encamped heard say, Zimri has conspired, and has also struck the king: therefore all Israel made Omri, the captain of the army, king over Israel that day in the camp-

The captain of the army was effectively second in common politically (2 Kings 9:5, and consider the example of Joab with David). Zimri was an outsider and had slain all Elah's supporters, relatives of whom were likely in the military. So to make Omri king was logical, and the record is absolutely credible.

1 Kings 16:17 Omri went up from Gibbethon, and all Israel with him, and they besieged Tirzah-

As noted before, the infighting amongst God's people blunted their fulfilment of God's will and the establishment of His Kingdom. Instead of besieging Gibbethon (:15), they left that important work and went to besiege their own brethren.

1 Kings 16:18 It happened, when Zimri saw that the city was taken, that he went into the castle of the king’s house, and burnt the king’s house over himself with fire, and died-

That palace had doubtless been the object of his envy for a long time. He destroyed himself along with it, for Zimri was identified with his envy. What he coveted was identified with him as a person. His death was his judgment (:"for his sins", :19), but was self inflicted. All judgment is in the end self-judgment.

1 Kings 16:19 for his sins which he sinned in doing that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh, in walking in the way of Jeroboam, and in his sin which he did, to make Israel to sin-

We can make others sin (Ex. 23:33; 1 Sam. 2:24; 1 Kings 16:19). There is an urgent imperative here, to really watch our behaviour; e.g. to not drink alcohol in the presence of a brother whose conscience is weak. Zimri was given just seven days in power, and was judged and condemned for how he behaved during those seven days. Other kings reigned many years. God in His wisdom knows how long to test a person.

1 Kings 16:20 Now the rest of the acts of Zimri, and his treason that he committed, aren’t they written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?-

Treason, assassination, short lived leaders and division (:21) were the experience of the ten tribes at this time, and this must be contrasted with the long and stable reign of Asa over Judah at this period. Clearly division and instability amongst God's people is a work of the flesh, but it is used by God to show His displeasure and judgment upon a people. We can note the quick succession of rulers which brought the kingdom of Judah to an end. Division and instability within a church or community is in the end not just the works of the flesh, but a sign of Divine judgment upon them.

1 Kings 16:21 Then were the people of Israel divided into two parts: half of the people followed Tibni the son of Ginath, to make him king; and half followed Omri-

Again we note the lack of the Divine Name or suffix 'Yah' in these names. "Tibni" means 'man of straw'.

1 Kings 16:22 But the people who followed Omri prevailed against the people who followed Tibni the son of Ginath: so Tibni died, and Omri reigned-

See on :20. LXX adds that Tibni's brother Joram was also killed at this time. Such infighting and division within a community is a sign of Divine judgment, even if the individual participants are also guilty of wrong behaviour. The struggle between them went on for about four years (1 Kings 16:15 cp. 23).

1 Kings 16:23 In the thirty-first year of Asa king of Judah, Omri began to reign over Israel for twelve years. He reigned six years in Tirzah-

The average length of reign of the ten tribes kings was far less than that of Judah's kings. See on :20. The four years of the civil war (see on :22) are not counted to neither Omri nor Tibni. The simple point is that in conflict between brethren, nobody really wins. See on :29.

1 Kings 16:24 He bought the hill Samaria of Shemer for two talents of silver; and he built on the hill, and called the name of the city which he built Samaria, after the name of Shemer the owner of the hill-

AV gives 6000 shekels. Abraham was an alien, and needed approval from the local community council to buy a burial place; and even then, the council had to speak with the owner and as it were do Abraham a favour. Further, the price of 400 shekels for some land with a cave in it to bury the dead was exorbitant (Gen. 23:14). There are records of the sale of whole villages in northern Syria dating from about this time, recorded in the Alalakh Tablets. They were sold for between 100 and 1000 shekels. Jeremiah paid 17 shekels for a field (Jer. 32:9); Omri paid 6000 shekels for the entire site of Samaria (1 Kings 16:24 AV). If ever we feel ripped off by this world, unreasonably treated in this land which is eternally ours, powerless to protest, left without option as Abraham was- then we are following in his steps, and are truly his "seed".

1 Kings 16:25 Omri did evil in the sight of Yahweh, and dealt wickedly above all who were before him-

This phrase is common in the records, implying that there was on overall downward slide into apostacy until the people were at such a point that there had to be Divine judgment and intervention.

1 Kings 16:26 For he walked in all the way of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, and in his sins with which he made Israel to sin, to provoke Yahweh, the God of Israel, to anger with their vanities-

Giving our lives to vanity rather than to God provokes Him to great anger. It is a sin. And yet at no other time has God's people faced such strong temptation to give their hearts and time to vanities, thanks to the online world of screens in which we live and move and have our beings.

1 Kings 16:27 Now the rest of the acts of Omri which he did, and his might that he showed, aren’t they written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?

This is the common rubric found in the histories of the kings (1 Kings 15:23; 16:5,27; 22:45; 2 Kings 10:34; 13:8,12; 14:15,28; 20:20). "His might that he showed" uses a word for "might" which has the sense of victory / achievement. But the contrast is marked with the way that David so often uses this word for "might / victory / achievement" in the context of God's "might"; notably in 1 Chron. 29:11, which the Lord Jesus places in our mouths as part of His model prayer: "Yours is the power [s.w. "might"], and the glory and the majesty". The kings about whom the phrase is used were those who trusted in their own works. It therefore reads as a rather pathetic memorial; that this man's might / achievement was noted down. But the unspoken further comment is elicited in our own minds, if we are in tune with the spirit of David: "But the only real achievement is the Lord's and not man's". All human victory and achievement must be seen in this context. The same word is used in Jer. 9:23,24: "Don’t let the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might [s.w.]... but let him who glories glory in this, that he has understanding, and knows Me, that I am Yahweh who exercises loving kindness, justice, and righteousness, in the earth". The glorification of human "might" is often condemned. "Their might [s.w.] is not right" (Jer. 23:10; also s.w. Jer. 51:30; Ez. 32:29; Mic. 7:16 and often).

1 Kings 16:28 So Omri slept with his fathers, and was buried in Samaria; and Ahab his son reigned in his place-

This phrase "slept with his fathers" clearly means he died, and often a clause to the effect "he was buried" follows it. The unconsciousness of death, as a sleep, is a teaching laboured in the Bible so very many times.

1 Kings 16:29 In the thirty-eighth year of Asa king of Judah began Ahab the son of Omri to reign over Israel: and he reigned over Israel in Samaria twenty-two years-

If Omri reigned a total of 12 years starting from the 31st year of Asa (:23), it follows that there was an interregnum of about five years. Perhaps Omri was incapacitated, and during those last five years of his 'reign', his son Ahab reigned.

1 Kings 16:30 Ahab the son of Omri did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh above all that were before him-

This statement is found often in the historical record, creating the impression of an overall downward slide to the point of lost relationship with God. We note that God does perceive degrees of sin; Ahab sinned "above" the previous kings. Whether we are to perceive these different degrees of sin in others' behaviour is a different question.

1 Kings 16:31 It happened, as if it had been a light thing for him to walk in the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, that he took as wife Jezebel-

Ahab's marriage to a Gentile was far worse than all the sins of Jeroboam; the idolatry, the perversion, the making of Israel sin; these were "a light thing" compared to the evil of marriage out of the faith (1 Kings 16:31). That perspective on marriage out of the faith needs to be appreciated. And further, those who married the daughters of Ahab were led astray by them (2 Kings 8:18,27).

The daughter of Ethbaal king of the Sidonians, and went and served Baal, and worshipped him-

Tyre was originally a colony of Sidon; the terms are at times interchangeable. Ethbaal is called "king of Tyre" by Josephus (Antiquities 8.3.2), but "king of the Sidonians" in 1 Kings 16:31. Some of Tyre's coins celebrate it as "the metropolis of the Sidonians". The Yahweh worship of Hiram turned into Baal worship, resulting in the blasphemous cherubim idols explained on Ez. 28:14.

1 Kings 16:32 He reared up an altar for Baal in the house of Baal, which he had built in Samaria-

The ten tribes' equivalent of Judah's temple to Yahweh in Jerusalem were the high places and two golden calves. But Ahab appears to have now matched Yahweh's temple with a kind of temple to Baal, built in Samaria.

1 Kings 16:33 Ahab made the Asherah; and Ahab did yet more to provoke Yahweh, the God of Israel, to anger than all the kings of Israel who were before him-

This is stressed twice (see on :30). That Ahab should finally repent is therefore so significant. He is the parade example of why we should never give up on anyone as 'too far gone'.

1 Kings 16:34 In his days Hiel the Bethelite built Jericho: he laid its foundation with the loss of Abiram his firstborn, and set up its gates with the loss of his youngest son Segub, according to the word of Yahweh, which he spoke by Joshua the son of Nun-

To even attempt to rebuilt Jericho meant a studied disregard of God's word, considering Biblical records of Joshua's words to be merely the words of men. Hiel was from Bethel, where the golden calf was. Jericho had been inhabited after Joshua's time (Jud. 3:13; 2 Sam. 10:5). So this was a conscious rebuilding of the walls with gates in defiance of Yahweh's word. And his sons died during the building work, perhaps 'at some time between the beginning, in laying the foundations, and the ending of the project, in hanging the gates'. After Abiram died laying the foundations, we would rather imagine that Hiel might have learned the lesson. But he didn't, such was his desire to defy God's word. And so his youngest son died when the project was almost completed and the gates were being hung. The desire to rebuild the settlement as a walled, gated city could have been because of its strategic position near the crossing of the Jordan river. Jericho was on the border of Ephraim but belonged to Benjamin (Josh. 16:7; 18:21), so it seems Ahab had taken it, and wanted to have the city and fortify it as a boundary against the two tribe kingdom.

1 Kings Chapter 17

1 Kings 17:1 Elijah the Tishbite, who was among the foreigners of Gilead, said to Ahab-

This could imply Elijah was a Gentile (s.w. Lev. 25:47), who named himself after Yahweh, 'My God is Yah'.

As Yahweh, the God of Israel, lives, before whom I stand-

‘Standing before the Lord’ refers to prayer- Ps. 106:23; Ezra 9:15; Jer. 15:1; 18:20. To live a life standing before the Lord is to live a life of prayer. Hence David and Paul say that prayer can be continual- in that life becomes a lived out prayer, with the practice of living in the presence of God. And straight away we ask ourselves, in lives just as busy as those of David and Paul, whether our self-talk, our minute by minute inner consciousness, is “before the Lord”...or merely the sheer and utter vapidity of the modern mind.

There shall not be dew nor rain these years, but according to my word-

Here is an example of being sure of God’s will in what we pray for. If the Lord’s words abide in us, then we will ask what we will and it will be done; yet John also records that if we ask according to God’s will, it will be done for us. Our will and that of the Father come to coincide as His word takes an ever deeper lodgment in our consciousness. And this is how close Elijah must have been to knowing the will of God. Elijah alludes to Dt. 28 in saying there would be no rain (and 1 Kings 19:14 forsaken thy covenant= Dt. 32)- therefore he could be so sure of being heard. His request that there be “no dew” was inspired by the prayers of Gideon and David, who had prayed just the same things (Jud. 6:37; 2 Sam.1:21; and 1 Kings 18:33 = Jud. 6:20). Likewise the two witnesses of the last days will be inspired in their turn by Elijah’s example to pray that Heaven will be stopped. When it comes to prayer, there clearly is a positive pattern of influence and example both amongst us and from our absorbing the spirit of countless Biblical examples. The righteous man ‘decrees a thing in his heart and it is done’ through his prayers (Job 22:28). The same Hebrew words for ‘according’ and ‘word’ occur in both 1 Kings 17:1 and 24: “There shall not be dew nor rain but according to my word...The word of the Lord in [according to] thy mouth”. Elijah’s word and will had become parallel with those of the Father. This was taken to the ultimate extent by the Lord, in whom the Father’s word was made flesh. But that same word slowly becomes flesh in us too. No longer do we request things that are not the Father’s will as through His word we become more attune to Him. Our experience of answered prayer becomes increasingly positive, reinforcing our faith in Him and our attention to prayerfulness. And this dovetails with our increasingly sensitive reading of His word daily. The Lord intended that we should all pray the prayer of command as Elijah did; for He taught that with faith, we should be able to tell a sycamore tree to be rooted up and planted in the sea (Lk. 17:6). He doesn’t advise that we pray to the Father that the tree, according to His will, be rooted up and transplanted. He wants us to come to so know the will of the Father that we can pray the prayer of direct command. And this is quite some challenge.

Elijah could be so sure his prayer would be hear because he knew that he was genuinely motivated. His reason for withholding the rain and dew was so that Israel would come to repentance (James 5:16-18)- perhaps through them perceiving that lack of rain was a sign that they had broken the covenant. In this case, Elijah was somewhat harsher than God Himself, who had not yet withdrawn rain from His people. Elijah “shut the heavens”, even though Israel rejected him at that time (Lk. 4:25,26). Their rejection of him is unrecorded in the Kings record, but we are left to reflect upon the wonder of the fact that Elijah’s response to reaction was not to merely hurt back, but to earnestly seek their restoration to God. He “prayed in his prayer” (James 5:17 Gk.)- there was a deep prayer going on within his prayer, words and feelings within words- the prayer of the very inner soul. This was how much he sought their repentance. The James passage sets Elijah up as a pattern for our prayer for our wayward brethren. He really is our pattern here. He clearly saw prayer as requiring much effort; and the way he prays at the time of the evening sacrifice on Horeb suggests that he saw prayer as a sacrifice (1 Kings 18:36).

A lack of rain was one of the Law’s curses for idol worship (Dt. 11:10-12,17). Elijah’s response to Israel’s idolatry was to tell them there would be no rain (1 Kings 17:1 cp. 1 Kings 16:32,33). Those reflective upon God’s Law would have realized the implied criticism which this carried; the more unspiritual would have just cursed Elijah for bringing about a devastating drought. Elijah had to pray daily for the lack of bread and water in Israel (so 1 Kings 17:1 implies). He suffered himself because of this. He was prepared to forego quite legitimate blessings in order to lead an apostate ecclesia back to God.

1 Kings 17:2 The word of Yahweh came to him saying-

There seems to be a contrast between this, and how Elijah dogmatically declares his own word in :1, confident Yahweh would confirm it as his word, rather than giving a "Thus says Yahweh".

1 Kings 17:3 Go away from here, turn eastward, and hide yourself by the brook Cherith, that is before the Jordan-

The whole incident on Horeb was to make Elijah see the supremacy of the still small voice; that it is in humble, quiet service rather than fiery judgment of others that the essence of God and spirituality is to be found. But God had prepared Elijah for this earlier. Elijah had to hide by the brook Cherith (1 Kings 17:3) for three and a half years (Lk. 4:25,26). Elijah was characterized by wearing a hairy garment like sackcloth (2 Kings 1:8 RV). In Rev. 11:3,6 we meet another Elijah figure- also clothed in sackcloth, with the power to bring fire down from Heaven, who for three and a half years…prophesies / preaches. We would expect Elijah to have been preaching during his time hidden by Cherith- but there is not a word of this in the record, indeed he is told to hide himself away from people. Could it not be that the Father wishes to show us what He was then trying to teach Elijah- that the essential prophetic witness is through us being as we are, the still small voice of witness through example…?

1 Kings 17:4 It shall be, that you shall drink of the brook. I have commanded the ravens to feed you there-

Elijah was being paralleled with an apostate Israel, who were also sustained by food ‘commanded’ by God (s.w. Neh. 9:21); the brook is described as “dried up”, using the same word about the Red Sea drying up. Yet Elijah felt himself to be so superior to Israel generally. But God was trying to teach him that in essence, he wasn’t. We have shown earlier that God sought to again show Elijah the same lesson when he went into the Sinai wilderness and was fed by an Angel. Perhaps he did learn the lesson when he says that he felt that he was not better than the Jewish fathers? For they walked 40 years as he walked 40 days in the very same place, also fed by Angels. God told Elijah that He had commanded unclean ravens to feed him; and thus He reminded Elijah of a basic fact, that God speaks to even unclean animals (Gen. 1:22; Job)- and they obey him. The ravens not only obeyed Yahweh in going to Elijah, but in not eating the food they were carrying. Elijah likely considered that the fact God spoke to him meant that he must therefore have some automatic superiority over others. But not so. It’s the same with us. We can consider that because we have heard God’s true voice, we thereby are justified before Him. But He speaks to and uses all, clean and unclean.

1 Kings 17:5 So he went and did according to the word of Yahweh; for he went and lived by the brook Cherith, that is before the Jordan-

Elijah is commended for his obedience to Yahweh's word, even though as explained on :3,4, it was humiliating for him. "Brook" is literally a torrent bed; "Cherith" means a "cut" or ravine. There would only be water in the deep ravine immediately after times of torrential rain. Seeing there was no such rain, it could be that the water in the torrent bed was therefore provided by God miraculously.

1 Kings 17:6 The ravens brought him bread and flesh in the morning, and bread and flesh in the evening; and he drank of the brook-

As a hyper observant Jew, evening and morning were the times when Elijah ought to have been sacrificing to God. But God's intention was to teach him of His grace. Instead of Elijah offering food to God, God was giving food to him- and food made unclean by contact with unclean ravens. LXX has "loaves" for "bread", which would mean a possible connection with the loaves of the tabernacle rituals.

1 Kings 17:7 It happened after a while, that the brook dried up, because there was no rain in the land-

As noted on :1, Elijah himself suffered the effects of the drought he had called upon Israel in order to lead them to repentance. Our efforts to help our brethren are often at deep personal cost to ourselves. I suggested on :5 that the water he drunk there was miraculously provided, because "brook" means 'torrent bed' and was a ravine which would only have water after torrential rains. So the translation here may be to the effect that 'The torrent bed had dried up because there had been no rain in the land, and after a while the word of Yahweh came to him...' (:8).

1 Kings 17:8 The word of Yahweh came to him saying-

This is as in :2, we get the sense that God meant Elijah to learn in stages. His time at Cherith was to develop him to accept God's grace and realize that ritual purity was not going to save anyone of itself.

1 Kings 17:9 Arise, go to Zarephath, which belongs to Sidon, and stay there. Behold, I have commanded a widow there to sustain you-

God had sought to gently teach Elijah his need for others when He told Elijah to go to the widow woman in Zarephath who would “sustain you"; it worked out that Elijah sustained her. And he must have reflected upon this. But perhaps, therefore, God’s intention was that spiritually, Elijah's experience with that woman would sustain him. "Zarephath" means 'place of refinement' and clearly Elijah's time there was intended for his refinement. It is emphasized that Zarephath belonged to Sidon because this was where Jezebel's father reigned (1 Kings 16:32). Even in the heart of apostacy, Elijah was to encounter obedience and commitment to Yahweh's word. But his later insistence that he alone remained faithful was effectively his trashing the woman's faith and commitment as not enough to count as faithfulness to Yahweh.

There is no evidence that the woman was commanded to feed Elijah by some specific revelation to her. Rather, the commandment may refer to the word of potential command which God had given the woman. But it came to her through circumstances.

1 Kings 17:10 So he arose and went to Zarephath; and when he came to the gate of the city, behold, a widow was there gathering sticks: and he called to her and said, Please get me a little water in a vessel, that I may drink-

The woman “gathering sticks” (1 Kings 17:10) would likely have stimulated his Bible-steeped mind to think of the illegal gathering of sticks in Num. 15:32,33. For this is the only other Biblical reference to gathering sticks.

1 Kings 17:11 As she was going to get it, he called to her and said, Please bring me a morsel of bread in your hand-

See on :12. On :13 I discuss whether these demands were simply part of God's demand upon the woman, or whether they also simply reflect Elijah's arrogance and inappropriate sense of entitlement.

1 Kings 17:12 She said, As Yahweh your God lives-

Perhaps she had experienced a specific revelation from Yahweh about Elijah (:9). Or maybe Elijah was well known in the area. Or again, perhaps we are only reading a tiny part of their conversation, and the woman may have realized that the drought was because of Elijah's prayer to Yahweh.

I don’t have a cake, but a handful of flour in a pitcher, and a little oil in a pitcher. Behold, I am gathering two sticks, that I may go in and bake it for me and my son, that we may eat it, and die-

1 Kings 17:11 in Hebrew has Elijah asking the woman: ‘Bring me a handful of bread’- and she replies that she has only a handful of flour (1 Kings 17:12). Yet even this is demanded of her. Her handful of flour in a pitcher gives the impression of a handful of meal in a very large container; it’s an eloquent picture of her poverty, and how she was down to the last little bit of flour in a large container that was once full. And the Lord through Elijah demanded this of her, that He might save her.

Later, the Angel gave Elijah cake and water (1 Kings 19:6) just as the unclean ravens and Gentile widow woman had done- to teach Elijah that God works through those people.

There were two occasions in which God fed Elijah with a cake when he was hungry. Once when the widow woman baked him one (1 Kings 17:13), and once when the Angel did (1 Kings 19:6). Surely God was trying to show Elijah that He was manifested through that desperately poor, weak, sick, starving widow woman who was at the point of death from starvation. It was the same message- that God wasn’t in the earthquake and fire, but in the still small voice.

The widow woman was prepared to die. The tragedy of that gaunt woman touches me deeply. I imagine her tidying the house, and then walking out into the blazing heat to gather sticks. But she gave her last bit to God's man Elijah; not, it seems, with any hope of getting out of her plight. She gave of her very last, her best, her all, not expecting anything back. Another widow, centuries later, threw her two mites into the collection bag of a fabulously rich, doctrinally corrupt, hypocritical ecclesia. The implication is that she died even more pathetically, perhaps tossed onto Gehenna with the starving cats. There seems to have been no happy ending- in this life. And she absolutely understood that.

LXX "sons", which would explain why she and her family ate many days (:15).

1 Kings 17:13 Elijah said to her, Don’t be afraid. Go and do as you have said; but make me of it a little cake first, and bring it out to me, and afterward make some for you and for your son-

Elijah asked the widow woman to first feed him, and after feed herself and her son. The Hebrew word translated “after” is that translated “last”- ‘put me first and yourself last’, Elijah is saying. Wasn’t this arrogant? He was so sure he was manifesting God that he could demand that she put him first and herself last. But God is demanding, and yes He worked through Elijah. But one does get the sense that Elijah felt he  should be put first. God can be demanding, but we don’t have the same right to be upon others.

1 Kings 17:14 For thus says Yahweh, the God of Israel, ‘The jar of meal shall not empty, neither shall the jar of oil fail, until the day that Yahweh sends rain on the earth’-

See on :16. The food and water of condemned Israel did "fail" (s.w. Ez. 4:17), but that of the revived remnant didn't (s.w. Is. 51:14). Israel faithful to the covenant suffered no lack (Ex. 16:18; Dt. 2:7 s.w. "fail"). This woman was being treated like the faithful in Israel, although she was a Gentile.

1 Kings 17:15 She went and did according to the saying of Elijah: and she, and he, and her house, ate many days-

She was responsible for more than just one son; hence :12 LXX says she had "sons", plural. The end result of all this was that she was converted to Yahweh (see on :24). And Lk. 4:26 notes that there was no starving widow in Israel who was so open to conversion as this Gentile woman. The Lord again alludes to her in saying that who ever receives a prophet in the name of a prophet, receives a prophet’s reward; even if they give a little one a cup of cold water, just as the woman gave water to Elijah (Mt. 10:41,42). This would equate Elijah with a "little one". His spirituality was as immature as that of the disciples, whom the Lord also called "little ones". Faith is not the same as hope and love, and Elijah's faith was not the same as spirituality.

1 Kings 17:16 The jar of meal didn’t empty, neither did the jar of oil fail, according to the word of Yahweh, which he spoke by Elijah-

We note that it was not the meal or oil which is described as not finishing, but rather the containers of those products. We see the similarity with how the extent of Elijah's miracle of multiplying the widow's oil depended upon the number of pots borrowed.

1 Kings 17:17 It happened after these things, that the son of the woman, the mistress of the house, fell sick; and his sickness was so severe, that there was no breath left in him-

The idea is, that he died (:18). Perhaps death is described in this way because Elijah was to breath the breath of life back into him.

1 Kings 17:18 She said to Elijah, What have I to do with you-

The idiom means 'Go away!' (2 Sam. 16:10; Lk. 5:8). She had hosted Elijah and cared for him, and now she feels his presence has brought about the death of her son. And so she wants him to leave.

You man of God? You have come to me to bring my sin to memory, and to kill my son!-

In her desperation, the woman felt that Elijah's presence had attracted God's attention to her, and brought some personal sin to His memory. Perhaps her son had been conceived out of wedlock. Many times we read of God being provoked to remember someone, for good or for evil (Lev. 24:7 LXX "that God may mercifully remember"; Ps. 69:1 LXX; 37:1 LXX; Zech. 6:14; 1 Kings 17:18). We could accept this as mere anthropomorphism. Or we could reflect deeper, and wonder whether this language of limitation suggests that the God who could be omniscient over time, not needing to have anything brought back to His memory, allows Himself to 'forget' so that sin or righteousness again brings things to His remembrance. And it can work positively too. Thus generosity and prayer is a memorial before God in the sense that it brings a person to His memory or attention (Acts 10:4), and He appropriately responds in their lives. When sin gets to a certain point, it causes other sins to be remembered by God, and thus judgment comes (Rev. 18:5). It has been suggested by Joachim Jeremias that the Lord's command to break bread in remembrance of Him can mean 'that God may remember me'.

1 Kings 17:19 He said to her, Give me your son. He took him out of her bosom, and carried him up into the room where he stayed, and laid him on his own bed-

The focus of the Divine cameraman is zoomed in upon the woman holding the dead child to her breast, and Elijah prizing the child away from her. He performs the healing miracle on the bed she had provided for him, in order to demonstrate that in fact the child was not slain because of Elijah's presence in the house; see on :18.

1 Kings 17:20 He cried to Yahweh and said, Yahweh my God, have You also brought evil on the widow with whom I stay, by killing her son?-

The force of "also" is that Elijah perhaps considered that the drought that affected Phoenicia was not what he had intended, as he wished the drought to bring Israel to repentance. But he was being taught that God wanted idolatrous Gentiles such as the Sidonians, of whom Jezebel was one, to also repent. And not just be witnessed against for their sins. He struggles to understand how the child of the widow who had cared for him should be slain. He was being given the problem of evil to struggle with, just as we are, in order to humble him. For he needed that. He was being forced to recognize he did not know all about God. There were things he didn't understand. Our inability to immediately attach meaning to event is intended likewise.

Despite his union with the Father, this didn’t preclude Elijah questioning God. So in the midst of this tremendously powerful prayer, Elijah remonstrates with God: ‘Have You brought evil...?’. The Hebrew for ‘evil’ usually means evil  in the sense of sin- ‘have You brought the result of sin... on her as well as upon this people?’.  This is all part of a passionate, living relationship with a living God.

1 Kings 17:21 He stretched himself on the child three times, and cried to Yahweh and said, Yahweh my God, please let this child’s soul come into him again-

"Soul" would be better rendered 'life'. The soul typically refers to the person. The spirit of life which animates people is that which animates all of creation, and it returns to God, not in the sense of an immortal soul or conscious existence after death. Perhaps the way that the first six prayers of Elijah for rain went unanswered, his need to pray three times for the child to resurrect, were all part of God teaching Elijah that no matter how close we are to Him, we have no right to expect automatic answers to prayer, even if they are according to God’s will.

1 Kings 17:22 Yahweh listened to the voice of Elijah-

Just as He had done in :1 when it was Elijah's voice which brought forth the drought that slew so many. But his voice likewise had the power of revival. And that is what God wanted to teach Elijah out of all this; not to simply judge for sin, but to ever seek revival.

And the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived-

“When Jesus saw the faith of the friends, He said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, your sins are forgiven you” (Mk. 2:5). That man was healed for the sake of the faith of others. The widow woman’s son was resurrected because God heard Elijah’s faithful prayer; and thus Heb. 11:35 alludes to this incident by saying that through faith- in this case, the faith of Elijah, a third party- women received their dead raised to life. The Centurion’s servant was healed for the sake of his faith; Jairus’ daughter was healed because of his faith (Mk. 5:36). This inspires us to endless effort for the sake of others. Clearly God worked through Elijah giving cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). It was Elijah's breath which entered the child, but it was the source of the child's new life. There is no teaching here about immortal souls returning into bodies. The soul [effectively, the life] came from Elijah's breath / spirit. Which represented God's Spirit reviving the dead.

1 Kings 17:23 Elijah took the child, and brought him down out of the room into the house, and delivered him to his mother; and Elijah said, Behold, your son lives-

The Lord Jesus quotes Elijah’s words “Your son lives” (1 Kings 17:23 = Jn. 4:50-53). He also, however, shows that Elijah's "spirit" wasn't always correct, although it was used by God. For in the context of Elijah, He rebukes the disciples for having the wrong spirit, in seeking to have the spirit of Elijah. The idea of fire from Heaven, which Elijah called down, is found in the Lord’s teaching in Lk. 12:49-54, where He associates it with division in the brotherhood. And the Lord went on to say that the Pharisees could interpret a cloud arising in the West as a sign that rain was coming, but they could not forgive their brethren, which was what was essential (Lk. 12:54). This just has to be a reference to Elijah, who saw a cloud arising from the West as a sign of rain. The Lord is, it seems, sadly associating Elijah with the Pharisees. And yet... despite all this,  Jesus likens Himself to Elijah. Jesus sent fire on earth as Elijah did (Lk. 12:49). And the context of the Lk. 9:54 reference to Elijah is that the Lord’s time had come that he should be “received up”, and “he steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem” (Lk. 9:51). This is all very much the language of Elijah (2 Kings 2:1). The Lord Jesus quotes Elijah’s words “Your son lives” (1 Kings 17:23 = Jn. 4:50-53). What this shows is that the Lord saw what was good in Elijah, and He didn’t separate Himself from someone who didn’t have His Spirit. He simply wanted His followers to learn better from him.

Jewish tradition claims that the boy became Elijah's servant of whom we will later read, and that he was the prophet Jonah.

1 Kings 17:24 The woman said to Elijah, Now I know that you are a man of God, and that the word of Yahweh in your mouth is truth-

This means more than 'God's word is true'; it is an expression of faith that Yahweh is the one true God. The way the woman talks about “Yahweh your God”, to which Elijah responds by speaking of “Yahweh, the God of Israel”, implies that she did not even believe in Israel’s God (1 Kings 17:12,14). She didn’t even initially believe at that time that Elijah was a man of God (so :24 implies); and so, we can conclude, the daily miracle of the meal and oil not drying up did not deeply touch her, just as the daily provision of manna did not seem to register with most of Israel in the wilderness. She even seems to have been cynical in earlier calling him a “man of God”, because only later did she say that she really believe he was this (1 Kings 17:18, 24). But now she was his first recorded convert. This was all to teach Elijah that God works not only with the clean, and not only with those in covenant with Him. And as noted in :22, Elijah was being taught that he was to make converts and revive people, not merely judge them as sinners.

1 Kings Chapter 18

1 Kings 18:1 It happened after many days, that the word of Yahweh came to Elijah in the third year, saying, Go, show yourself to Ahab; and I will send rain on the earth-

Elijah said that there would be no rain "but according to my word" (1 Kings 17:1). His faith was undoubtedly based upon being attune to the will of God and His ways of working with His people, to the extent that he knew that because the word abided in him, he could ask what he wanted and it would be heard, because he asked according to God's will. But when the time comes for rain, we read that "the word of Yahweh [not Elijah's word] came to Elijah... saying... I will send rain upon the earth" (1 Kings 18:1). It seems Elijah was more interested in judging the people for their sins, than seeing their repentance. And he failed to recognize the repentance when it came. He will later insist that he alone is faithful to Yahweh. He discounted the 7000 who had not bowed to Baal, and the 100 prophets hidden by Obadiah; as well as Obadiah and the widow woman of 1 Kings 17. But perhaps all these faithful ones were those who had responded to the three years of drought. Even if Elijah discounted them.

1 Kings 18:2 Elijah went to show himself to Ahab. The famine was severe in Samaria-

This was a risky thing to do, as Ahab and Jezebel had been searching everywhere for Elijah with a view to killing him. But Elijah is to be commended for obeying God's word.

1 Kings 18:3 Ahab called Obadiah, who was over the household. (Now Obadiah feared Yahweh greatly-

We naturally wonder how he could have retained his responsible post at the palace of Baal worshippers. He presumably like Naaman must have gone through some motions of Baal worship. But his heart was "greatly" with Yahweh. Elijah will later state that he alone is faithful in Israel. Obadiah's surface level failure was enough for Elijah to write him off completely. And there is strong warning to us here.

1 Kings 18:4 for it was so, when Jezebel cut off the prophets of Yahweh, that Obadiah took one hundred prophets, and hid them by fifty in a cave, and fed them with bread and water)-

God tried to correct Elijah’s despising of the other prophets of the Lord. Elijah was in a cave, and was also fed bread and water- just as the other prophets were. And yet Elijah didn’t see, or didn’t want to see, that connection- after having been reminded of this experience of the other prophets, he claims that “I, even I only, remain a prophet of the Lord” (1 Kings 18:22)- he wrongly believed that all other valid prophets had been slain (1 Kings 19:10). In fact the record shows how that during Elijah’s lifetime there were other prophets of Yahweh active in His service (1 Kings 20:13,35). And yet the lesson is that God still works through the conceited, the spiritually superior, those who despise their brethren. God didn’t give up on Elijah because he was like this, and neither should we give up in our relationship with such brethren.

The fact Elijah was hidden by God meant that he was forced into fellowship with the prophets of Yahweh whom Obadiah hid in a cave. Elijah was thus intended to see a link between Obadiah and God, and himself and the other prophets of Yahweh. But Elijah’s pride didn’t let himself make the connection, just as ours often doesn’t. For he continued doubtful of Obadiah’s sincerity, and still insisted that he alone remained a faithful prophet of Yahweh- even though Obadiah had hidden one hundred other prophets from Jezebel’s persecution. Those one hundred prophets were presumably part of the 7,000 who had not bowed the knee to Baal.

1 Kings 18:5 Ahab said to Obadiah, Go through the land, to all the springs of water, and to all the brooks. Perhaps we may find grass and save the horses and mules alive, so that we don’t lose all the animals-

This reflects the pitiful selfishness of Ahab. He like Solomon was obsessed with his horses, which a true king of Israel ought not to have had (Dt. 17:16,17). For Ahab, the worst thing about the famine was that there was no fodder for his prized herd of horses, and he personally is so concerned about it that he and the master of his household go around Israel searching for grass to feed them with, lest he have to slay them.

1 Kings 18:6 So they divided the land between them to pass throughout it: Ahab went one way by himself, and Obadiah went another way by himself-

As noted on :5, Ahab personally went out in search of fodder for his beloved but unlawful herd of horses, because they meant so very much to him. He was far less concerned about the fate of his people. If Obadiah had been a literalist, he would have challenged Ahab about the matter, citing the words of Dt. 17:16,17 as to how Israel's king shouldn't have horses; and arguing that he should accept the loss of them as a quite legitimate punishment for breaking the covenant. Obadiah didn't do this; instead he assisted in the search for fodder for the illegal horses. Yet he "feared Yahweh greatly"- that is the Divine comment upon him. We do indeed have the example of Daniel in Babylon, not defiling himself with the king's meat, and insisting on publically praying toward Jerusalem when this was forbidden. But the Bible also brings before us the example of Obadiah, who was not like that. And of Elijah, who condemned him as not really genuine, and was himself condemned for judging in that way.

1 Kings 18:7 As Obadiah was in the way, behold, Elijah met him: and he recognized him and fell on his face and said, Is it you, my lord Elijah?-

Elijah must have been known as a prophet for Obadiah to recognize him. Presumably he had advertised the fact that the drought was because of his word (1 Kings 17:1), and was an invitation for Israel to accept that they were receiving the consequences of breaking the covenant and needed to repent.

1 Kings 18:8 He answered him, It is I. Go, tell your lord, ‘Behold, Elijah is here!’-

Elijah is mocking Obadiah's addressing of him as "my lord" (:7). He is saying that Ahab is Obadiah's lord, and he did not accept Obadiah as one of his servants, nor a servant of Yahweh. Because Elijah considered himself the sole remaining Yahweh worshipper.

1 Kings 18:9 He said, Wherein have I sinned, that you would deliver your servant into the hand of Ahab, to kill me?-

Again, Obadiah insists that he is Elijah's servant, and not that of Ahab. See on :8. We note that the widow woman likewise considered that Elijah was treating her as a sinner (1 Kings 17:18). Elijah came over as so spiritually superior that he made people feel bad about themselves. No wonder his ministry was taken away from him.

1 Kings 18:10 As Yahweh your God lives-

This is exactly the language of the widow woman in 1 Kings 17:12. Elijah is being made to see the similarity between these two faithful people, who lived in totally different situations. But it seems he considered neither of them to be sincere worshippers of Yahweh; he later says that he alone was left faithful.

There is no nation or kingdom where my lord has not sent to seek you. When they said, ‘He is not here’, he took an oath of the kingdom and nation, that they didn’t find you-

As noted on :7, Elijah was known to be the one who had caused the famine. And Ahab wrongly assumed he had fled Israel so as not to have to endure the famine himself.

1 Kings 18:11 Now you say, ‘Go, tell your lord, Behold, Elijah is here’-

Elijah evidently didn’t have too positive a view of anyone apart from himself- and that included faithful Obadiah. Obadiah repeatedly calls Elijah “my Lord” and describes himself as “your servant”; but Elijah responds to this by calling Obadiah the servant of Ahab- he tells him to go and tell “your Lord”, i.e. Ahab (1 Kings 18:7-14). Elijah is insisting that he and Obadiah have nothing in common- Obadiah serves Ahab, and he is nothing to do with Elijah. ‘Obadiah’ means ‘servant of Yahweh’- the name surely reflects very faithful parents to have called him that at the time of the Baal cult. But Elijah insists that Obadiah is really a servant of Ahab, not of Yahweh.

1 Kings 18:12 It will happen, as soon as I am gone from you, that the spirit of Yahweh will carry you I don’t know where; and so when I come and tell Ahab, and he can’t find you, he will kill me. But I, your servant, have feared Yahweh from my youth-

It seems it was a common occurrence for Elijah to be snatched away by the Spirit. His snatching away into the sky when Elisha replaces him needs to be read in this context. Which is why after that, the sons of the prophets go out looking for him, assuming he has been dropped down in some remote location. We should not therefore read that incident as meaning that Elisha was snatched up into Heaven. For no man has ascended to Heaven (Jn. 3:13).

1 Kings 18:13 Wasn’t it told my lord what I did when Jezebel killed the prophets of Yahweh, how I hid one hundred men of Yahweh’s prophets with fifty to a cave, and fed them with bread and water?-

Obadiah faithfully hid Yahweh's prophets, at the risk of his life; but when tested again in this matter, he was fearful to appear to Ahab to have been hiding Elijah's location (1 Kings 18:10-12). We can pass the test at one stage in our lives, and yet when the same test repeats later, we may still fail.

Elijah felt he was the only faithful man left in Israel. Yet 1 Kings 18:4 records how he was reminded that Obadiah had fed Yahweh’s prophets in a cave with bread and water. Elijah also had been hidden in a cave and fed with bread and water. 1 Kings 17:4,9; 18:4,13 all use the same Hebrew word for feed / fed / sustain. The connection was to try to teach him his linkage with the prophets, whom he felt were still apostate. God tries to teach us things but we often fail to grasp the potential understanding made possible; be aware that He is trying! Elijah was fed by both ravens and a widow, as the prophets were fed by Obadiah. The raven and the Gentile widow woman were both ‘commanded’ [s.w.] to feed Elijah by God. Both would have been seen by him as unclean. God repeatedly tried to teach Elijah that true spirituality is about doing what is counter-instinctive in terms of personal self-control- rather than about blasting others for their apostacy, hard words when provoked, etc. Hence God begins by making Elijah's very life depend upon being fed by unclean birds bringing him food. Those ravens had to avoid bringing him dead meat- which is their usual food. They had to surrender their food to him, when there was little food around; and they had to come up to a man and give him their food, all of which was counter-instinctive for ravens. And thus Elijah was shown that life itself, especially spiritual life, depends upon counter-instinctive behaviour. And within Elijah's personality type, to criticize and condemn others was instinctive behaviour.

1 Kings 18:14 Now you say, ‘Go, tell your lord, Behold, Elijah is here!’- and he will kill me-

If Ahab would have killed Obadiah for reporting a false sighting of Elijah, then how much more likely would he have been to have killed Obadiah for hiding the prophets in :13. So Obadiah is volunteering very personal information to Elijah, so desperate was he for Elijah to accept him as sincere. But for all that sacrifice and risk in sharing the information, Elijah would not accept him as genuine. For he considered only himself as genuine.

1 Kings 18:15 Elijah said, As Yahweh of Armies lives, before whom I stand, I will surely show myself to him today-

To stand before Yahweh implied Elijah was a prophet, and he seems to love to emphasize this to Obadiah, considering Obadiah not at all the 'servant of Yahweh' which he claimed to be and which his name meant. Elijah implies that Obadiah was disbelieving the prophetic word by raising the concern he had.

1 Kings 18:16 So Obadiah went to meet Ahab, and told him; and Ahab went to meet Elijah-

We are invited to imagine what were Ahab's feelings. He had searched high and low for Elijah, seeking to kill him being responsible for the drought. And now he was invited to go and meet him.

1 Kings 18:17 It happened that when Ahab saw Elijah, Ahab said to him, Is that you, you troubler of Israel?-

LXX "the perverter". Ahab justified his persecution of Elijah by reasoning that Elijah was perverting the true Israelite religion. See on :18.

1 Kings 18:18 He answered, I have not troubled Israel; but you, and your father’s house, in that you have forsaken the commandments of Yahweh, and you have followed the Baals-

One of Elijah’s problems was that because he spoke the truth, God confirmed his words; but this didn’t mean that Elijah himself was always morally acceptable to God. Thus Ahab accuses Elijah of being the one who troubles Israel, like Achan (Josh. 7:25), for whose sake many of the people suffered. Elijah replies that it is Ahab who is the troubler of Israel, the Achan character. And he lived up to this, for in his days they sought to rebuild Jericho, and the curse associated with Achan came true at that time (1 Kings 16:34). Elijah’s words were justified, just as the truth we speak to those around us may be- because it is the truth of God. But this doesn’t of itself mean that we are right before God personally, nor does it mean that we can in any way presume to ‘play God’.

1 Kings 18:19 Now therefore send, and gather to me all Israel to Mount Carmel, and four hundred and fifty of the prophets of Baal, and four hundred of the prophets of the Asherah who eat at Jezebel’s table-

Although these prophets were to be slain later in this chapter, we read again of Ahab having 400 false prophets later in his reign (1 Kings 22:6). So it seems that he didn't learn his lesson, and raised up another such group. This fits with the common theme of purges and repentances at the time of the kings needing to be repeated. For the purges were only surface level, despite all the evidence for them at the time.

1 Kings 18:20 So Ahab sent to all the children of Israel, and gathered the prophets together to Mount Carmel-

Ahab is not recorded as saying anything further. He apparently doesn't accuse Elijah of anything else, and obeys what Elijah asks him to do. We wonder why Ahab and Jezebel allowed this great showdown. Perhaps the plan was to not only kill Elijah, but to destroy his religious credibility before all Israel. Perhaps they were to set up various bogus schemes for creating fire to consume the sacrifices, but they failed at the last minute.

1 Kings 18:21 Elijah came near to all the people and said, How long will you waver between the two sides? If Yahweh is God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him. The people answered him not a word-

When Elijah demands that the people chose which lord they will serve- Baal [=’lord’] or Yahweh, he is really getting to the very crux of spirituality- for truly, there can be no halting between the two opinions of serving Baal and serving Yahweh. The Lord Jesus surely based His words of Lk. 16:13 on those of Elijah in 1 Kings 18:21: “No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon”. So although on one hand the Lord Jesus Himself quotes Elijah’s ‘truth’ approvingly, there is evidence galore that at the very same time, Elijah’s attitudes were far from Christ-like, as we will show below. At the very same time, Elijah mocks the Baal worshippers, teasing them to shout louder, because maybe their god has gone ‘in a journey’- a Hebraism for ‘gone to the toilet’ (1 Kings 18:27). This kind of mockery and crudeness is surely not how the Father and Son would have us act. Yet Elijah did this whilst at the same time deeply believing the fire would come down, and bringing it down by his faith. And saying other words which were alluded to with deep approval by the Lord.

Your own example of making clear choices, doing what is right before God rather than what is wise and smart in human eyes, will reveal a sense of clarity about you which will become inspirational to your brethren. Yours will not be one of those many lives that is paralyzed by constantly postponing the choices, by indecision, like Israel on Carmel, hopping backwards and forwards between two opinions (1 Kings 18:21), between your persona and your true person, which is Christ in you. Ultimately, the choice is not one of principles or doctrines or interpretations; it is between Christ and all the other things which would lead us away from Him. The essential choice is always between “Christ in you” and… her mother, your instincts, their self-perception imposed upon you, your self-interest. And in those choices there is no third road; we are at a T-junction, hour after hour. We chose either life or death (Dt. 30:19); we cannot serve two masters (Mt. 6:24). Insofar as you at least live a life that reflects this recognition, you will be a challenge to those around you.

How long will we halt between the two paths, never facing up to the choice? It's an agony to God, as was Laodicea's " neither hot nor cold" attitude. I sometimes wonder if say 90% of our prayer, our Bible reading, our spiritual activities, are all wasted because we are only half hearted about it. We don't (often) pray the prayer of dominant desire, or (often) read or (often) break bread with that spirit of total, total dedication and concentration. You must have, as I do, those all too fleeting moments of grasping the logic, the wonder, the imperative urgency of the fact there's no third way; that total devotion is the only choice. Cling on to those moments. Organize your life decisions around this spirit.

1 Kings 18:22 Then Elijah said to the people, I, even I only, am left a prophet of Yahweh; but Baal’s prophets are four hundred and fifty men-

Again we sense how arrogant and condemnatory is Elijah. Obadiah had recently reminded him of the 100 faithful prophets, and there were 7000 who had not bowed the knee to Baal. There were also schools of the prophets operating (2 Kings 2:3,5,7) and various known prophets of Yahweh (1 Kings 22:8). But Elijah seems to be revelling here in standing with his back to the world. There are times when that is necessary, but it seems to have appealed to Elijah's personality type to set up a situation like this. And there are those within the body of believers who take an inappropriate encouragement from Elijah's attitude. Because he did indeed have faith and boldness, this didn't mean he had the hope and love without which even the faith to move mountains is of "no profit".

1 Kings 18:23 Let them therefore give us two bulls; and let them choose one bull for themselves, and cut it in pieces, and lay it on the wood, and put no fire under it; and I will dress the other bull, and lay it on the wood, and put no fire under it-

The bull was offered as a sin offering, as bulls were at several points in the Mosaic legislation. Elijah's idea was that his sin offering would be accepted by God, and their offering rejected, making them as Cain to his Abel. But because of the acceptance of his sin offering, Israel's sin would be purged and therefore the rain would come. God went along with this plan, indeed all this may have been of His commanding. In which case we see that He was willing to accept sin offering offered by a third party, without the repentance of the people. For they only apparently repented (and even then, not for very long) after He had accepted the sin offering Elijah offered. We see here His prevenient grace, not simply responding to human repentance and spirituality, but taking huge initiatives.

1 Kings 18:24 You call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of Yahweh. The God who answers by fire, let him be God. All the people answered, It is well said-

Elijah almost seems to have revelled in assuming all Israel were apostate when he met them on Carmel. He assumes they will all call on the name of their god Baal, whilst he alone would call on Yahweh. It definitely sounds as if he was setting himself up against them. And thus he asks God to make all Israel know Him (1 Kings 18:37), as if none of them did at that time- except himself. Elijah takes the language of God 'answering by fire' from the account of David's intercession for the plagued, sinful people in 1 Chron. 21:26 (same Hebrew words). Elijah saw himself as David, interceding to gain the forgiveness of impenitent third parties as a result of his sacrifice. And indeed there was an element of that. And in the final synthesis and unknowable equation of salvation, there is still a great role played by third parties in our salvation.

1 Kings 18:25 Elijah said to the prophets of Baal, Choose one bull for yourselves, and dress it first; for you are many; and call on the name of your god, but put no fire under it-

Elijah purposefully set up the contest with the Baal worshippers so that he was alone against so many Baal worshippers; he rejoices almost that “you are many”. He didn’t invite any other worshippers of Yahweh; he was convinced that it was him against the world / the rest of the ecclesia. When we read Elijah inviting all the prophets of Baal to be gathered to Carmel, we expect him to match this by inviting the prophets of Yahweh- for we have just read that Obadiah hid 100 of them in a cave. But Elijah doesn’t. He asks Ahab to call “all Israel” there- he wanted to set himself up as alone against all Israel.

1 Kings 18:26 They took the bull which was given to them and they dressed it, and called on the name of Baal from morning even until noon, saying, Baal, hear us! But there was no voice, nor any who answered. They leaped about the altar which was made-

"Leaped" is the word used for the limping of the people between Baal and Yahweh (:21). Even in the apparent passion and absolute devotion of leaping on the altar, they were in fact limping between Baal and Yahweh. And this is so for many religious people, even at the point of the height of their apparent devotions.

The idea of prophets was well known in the world around ancient Israel. The idea of a prophet was that a person was caught up in some kind of ecstasy, transported into some ‘other’ world, and leaving behind their humanity. The true prophets were different. Their inspiration was about being attuned to the mind of God, they remained very much in the flesh and in the world, and the subjects of their prophecy related to very real, human things- injustice, a guy building an extension on his house without paying the labourers. Not flashing lights and ethereal coasting through space. The pagan prophets (e.g. the prophets of Baal in 1 Kings 18:26-29) worked themselves into a frenzy in order to reach a state of depersonalization and loss of consciousness, in the hope that then they would be filled with Divine consciousness. True prophets like Amos were absolutely different; the inspiration process required them to be fully in touch with their own consciousness and personality, and it was exactly through their humanity that the personality of God came through in the inspired words they spake and wrote. Amos perceived the Lord’s word, and then ‘butted in’ as it were, in full consciousness: “O Lord God, forgive, I beseech Thee! How can Jacob stand? He is so small!” (Am. 7:2). This is the very opposite of the pagan prophets losing touch with their human senses and reasoning.

1 Kings 18:27 It happened at noon, that Elijah mocked them and said, Cry louder; for he is a god! Either he is musing, or he has gone aside to the toilet, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he sleeps and must be awakened-

Despite Elijah’s crude sarcasm about Baal being in the rest room, God didn’t give up working with Elijah, and Elijah still had a relationship with God. And this is how we have to see those brethren whom we perceive as arrogant and so terribly deficient in the spirit of Christ.

1 Kings 18:28 They cried aloud, and cut themselves in their way with knives and lances, until the blood gushed out on them-

In 1 Kings 18:28 the prophets of Baal worshipped "in their way", AV “after their manner”- a Hebrew word normally translated 296 times “judgment”; they judged / condemned themselves, rather than needing Elijah to do so. And the word translated “cut” essentially means ‘to gather’. They gathered themselves together to condemnation and poured out their own blood. “Knives and lancets” is a phrase normally translated “swords and spears”. They lived out judgment upon themselves rather than Elijah needing to condemn them.

The Lord understood this when He speaks about the spirit of Elijah not being appropriate. His comment that He had “not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them” (Lk. 9:56) must surely be connected with what He said just before that: “Whosoever will save his life shall lose [s.w. “destroy”] it” and vice versa (Lk. 9:24,25). The three words save, life, lose / destroy are all the same. There is surely a connection of thought here. But what is the Lord saying through it? The disciples like Elijah would have had their prayers heard- the fire of destruction could have come. But the Lord says that they don’t know the type of spirit they are of. His Spirit is one of saving and not destruction. Men destroy themselves by seeking to save themselves without Him. This is why the Lord could say that He Himself judged / condemned no man- each rejected man will have condemned himself. And so the same point is actually made within the Elijah story too.

1 Kings 18:29 It was so, when midday was past, that they prophesied until the time of the offering of the offering; but there was neither voice, nor any to answer, nor any who responded-

There was no voice of response from Baal; and the implication may be that there was a voice from Yahweh in His response. But Elijah didn't hear it, for the thrill and noise of the fire coming down and consuming the sacrifice drowned it out. Perhaps this is referred to when Yahweh later tells Elijah that He is not [so much] in the wind and fire, but in the still small voice- which Elijah had not heard.

1 Kings 18:30 Elijah said to all the people, Come near to me; and all the people came near to him-

Elijah may be alluding to how the people came near to Moses (Ex. 34:32). But he was shown that he was not as Moses; see on 1 Kings 19:9. It may be that they sensed that seeing Baal hadn't answered, and the tricks to make fire appear had failed, then Yahweh was likely to respond. And they were cowering away, fearful of the Divine fire which they sensed was going to appear. See on :34.

He repaired the altar of Yahweh that was thrown down-

The triumph on Carmel involved making an offering on an altar of Yahweh which was in one of the “high places”- whereas Israel were repeatedly criticized for offering on these “high places” and not in Jerusalem. Elijah even criticizes Israel for throwing down these “high places” altars of Yahweh (1 Kings 19:10,14). Surely Elijah knew that the use of the high places was not what Yahweh ideally wanted; and yet he was driven to use a high place in this way. And with us, God will work through circumstances to remove from us the crutches of mere religion, to challenge the essence of our faith and relationship with Him. The way Ezekiel had to eat unclean food and defile himself is another such example.

1 Kings 18:31 Elijah took twelve stones, according to the number of the tribes of the sons of Jacob, to whom the word of Yahweh came, saying, Israel shall be your name-

- see on Gen. 35:2. This seems a conscious imitation of Joshua's building of the altar from 12 stones when entering the land (Josh. 4:5). Perhaps Elijah's hope was for a complete restoration of the kingdom. The allusion to the renaming of Jacob to Israel may also suggest a new beginning by grace. The usage of 12 stones suggests that he hoped for the ending of the division within Israel, as well as recognizing that the two tribe kingdom also needed forgiveness. For I suggested earlier that the bull was a sin offering.

1 Kings 18:32 With the stones he built an altar in the name of Yahweh. He made a trench around the altar, large enough to contain two measures of seed-

Elijah's hyper sensitivity to he alone being acceptable before God is perhaps shown in the way he repairs the Lord's altar and then himself builds another one (1 Kings 18:30-32). It was as if he felt some kind of guilt by association- he could only serve Yahweh on the altar of his own making. Perhaps he justified it by suspecting that  the first altar has been built contrary to Mosaic law, perhaps an iron tool had been used on it... and so, Elijah had to go his own way. And how often have our brethren done this. Nothing is any good unless we ourselves are doing it; we can't be made guilty by association with the work of others whom we doubt.

1 Kings 18:33 He put the wood in order, and cut the bull in pieces, and laid it on the wood. He said, Fill four jars with water, and pour it on the burnt offering and on the wood-

Elijah’s mocking attitude of :27 is also shown by the way in which he demands they find him four barrels of water- on the top of a mountain, after a major three and a half year drought. Presumably they took the water from the sea at the bottom of the mountain (although tradition claims there was a fountain at the top of Carmel)- and thus Elijah’s sacrifice would be offered with salt. He was strictly obedient to the requirements for sacrifice- yet amidst an abusive, self-justifying mindset. The very possession of truth can take our attention away from our need for self-examination and right attitudes towards others. In this lies one of our most subtle temptations.

1 Kings 18:34 He said, Do it a second time; and they did it the second time. He said, Do it a third time; and they did it the third time-

I suggested above that Ahab agreed to this showdown because he planned to discredit Elijah by some bogus appearance of fire. The tricks hadn't worked. Everybody knew they hadn't. And Elijah is at great pains to demonstrate that he is not using any tricks. The burnt offering and wood were thrice doused in water, and the trench of water around the altar was of significant size. There was no way Elijah was using fake fire, and he had invited the people to "come near" (:30) so that all was transparent and under close public observation.

1 Kings 18:35 The water ran around the altar; and he also filled the trench with water-

As explained on :34, this was to stop any possibility of tricks being used. Various pagan religions construct altars with fire hidden beneath them (Adam Clarke describes several in his commentary). This fire is then exposed by the priests, supposedly by magic or their prayers, and then burns the sacrifice. But Elijah covered the entire sacrifice and altar with water to demonstrate there was no way this was the case wit him. And the fire came down from Heaven, rather than up from the altar as in these pagan altars.

1 Kings 18:36 It happened at the time of the offering of the offering-

This could imply that this was intended as the daily evening offering.

That Elijah the prophet came near and said, Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac and of Israel, let it be known this day that You are God in Israel and that I am Your servant-

He clearly saw prayer as requiring much effort; and the way he prays at the time of the evening sacrifice on Horeb suggests that he saw prayer as a sacrifice. His language here seems to have been inspired by David (1 Sam. 17:46). May our language likewise be an inspiration to others rather than pulling them downwards spiritually. But despite his immense faith, he seems unable to cease his desire for self justification. He didn't just want Israel to accept Yahweh, but to accept that he was Yahweh's servant. This was the meaning of 'Obadiah', 'servant of Yah', and we noted earlier how Elijah mocked that.

And that I have done all these things at Your word-

This is another example of Elijah playing God. There’s no record of any such word from the Lord to him. He appears to have set it all up at his initiative- and then assumed that actually God had told him to do so and that God would respond as he expected. We can so very easily do the same.

We become suspicious of Elijah’s motives when we read of him asking God to show all Israel “That I am Your servant, and that I have done all these things”. “That I…that I…” sounds like there was a large element of self-justification in his spirituality, just as there can be in our, e.g., desiring to prove someone else wrong and ourselves right, to win a debate, to abuse the advantage of our superior Bible knowledge…

1 Kings 18:37 Answer me, Yahweh, answer me, that this people may know that You, Yahweh, are God-

See on 1 Kings 19:18. This kind of faith in prayer enables a believer to truly follow the Lord’s exhortation to ask for things and believe and feel that we have already received them. Elijah chose the terms of the contest on Carmel to be an answer by fire- for Baal was originally the fire god. Yet Elijah appears utterly certain that God will answer by a bolt of fire, without having asked Him first. He asks God to “answer me” without specifically requesting for fire to be sent down; he brings the situation before God and asks Him to ‘answer’ that situation. And this is why so many of David’s prayers are more a bringing of the situation before God, than a specific request for answers.

And that You have turned their heart back again-

It is our knowledge of God's mercy to us which empowers us to confidently seek to share with others our knowledge, our relationship, our experience with God. Forgiveness inspires the preacher; and yet the offer of forgiveness is what inspires the listener to respond. God appeals for Israel to respond by pointing out that in prospect, He has already forgiven them: “I have [already] blotted out, as a thick cloud, thy transgressions... [therefore] return unto me; for I have redeemed thee” (Is. 44:22). Likewise Elijah wanted Israel to know that God had already in prospect turned their hearts back to Him. We preach the cross of Christ, and that through that forgiveness has been enabled for all men; but they need to respond by repentance in order to access it. Hence the tragedy of human lack of response; so much has been enabled, the world has been reconciled, but all this is in vain if they will not respond.

Elijah was evidently in touch with God and knew His will. At the end, he is described as  the charioteer of the cherubim; for his prayers had controlled their direction. This really is how much God is willing to be influenced by our prayers. Elijah had a very developed sense of how God works with us. Thus he asks God to make Israel know how that He “didst turn back their heart” (1 Kings 18:37 RVmg.), he wanted them to know how that potentially, God had made their return to Him possible; Elijah perceived that God may prepare something in prospect that never gets realized in practice because of human weakness [and this should be an endless inspiration to us too].

1 Kings 18:38 Then the fire of Yahweh fell and consumed the burnt offering and the wood, the stones and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench-

For all Elijah's clearly wrong attitudes, Yahweh still accepted him; and very dramatically. The total consumption of everything indicated that God had totally accepted the sin offering. Israel had been forgiven. Even though they had not repented. This was the power of Elijah's intercessory mediation and sacrifice. And how much more powerful is that of the Lord Jesus.

1 Kings 18:39 When all the people saw it, they fell on their faces. They said, Yahweh, he is God! Yahweh, He is God!-

This is another way of crying out the name 'Elijah'. Elijah had repeatedly asked for his own justification, and perhaps the people responded in this way purposefully.

1 Kings 18:40 Elijah said to them, Seize the prophets of Baal! Don’t let one of them escape! They seized them. Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon, and killed them there-

It's unclear whether the 400 prophets of Astarte were slain or escaped. But by the time of 1 Kings 22, Ahab has another 400 prophets whom he listens to. This was a heat of the moment persuasion and response, but of no abiding value in their spiritual growth as a nation. It again demonstrates the limited value of miracle in fundamentally changing people.

1 Kings 18:41 Elijah said to Ahab, Get up, eat and drink; for there is the sound of abundance of rain-

Elijah really is the great example of believing that what we have prayed for, we have already received. He tells Ahab that he hears “the sound of a abundance of rain”, well before the prayer for rain had even begun to be answered. Elijah tells Ahab that there is a “sound” of rain coming. The same word has just been used earlier, translated as “voice” (1 Kings 18:29) in the context of there being a voice / answer to prayer. So Elijah is saying that there is an answer speaking of much rain to come. There was no sign of rain coming at the time when he started praying, until the little cloud arose. But he calmly tells Ahab that there is a sound / answer of rain coming. Elijah believed in the answer coming before he prayed; he had a very firm faith. And thus ahead of time he told Ahab to eat and drink because of it [had Ahab been fasting? If so, to Yahweh or Baal?]. But all this required quite some passion in prayer.

He heard in the ears of faith the sound of rain, before he even formally prayed for it (1 Kings 18:40-42 cp. James 5:17,18). He saw that the sin offering had been accepted, and was sure that therefore the drought would end because it had produced the required repentance. And yet, reading through the record, there is ample evidence that at the very same time as he showed such faith, he had a hardness and arrogance which was contrary to the spirit of the Lord Jesus. And Paul had the same feature.

1 Kings 18:42 So Ahab went up to eat and to drink. Elijah went up to the top of Carmel; and he bowed himself down on the earth, and put his face between his knees-

Elijah cast himself down in prayer. The word occurs only in 2 Kings 4:34,35, as if it was Elijah’s example which inspired Elisha likewise to cast himself down [AV “stretch”] upon the child. The implication is that Elisha did so in prayer; and in passing, we wonder whether this implies that Elijah’s stretching himself upon another child, although a different Hebrew word, was also in prayer. Again we see that Elijah’s prayerful example inspired another. Our attitude to prayer is so easily influential upon others, and we ourselves are likewise easily influenced. It should be no shame nor embarrassment to us to instantly break into prayer, nor to kneel down to further our intensity in prayer, regardless of the social embarrassment  this may involve in some cultures.

1 Kings 18:43 He said to his servant, Go up now, look toward the sea. He went up and looked, and said, There is nothing. He said seven times, Go again-

The lack of immediate answer was to humble Elijah after the amazing answer to prayer just received on Carmel. He would have started wondering whether he really understood correctly that rain was to come now that the people had repented and his sin offering had been accepted. He would have started doubting his own faith; as one does after praying six times for something and not getting any answer. All this was to humble him. For his pride seems to have been at a very high point as he stood in triumph before Israel on Carmel, the man with his back to the world had apparently won.

1 Kings 18:44 It happened at the seventh time that he said, Behold, a small cloud, like a man’s hand, is rising out of the sea. He said, Go up, tell Ahab, ‘Get ready and go down, so that the rain doesn’t stop you’-

It could be that after the triumph on Carmel, there had been another vision of God’s glory in order to humble Elijah. I say this on the basis that the description of the cloud “like a man’s hand” recalls “the likeness of a man’s hand” under the cherubim in Ezekiel’s visions. Clouds and rain are invariably part of theophanies. Elijah spoke of how, by faith, he heard “the feet of rain” (1 Kings 18:41 LXX), as if he believed that the Angels were coming with rain. Perhaps Elijah therefore told Ahab “prepare your chariot” and ride with the rain- i.e. ‘be part of the vision of glory / cherubim chariots on the ground as it passes overhead’. This was the point of Ezekiel’s vision; Israel were to reflect the Cherubim on earth, just As David moved in step with the Spirit / the sound of marching in the mulberry trees. Therefore in 1 Kings 18:42 when in the face of all this, Elijah places his  face between knees, he may be doing the same thing as when he hides his face in the mantle. He sensed the glory of God near him but didn’t want to face up to it personally. He didn’t want to become part of the Cherubic vision of glory, even though he advised Ahab to do so. We must identify ourselves with the vision of God’s glory, and face up to the life-changing implications of it. Elijah ultimately did this, although it took him a lifetime- he was caught up in another cherubic vision and threw away his mantle and became part of the vision of glory; and hence he was called “the chariot of Israel and the [great] horseman thereof” [reading “horsemen” as an intensive plural]. The chariots and horsemen of God appeared; and Elisha perceived that Elijah had finally become identified with them. For Elisha sees them and then describes Elijah as being them- the chariot and horseman of Israel (2 Kings 2:11,12). Finally, Elijah became part of God’s glory; He merged into it rather than resisting it for the sake of his own  glory. He was the charioteer of the cherubim; for his prayers had controlled their direction. This identification of ourselves with God’s glory, this losing of ourselves and our own insistence upon our rightness, and our focus on others’ wrongness... this is the end result of our lives if they are lived out after the pattern of Elijah’s.

1 Kings 18:45 It happened in a little while, that the sky grew black with clouds and wind, and there was a great rain. Ahab rode, and went to Jezreel-

LXX "Ahab wept". This fits the impression we have that he repented; his comments to Jezebel at the beginning of 1 Kings 19 could be understood as meaning that it was 'game over' with Baal worship. He had not protested the mass murder of the 450 priests of Baal.

1 Kings 18:46 The hand of Yahweh was on Elijah; and he tucked his cloak into his belt and ran before Ahab to the entrance of Jezreel-

Running in front of someone meant to herald them. He was perhaps rejoicing in Ahab's apparent repentance, see on :45. This exhilarating run to Jezreel, in the power of the Spirit, set Elijah up for the devastating news that Jezebel had not repented and Ahab was apparently supporting her, or at least not asserting his kingship against her. And thence he crashed into the depression of 1 Kings 19.

1 Kings Chapter 19

1 Kings 19:1 Ahab told Jezebel all that Elijah had done, and how he had killed all the prophets with the sword-

We wonder whether Elijah personally presided over the genocide of 450 priests. Ahab had made no protest, and I suggested on 1 Kings 18:46 that he did in fact repent. The coming of rain in response to Elijah's prayer and the peoples' rejection of Baal surely urged him to accept that it was 'game over' for Baal worship. At least, at that time.

1 Kings 19:2 Then Jezebel sent a messenger to Elijah saying, So let the gods do to me, and more also, if I don’t make your life as the life of one of them by tomorrow about this time!-

Elijah had returned with Ahab to Jezreel. So he was there in the city, apparently hoping that Ahab would stand up to Jezebel, and perhaps she too would realize that Baal worship was now a hopeless cause.

1 Kings 19:3 When he saw that, he arose, and went for his life, and came to Beersheba, which belongs to Judah, and left his servant there-

The Elijah who fearlessly came before Ahab and the thousands of idolaters at Carmel... now flees before an angry woman. I suggested on 1 Kings 18:46 that the exhilarating run to Jezreel, in the power of the Spirit, set Elijah up for the devastating news that Jezebel had not repented and Ahab was apparently supporting her, or at least not asserting his kingship against her. And thence he crashed into the depression we now read of. The history here has absolute psychological credibility, even though Elijah's faith should have been more resolute. He fled to the very south of Judah, territory not under Ahab's control.

1 Kings 19:4 But he himself went a day’s journey into the wilderness, and came and sat down under a juniper tree: and he requested for himself that he might die, and said, It is enough. Now, O Yahweh, take away my life; for I am not better than my fathers-

By walking out alone into the desert he was effectively attempting suicide. If Elijah was a Gentile (see on 1 Kings 17:1), he would be feeling that he was no really better than a Gentile idolater (see on :5)- because he had failed to convert or see judgment upon Jezebel. Perhaps he had some particular complex of feelings and histories with her which led him to this manic state once she tried to kill him.

“Enough” is the same Hebrew word picked up and used by the Angel- “the way is too great [‘enough’] for you” (1 Kings 19:7), and he does eventually eat and not die, living life now only thanks to the provision of food by Angels, going on a 40 day wilderness journey towards Sinai. All this of course is replete with reference to Israel’s wilderness journey, during which they only survived by eating “Angel’s food”, the food provided by Angels (Ps. 78:25). And as Elijah well knew, that generation were sinful and worshipped the idols they had smuggled out of Egypt with  them. To stay alive, he had to eat that food and go in that miraculously provided strength. And so he was forced to see the similarity between himself and rebellious Israel in the wilderness. Likewise earlier God had fed him through the medium of the unclean raven, and the unclean Gentile woman. But Elijah had had enough of these pointed digs, and he asks God to take his life away- alluding to how Jezebel wanted to do this, as if trying to pressurize God into taking away his life rather than Jezebel (1 Kings 19:4, 10).

1 Kings 19:5 He lay down and slept under a juniper tree; and behold, an angel touched him, and said to him, Arise and eat!-

The situation is allusive to the Gentile, spiritually weak Hagar being found at the point of death and preserved by an Angel in the same wilderness (Gen. 16:9; 21:17). Elijah in his rebellion against God's intended ministry for him was no better than her. Perhaps that is what he refers to being no better than his (Gentile) fathers; see on :4. And we will see on :6 that he is taught that the Gentile widow whom he had earlier despised was also on God's side more than he was.

1 Kings 19:6 He looked, and behold, there was at his head a cake baked on the coals, and a jar of water. He ate and drank, and lay down again-

The woman “gathering sticks” (1 Kings 17:10) would likely have stimulated his Bible-steeped mind to think of the illegal gathering of sticks in Num. 15:32,33. But she gave him meal cake and water. Later, the Angel gave Elijah cake and water (1 Kings 19:6 LXX "a cake of meal") just as the unclean ravens and Gentile widow woman had done- to teach Elijah that God works through those people. There were two occasions in which God fed Elijah with a cake when he was hungry. Once when the widow woman baked him one (1 Kings 17:13), and once when the Angel did (1 Kings 19:6). Surely God was trying to show Elijah that He was manifested through that desperately poor, weak, sick, starving widow woman who was at the point of death from starvation. It was the same message- that God wasn’t in the earthquake and fire, but in the still small voice.

1 Kings 19:7 The angel of Yahweh came again the second time, and touched him and said, Arise and eat, because the journey is too great for you-

He had been empowered by the Spirit to run all the way from Carmel to Jezreel, running at the speed of horses (1 Kings 18:46). But now the Spirit had been withdrawn from him. The journey was too great for him in his own strength. God would indeed give him food for the journey, but in a manner reminiscent of the Gentile widow who had earlier sustained him (see on :6). He had not learned the lessons from that, and they had to be repeated here; see on :8.

1 Kings 19:8 He arose and ate and drank, and went in the strength of that food forty days and forty nights to Horeb the Mount of God-

Elijah goes in the strength of a little food just as the widow’s flour didn’t run out. He is being paralleled with the Gentile widow woman- either to reinforce the lesson taught, or because he had failed to learn the lesson that he truly was no better in essence than a Gentile woman; see on :7. One wonders whether he not only despised Gentiles but women too... hence the way God sought to teach him the parallel between Himself and that woman.

God 'set up' Elijah's experience at Horeb / Sinai to compare and contrast with that of Moses. There are so many intended similarities between Elijah's meeting God at Horeb and Moses' meetings with God at Sinai- the same place, it seems. In both records it is called "the mount of God" (Ex. 3:1; 18:5; 24:13); there was a journey through the desert both before and after the meeting; the use of the number forty (Ex. 34:28; Num. 14:34 cp. 1 Kings 19:8); miraculous provision of food by God; an accompanying Angel; a cave, standing on a rock, Yahweh passing by, covering the face (Ex. 33:21-23; 34:5,6), earthquake, wind and fire (Ex. 19). Moses met with God there, and received the words of God. Elijah was all set up for the same. But it doesn't happen. Yahweh Himself doesn't appear; and instead of words of command, there is a deafening silence- for I understand the "still small voice" to actually be silence, and that silence was in itself a voice / word to Elijah. And then when God finally does say something, it is simply: "What are you doing here, Elijah?". Surely Elijah saw himself as Moses, and was looking forward to being given a covenant, and seeing a special manifestation of Yahweh. But instead, silence. No appearance of God, and finally, the great anticlimax of being asked what exactly he's doing there. The similarities with the Moses history were arranged by God, but surely they played along with Elijah's assumption that he was the next Moses. Perhaps he idolized Moses, as men today idolize heroes, e.g. from earlier days of their denomination. Elijah was being taught that actually, he was not Moses; God had no such message or covenant or special revelation to give him. And there is a type of believer who needs this same lesson; that God speaks through silence and insignificance to us. We are to be ourselves, and not to ever seek to replicate the experiences or spiritual path of faithful men who have gone before us. Such desires are really a running away from our personal responsibilities.

1 Kings 19:9 He came there to a cave, and lodged there-

Heb. "the cave", referring to the cave Moses entered in Ex. 33:12, from where he viewed the great theophany. Moses too was an upright man. But he had to be humbled, until he cowered in the rock as sinners will do before the excellence of God’s glory (Is. 2:21), before he could appreciate Yahweh’s glory. And Elijah too had to go through the same experience (1 Kings 19:9-12). Eliphaz likewise recounted how an Angel had passed before him, as the Angel passed before Moses and Elijah, and through this he came to realize the essential truth of man’s sinfulness and desperate need for repentance and God’s gracious acceptance (Job 4:16).

And behold, the word of Yahweh came to him, and he said to him-

This personification of “the word of the Lord” surely refers to an Angel who spoke to Elijah. When we read that the Lord was not in the fire etc., but was in the “still small voice”, perhaps the idea is that the Angel was not visible in the fire, earthquake, wind etc.- but He simply stood there at the end in front of Elijah and quietly spoke to him. The Angel, in a magnificent manifestation of the ‘humility’ of God, was quietly spoken and calm (“still”). The Angel was inviting Elijah to be like Him, to be God manifest by following the pattern of his guardian Angel.

What are you doing here, Elijah?-

Literally the text reads: “Elijah, Elijah, Elijah”. The three repeats of his name in the Hebrew text connect with the earthquake, wind and fire, and Elijah’s triple repeating of the same prepared statement. In his bitterness, Elijah sought to cut himself off from all consideration of his possibility of being wrong, or sensibly dialoguing with the Father. He just repeats the same words three times, as meaninglessly as the earthquake, wind and fire. Elijah hid his face in his mantle rather than face up to the true glory of God, the true fire from Heaven. The only other time Elijah sees the glory of God he threw away his mantle- as if he finally recognized he had been shielding himself from the real reality of it so that he could seek his own glory? The glory of God is His Name and character. To face up to this, believing it rather than merely knowing it, will bring us to repentance and a real facing up to the reality that we are truly not better than anyone else, in the light of the surpassing excellence of His glory. And Elijah just didn’t want to face up to it, just as we can not want to face up to the realities of what we know.

Elijah was in "the cave" (Heb.) where Moses had been, and he had rather fancied himself as Moses when he bad the people draw near to him (1 Kings 18:30). Now he was being told that he was not as Moses. For Moses was the meekest man, and Elijah had not allowed himself to be humbled as Moses did.

1 Kings 19:10 He said, I have been very zealous for Yahweh, the God of Armies; for the children of Israel have forsaken Your covenant, thrown down Your altars and slain Your prophets with the sword. I, even I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away-

Elijah's focus on Israel's sinfulness may have been tainted with the syndrome of pulling others down to make yourself look taller. He says repeatedly: "I have been very zealous for Yahweh... for the children of Israel have forsaken Your covenant... and I, even I only, am left". It's as if he felt that his zeal [s.w. "jealous" ] was in the fact they were apostate and he wasn't. His zeal for the Lord was, he reasoned, in being the only one left when they had all quit. And this basic mistake has hamstrung us- you are righteous, zealous, a defender of the Faith, if you merely hold on to a certain academic proposition of truth which others are rumoured or assumed to have apostatized from. Zeal for the Lord surely involves infinitely more than this. Elijah prayed his prayer from the cave mouth, protesting his own righteousness as he cowered before the glory of the Lord. Yet the same word occurs in Is. 2:12,13, where apostate Israel will hurl away their idols and then cower in a cleft / cave of the rock before the presence of Yahweh’s glory. The connection perhaps shows that although Elijah was so proudly not an idolater, yet his pride and arrogance was essentially the same. On one hand Elijah may have gloried in the similarities between his position and that of Moses, when God’s glory passed by him in the cleft of the rock; and yet Moses too was effectively being rebuked and humbled for his pride.

God tried to correct Elijah’s despising of the other prophets of the Lord. Elijah was in a cave, and was also fed bread and water- just as the other prophets were (1 Kings 18:4). And yet Elijah didn’t see, or didn’t want to see, that connection- after having been reminded of this experience of the other prophets, he claims that “I, even I only, remain a prophet of the Lord” (1 Kings 18:22)- he wrongly believed that all other valid prophets had been slain. In fact the record shows how that during Elijah’s lifetime there were other prophets of Yahweh active in His service (1 Kings 20:13,35), as well as the schools of the prophets mentioned at the time, and the 100 prophets whom Obadiah hid. And yet the lesson is that God still works through the conceited, the spiritually superior, those who despise their brethren. God didn’t give up on Elijah because he was like this, and neither should we give up in our relationship with such brethren.

Rom. 11:2,3 interprets this as Elijah actually interceding with God against Israel, asking for Him to destroy them all, apart from himself. This is a feature of many prayers: not to crudely, directly ask for the obvious; but to simply inform the Almighty of the situation, in faith. Examples include: Gen. 19:24; 2 Chron. 14:11; Ps. 3:1-4; 142:1,2; Jn. 11:21,22;  Ps. 106:44 cp. Is. 64:3. Elijah's real motives were read, and understood as a prayer to God. And yet his ministry had been intended to reform Israel. But he just wants to see sinner judged. Therefore his ministry was removed from him.

1 Kings 19:11 He said, Go out, and stand on the mountain before Yahweh. Behold, Yahweh passed by, and a great and strong wind tore the mountains, and broke in pieces the rocks before Yahweh; but Yahweh was not in the wind. After the wind an earthquake; but Yahweh was not in the earthquake-

The Angel tells Elijah to actually go and stand before the Lord and learn what it really meant to stand before the Lord, as he had said he did in 1 Kings 17:1; so he had to literally stand before the Angel as He passed by. Yet Elijah hid his face; he was no longer so happy to be before the Lord once he realized the humility and breaking in pieces of a proud man’s spirit that it really implies.

When Elijah was told to go and stand upon mount Horeb [i.e. Sinai] before the Lord, this was evidently seeking to invite him to understand how Moses felt (Ex. 24:12; 34:12). Yet as noted on :9, he was being told that because he had not humbled himself as Moses, he could not be Moses. But he had potentially been set up as a new Moses, but he wasted the potential by his own pride. Consider the following parallels:

Confronted Ahab (1 Kings 17:1) - Confronted Pharaoh (Exod. 5:1)

Fled into the wilderness fearing for his life (1 Kings 19:3) - Fled into the wilderness fearing for his life (Exod. 2:15)

Miraculously fed “...bread and meat in the morning and bread and meat in the evening...” (1 Kings 17:6)-Miraculously fed “...meat to eat in the evening, and bread to the full in the morning...” (Exod. 16:8, 12)

Spoke authoritatively for the Lord in his own name (1 Kings 17:1) - Spoke authoritatively for the Lord in his own name (Deut. 5:1)

Gathered all Israel to Mount Carmel (1 Kings 18:19) - Gathered all Israel to Mount Sinai (Exod. 19:17)

Combated the prophets of Ba’al (1 Kings 18:20-40) - Combated the magicians of Pharaoh (Exod. 7:8-13, 20-22; 8:1-7)

Successful in his intercession for Israel to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel (1 Kings 18:36-39) - Successful in his intercession for Israel to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel (Exod. 32:11-14)

Elijah took twelve stones at Carmel “...according to the number of the tribes of the sons of Jacob...” (1 Kings 18:30-32) - Moses had twelve pillars set up at Sinai “...corresponding to the twelve tribes of Israel...” (Exod. 24:4)

The Lord accepted Elijah’s offering by sending fire from heaven and consuming it completely. The people threw themselves down on their faces. (1 Kings 18:36-39)- The Lord accepted Moses and Aaron’s offering by sending fire from heaven and consuming it completely. The people threw themselves down on their faces. (Lev. 9:22-24)

By Elijah’s authority 3 000 idolatrous prophets were slain (1 Kings 18:40) - By Moses’ authority 3 000 idolaters were slain (Exod. 32:25-29)

After killing the prophets of Ba’al Elijah climbed Carmel to pray. (1 Kings 18:42) - After killing the idolaters Moses climbed Sinai to pray (Exod. 32:30)

Went without food for forty days and forty nights (1 Kings 19:8) - Went without food for forty days and forty nights (Exod. 34:38; Deut. 9:9)

Elijah (re)commissioned at Horeb (=Sinai) (1 Kings 19) - Moses commissioned at Sinai (Exod. 3)

Elijah was in “the cave” on Horeb (=Sinai) when the Lord “passed by” (1 Kings 19: 9-11) - Moses was hidden “in the cleft of the rock” when the Lord passed by Sinai. (Exod. 33:21-23)

Elijah saw storm, wind, an earthquake and fire upon Horeb (=Sinai). (1 Kings 19:11-12) - Moses saw storm, wind, an earthquake and fire upon Sinai. (Exod. 19:16-20; 20:18; Deut. 4:11; 5:22-27).

Prayed that he might die. (1 Kings 19:1-4) - Prayed that he might die. (Num. 11:10-15).

The Lord brought down fire from heaven upon his enemies. (2 Kings 1:9-12) - The Lord brought down fire from heaven upon those who rebelled against him. (Num. 16; cf. Lev. 10:1-3)

Elijah parted the waters of the Jordan by striking the waters with his cloak and passed over on dry ground. (2 Kings 2:8) - Moses parted the waters of the Red Sea by stretching out his staff and passed over on dry ground. (Exod. 14:16, 21-22)

His successor was one who had served him and came to resemble him in many ways, parting the waters of the Jordan as he had. ( 2 Kings 2) - His successor was one who had served him and came to resemble him in many ways, parting the waters of the Jordan as he had the Red Sea. (Josh. 3)

Was taken away in the Transjordan. (2 Kings 2:9-11) - Died in the Transjordan. (Deut. 34:5)

Mysteriously translated  (2 Kings 9-18) - Died mysteriously and buried in a valley, but his burial place was unknown. (Deut. 34:6).

The point of these similarities was that the Angel wanted Elijah to be like Moses; to pray for the peoples’ salvation, to return to the people and lead them and teach them. Moses had begged for God’s mercy for His people; but Elijah was so full of self-justification that he prayed against Israel. And so with us, we are potentially led into situations where we are to discern the similarities between us and Bible characters; we are set up with opportunities to respond in a way that reflects how we have learnt the lessons from them. The way the Lord Jesus perceived this in His wilderness temptations is a great example.

When the Lord passed by, there was a whirlwind which broke “in pieces the rocks before the Lord” (1 Kings 19:11). Yet it was Elijah who described himself as the one who stood before the Lord- and even prided himself on this (1 Kings 17:1). He was the rock being broken in pieces by the display of God’s glory. And insofar as we too meditate upon the glory of His character, the attributes outlined in, e.g., Ex. 34:4-6, we likewise will be broken men and women. The “earthquake” is the same word found in Ez. 3:12,13 about a theophany / passing of the cherubim chariot. That whole display of God’s physical glory was intended to stop Elijah just repeating his prepared statement [he says the same thing 3 times]. Grasping the wonder of who God really and essentially is can and must shake us from the mediocrity of entrenched positions, of forms of expressing and understanding our faith which are mere set formulas... See on 1 Kings 21:29.

1 Kings 19:12 After the earthquake a fire passed; but Yahweh was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice-

God Almighty spoke to the man Elijah in a still [Heb. whispering] small [s.w. "thin" Lev. 13:30; "beaten small" Lev. 16:12; "dwarf" Lev. 21:20] voice. The awesome God of Sinai spoke in the whispering voice of a dwarf, which compared to Elijah’s loud voice. This is not only an essay in the humility of God. It is an essay in how God so earnestly seeks to persuade His children that He works in the small, humble way. And this is contrasted with the loud, booming voice and personality of Elijah. And it isn’t what God wants. Here there is a lesson for any loud mouthed, self-confident, razzamatazz way of presenting the Gospel; it just isn’t to be done. For this is not how God works.

The word was and is God. Dt. 4:12 [Heb.] says that Israel heard God's voice and saw no similitude save a voice. To hear the word is to in that sense see God; for the word was and is God. There are other connections between seeing God and hearing His word in Ex. 20:21 and 1 Kings 19:12-14. Observe the parallelism in 2 Chron. 20:20: "Believe in the Lord your God, so shall ye be established; believe his prophets, so shall ye prosper". Our attitude to God is our attitude to His word. Because the word is so pure, therefore we love it (Ps. 119:140). John Carter rightly observed: "Upon our understanding of what the Bible is, our attitude to it will be determined".

1 Kings 19:13 It was so, when Elijah heard it, that he wrapped his face in his mantle, and went out, and stood in the entrance of the cave. Behold, a voice came to him, and said, Why are you still here, Elijah?-

"Still here" suggests Elijah should have repented of his pride, and realized that he was not like Moses, and should not be standing in "the cave" where Moses had stood. But Elijah insisted on still standing before Yahweh in his won strength. He wrapped his face [s.w. “before” the Lord] in his mantle and “stood” [s.w. ‘stand’ before the Lord] in the cave mouth before the Angel. In Hebrew, the words for ‘face’ and ‘before’ are the same. Too ashamed to really stand before the Lord, Elijah therefore wrapped his face. Earlier, he had been so keen to use this phrase of himself (1 Kings 17:1; 18:15); he had prided himself on the fact that he stood before the Lord. But now he hid his face, a common idiom often used by God for withholding fellowship. The fact we too are God’s covenant people can initially be a source of pride to us as we do our theological gladiatorship with others. But the implications are so far deeper; and through Angelic work in our lives, we too are brought to see this.

The word for “mantle” is translated “glory” in Zech. 11:3; Elijah wrapped his presence in his own glory, rather than face up to the implications of God’s glory. A desire for our own glory prevents us perceiving God’s glory. Perhaps Elijah was being pseudo-humble, misquoting to himself a Biblical precedent in all this, namely that the cherubim wrapped their faces (Is. 6:2). In this case. Elijah was doing a false impersonation of the cherubim, manifesting himself before God’s manifestation of Himself. Only at the very end does Elijah cast away his mantle (2 Kings 2:13), his human strength, allowing himself to merge with God’s glory. He should have cast away his mantle earlier, when he stood before the still small voice on Horeb.

The question “Why are you still here, Elijah?” may imply that Elijah should have allowed himself to be carried away by the cherubim, he should have surrendered himself to the progress of God’s glory, rather than so obsessively insist upon his own personal rightness and the wrongness of others. And this was why God’s ultimate response to Elijah’s attitude on Horeb was to dismiss him from his prophetic ministry and instate Elisha as his successor (1 Kings 19:16). Elijah seems to have finally learnt his lesson, for he calls Elisha to the ministry by ‘passing by’ Elisha as in a theophany, taking off his mantle and throwing it upon Elisha (1 Kings 19:19). He realized that he had hidden behind that mantle, using it to resist participating in the selfless association with God’s glory [rather than his own] to which he was called. But he got there in the end; hence the enormous significance of Elijah giving up his mantle when he finally ascends to Heaven in the cherubim chariot (2 Kings 2:13).

The question implies that it was wrong for Elijah to have been still in the cave of Moses on Horeb / Sinai. He ought to have realized he was not Moses now, his pride had precluded it. It seems from 1 Kings 19:8 that he himself chose to go there; dwelling in a cleft / cave of the rock is reminiscent of Moses in Sinai in Ex. 34. But Moses was praying for Israel, whereas Elijah was interceding against them, Paul tells us (Ron. 11:2,3). Could it even be that Elijah went down there to Sinai with the idea of somehow asking that a new Israel be formed out of him, as God had offered Moses? Whether this be so or not, the clear implication is that  God was not pleased with what Elijah was doing there. When asked what he was doing, he just repeats verbatim his prayer of intercession against Israel. So on one hand, he shouldn't have been praying that prayer. On the other, he was heard- for God's response is to tell him to anoint Jehu, Hazael and Elisha to destroy apostate Israel, even though He would preserve the 7,000 remnant. So again we see the same theme with Elijah- his undoubted faith in prayer is recognized; he prays for judgment on Israel in a way that is not altogether wrong, and yet sadly differs from the higher spirit of grace which there is in Christ.

1 Kings 19:14 He said, I have been very zealous for Yahweh, the God of Armies; for the children of Israel have forsaken Your covenant, thrown down your altars and slain Your prophets with the sword. I, even I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away-

He laments that Israel had “thrown down” Yahweh’s altars, perhaps pointing the contrast with the way he threw himself down in prayer to Yahweh. The same word is used in Ex. 23:24 about throwing down pagan altars. Elijah was saying that they treated Yahweh’s altars as if they were pagan. But is there any evidence they ever rejected Yahweh like this? Is not Elijah imputing motives to them? Derelict altars of Yahweh- the “high places” which they were repeatedly criticized for- Elijah interpreted as thrown down. To throw them down was a good thing if done from the right motives. But Elijah was in a mindset of seeing and imagining the very worst of his brethren.

The triumph on Carmel involved making an offering on an altar of Yahweh which was in one of the “high places” (1 Kings 18:30)- whereas Israel were repeatedly criticized for offering on these “high places” and not in Jerusalem. Elijah even criticizes Israel for throwing down these “high places” altars of Yahweh (1 Kings 19:10,14). Surely Elijah knew that the use of the high places was not what Yahweh ideally wanted; and yet he was driven to use a high place in this way. And with us, God will work through circumstances to remove from us the crutches of mere religion, to challenge the essence of our faith and relationship with Him. The way Ezekiel had to eat unclean food and defile himself is another such example.

1 Kings 19:15 Yahweh said to him, Go, return on your way to the wilderness of Damascus. When you arrive, you shall anoint Hazael to be king over Syria-

God was indeed going to judge Israel, but not by such a judgmental, angry, bitter person like Elijah. And even now, Elijah doesn't actually do what he is told; he doesn't anoint Jehu nor Hazael to destroy Israel (2 Kings 9:3). It's hard to decide whether this was disobedience or rather an awkward realization that he had been praying with too harsh a spirit for something that would have been best left to God. It's such a warning. It is interesting to compare Elijah's attitude with how Elisha weeps tears over Hazael, knowing how much damage he is going to do to Israel in response to Elijah's prayer (2 Kings 8:12).

1 Kings 19:16 You shall anoint Jehu the son of Nimshi to be king over Israel; and you shall anoint Elisha the son of Shaphat of Abel Meholah to be prophet in your place-

Remember that Elijah considered that he alone was faithful in Israel. If he knew Elisha or Shaphat (and the immediate response of :19 suggests he did), he would likely have wanted to protest 'But he's not sincere, his dad's not a genuine believer, it's all just words with him!', or something similar. But he was being taught that those whom he had written off spiritually, such as Obadiah and the Gentile widow, were in fact just as much God's children as he was. We note that Elijah is not recorded as anointing any of these men.

1 Kings 19:17 It shall happen, that he who escapes from the sword of Hazael, Jehu will kill; and he who escapes from the sword of Jehu, Elisha will kill-

This was largely a prophesy of potentials. There is no record that Elijah anointed Hazael nor Jehu; nor that Elisha killed anyone. It was a potential scenario, perhaps precluded from the start by Elijah's refusal to be obedient to the command to anoint Hazael and Jehu. Perhaps he finally realized that he had been far too judgmental, and didn't want more judgment to flow. And he recognized his unworthiness and failure in his ministry by anointing Elisha to replace him.

1 Kings 19:18 Yet will I leave seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed to Baal, and every mouth which has not kissed him-

Elijah, as many an isolated preacher, felt that he alone was faithful. Yet he was reminded that Yahweh had left Himself 7,000 that had not bowed the knee to Baal. It is easy to assume that this means that those 7,000 were out there in Israel but unknown to Elijah. However it is possible to read the Hebrew text as meaning ‘I have marked off 7,000 potentially, now Elijah, stop moaning, go out there and find them and convert them’. This would be why Elijah prayed that the people would see that God had already turned their heart back (1 Kings 18:37)- He had potentially enabled their conversion. Something similar may be hinted at in Jn. 1:7, where we read that all of Israel could have believed due to the work of John. It was potentially possible.

The Hebrew for “left” can imply that God had preserved potentially the 7,000- or, that there simply were 7,000 faithful right then in Israel. Yet Elijah clearly discounted them. The more God sought to teach Elijah that he really was not alone, that his view of others was far too dismissive, the more Elijah became almost bitter with God. The conversion of Israel on Carmel turned out, I suggest, a surprise for Elijah. He wasn’t expecting them to start chanting “El is Yah”, “The Lord, He is the God”. They were chanting his name- Elijah. But he turns and runs to Jezreel, and then goes out into the desert and becomes suicidal. Effectively he preferred the life of the lonely spiritual hero, with the people in apostasy; and there are many such examples of brethren who prefer a life of self-imposed exile because of the supposed errors of God’s people- no matter what good there is amongst their brethren. And actually, deny it as we may, we all have an element of this deep within us.

There is such a thing as feeling lonely when we needn’t. Elijah is an example of this; he felt that he was “left alone” faithful in Israel- even though there were another 7,000 who had not bowed the knee to Baal (Rom. 11:3). The Hebrew in 1 Kings is hard to translate. It could mean that God reserved 7,000 of Elijah’s brothers and sisters who potentially would not bow the knee to Baal. Yet Elijah didn’t want to see the potential of his brethren. He set himself in a league above them, like the Psalmist, saying in his haste that all men are liars (Ps. 116:11).

The one hundred prophets of 1 Kings 18:4 were presumably part of the 7,000 who had not bowed the knee to Baal. And maybe they weren’t that strong- they are set up as representative of those who will only be saved by grace, not their works (Rom. 11:4-6). But, by implication, Elijah, for all his love of Israel, did not look upon them through the eyes of grace. Elijah insisted that he alone was “left”; yet God says that He has “left” Himself the 7,000 (1 Kings 19:18). The preservation of the people of God, or ‘the truth’, can be done, and is done, by God Himself; yet the likes of Elijah consider that it is they who ‘preserve the truth’. Again, Elijah had to learn that we are all saved by grace. God will leave for and to Himself His people, without requiring the help of man. Elijah struggled with this issue of accepting others and not thinking he was the only one who could do the job right up to the end of his ministry; for he ascends to Heaven clutching his mantle, the sign of his prophetic ministry. It seems to me that he took it with him because he felt that not even Elisha was really fit to do the job and take his place; but perhaps in what were possibly the last seconds of his mortal life, he learnt his lesson and let go of it, allowing it to fall to the earth to let another man take it up.

Some manuscripts and LXX say that Elijah was leaving 7000 who had not bowed the knee to Baal, which would imply that his ministry was being ended because he had not ministered to them. He had considered them apostate and himself as the only true Yahweh worshipper left in the land. This is a powerful warning to the tendency toward spiritual elitism which seems such a common human temptation.

1 Kings 19:19 So he departed to there, and found Elisha the son of Shaphat, who was ploughing, with twelve yoke of oxen before him, and he with the twelfth: and Elijah passed over to him, and threw his mantle on him-

God’s rejection of Elijah as prophet was because he didn’t recognize his brethren. See on :13. Perhaps the 12 yoke was to keep alive the prophetic hope that Judah and Israel would be united in repentance toward the prophetic message. Elijah had built an altar of 12 stones and offered an acceptable sin offering upon it, speaking of the same prophetic intention. Elijah apparently didn't anoint Hazael and Jehu as commanded; but he did give his ministry over to Elisha to replace him. I take that as humility from him, in the very end, although too late for God to continue to use him in ministry as initially intended.

However, "twelve yoke of oxen" could refer to an area of land known as a twelve yoke, or to 12 parcels of land.

1 Kings 19:20 He left the oxen, and ran after Elijah-

Possibly implying that Elijah walked on immediately, as a test as to whether Elisha would respond immediately. Immediate response, "yes straight away", is what God so looks for. We see it in the call of the disciples.

And said, Let me please kiss my father and my mother, and then I will follow you. He said to him, Go back again; for what have I done to you?-

See on :16. The Lord Jesus makes an allusion here when He says that if anyone wants to follow Him but firstly must go home, then such a person is unworthy of Him (Lk. 9:61,62). He shows by this that He expects more of us than Elijah did; He is a more demanding Lord than Elijah, precisely because He is the more gracious. Elijah allowed him to return home first; "for what have I done to you?" is hard to understand, but it seems to mean to the effect that 'I am not myself being unreasonable; this call is not of me, I have not done this to you, but God has by calling you'. There could be there a possible hint of bitterness at his replacement by Elisha; see on :16. There is no record that Elijah ever anointed Elisha as he was commanded to.

1 Kings 19:21 He returned from following him, and took the yoke of oxen, killed them and boiled their flesh with the instruments of the oxen, and gave to the people and they ate. Then he arose, and went after Elijah, and served him-

We have here an example of servant leadership. He had been given Elijah's mantle already (:19) and presumably Elijah had explained to him the Lord's word about transferring the ministry to Elisha. But Elisha begins by serving Elijah (2 Kings 3:11 implies in quite a menial way). His destruction of so many oxen and their yoke was really burning all his bridges to return home. His family may well have seen it as an unnecessary waste, as that may have represented a large part of their family wealth.

1 Kings Chapter 20

1 Kings 20:1 Ben Hadad the king of Syria gathered all his army together; and there were thirty-two kings with him, and horses and chariots: and he went up and besieged Samaria, and fought against it-

Josephus and the LXX have chapters 20 and 21 the opposite way around. This could be the same Benhadad who 14 years ago had made a treaty with Asa of Judah and had attacked the ten tribes during Baasha's rule. The 32 kings would have been the rulers of the provinces and areas which were then under the control of Benhadad.

1 Kings 20:2 He sent messengers to Ahab king of Israel into the city, and said to him, Thus says Ben Hadad-

An example of the Hebrew word malak meaning simply "messengers". It is elsewhere translated "messenger", such as here. The word can therefore be used about human beings, who can sin. But the Angels as in the Divine beings cannot sin as they all have God's nature, and there is no rebellion or division in Heaven.

1 Kings 20:3 ‘Your silver and your gold is mine. Your wives also and your children, even the best, are mine’-

This was an intentional humiliation of Ahab. To agree to give a man your wealth, wives and children was to admit total failure as a man to protect yourself. Many men would have preferred to die fighting rather than agree. The strange sequence of events here can too easily be read as a reflection of Ahab's weak character. But in fact they were designed to humble him For humility is of such value to God, and the whole story of the weak Ahab ends up with him doing the most amazing, bravest thing which most men who have ever lived would have flinched at and failed: Ahab the weak became strong in that he repented, and will, it seems, be saved eternally because of it. That is the end product in view, and must be remembered as we read this chapter with the strange turns of fortune and event.

1 Kings 20:4 The king of Israel answered, It is according to your saying, my lord, O king. I am yours, and all that I have-

As noted on :3, this was an incredible reflection of weakness of character. Ahab had not met Benhadad in the field in battle, and now he was surrounded, he refuses to accept what is surely an invitation to come out and fight. For that is what that kind of insulting demand was intended to elicit. But Ahab just agrees.

1 Kings 20:5 The messengers came again and said, Ben Hadad says, ‘I sent indeed to you, saying, You shall deliver me your silver, and your gold, and your wives, and your children-

Benhadad wanted to provoke Ahab to come out and fight. He did this by making an insulting demand, which in Semitic terms was not intended to be taken literally. But Ahab does take it literally, and he agrees.

1 Kings 20:6 but I will send my servants to you tomorrow about this time, and they shall search your house, and the houses of your servants; and it shall be, that whatever is pleasant in your eyes, they shall put it in their hand, and take it away'-

As noted on :3, the whole purpose of this situation was to humble Ahab and force him to grow up and take personal responsibility. The demand to come out and fight is now made again, seeing Ahab had taken literally the insulting demand of :4 and had agreed to it. So now an even more insulting demand is made. Ahab would take any humiliation rather than fighting and trusting in God to save him. So he had to be humbled yet more.

1 Kings 20:7 Then the king of Israel called all the elders of the land and said, Please notice how this man seeks mischief; for he sent to me for my wives, my children, my silver, my gold; and I didn’t deny him-

Benhadad "sought mischief" by demanding his wealth and family. Ahab makes out that this was a demand he could agree to for the sake of avoiding war. But clearly the insulting demand to take absolutely everything from everybody was tantamount to declaring an invasion of the city.

1 Kings 20:8 All the elders and all the people said to him, Don’t listen, neither consent-

"Listen and consent" is a phrase used of how Israel were to listen and consent to God, and they would be punished for not doing so (Lev. 26:21; Dt. 13:8; Is. 1:19; 28:12; 30:9 etc.). The phrase must have got Ahab thinking. And that was the intention of these events.

1 Kings 20:9 Therefore he said to the messengers of Ben Hadad, Tell my lord the king, ‘All that you sent for to your servant at the first I will do; but this thing I cannot do’. The messengers departed, and delivered the message-

The second demand was tantamount to declaring an invasion and sacking of the city. There was no way Ahab could agree. As explained on :3, the whole series of events was to bring him to humility and taking personal responsibility, and it did finally work- for he repented at the end of his life.

1 Kings 20:10 Ben Hadad sent to him and said, The gods do so to me, and more also, if the dust of Samaria shall suffice for handfuls for all the people who follow me-

The second demand was indeed tantamount to saying that the city was going to be sacked, and even the dust of it taken away.

1 Kings 20:11 The king of Israel answered, Tell him, ‘Don’t let him who puts on his armour brag like he who takes it off’-

LXX "let not the humpbacked boast as he that is upright". This was a statement of confidence, and we wonder where Ahab got that confidence from, seeing he had just recently agreed to the humiliating demand to surrender his wives, children and wealth. He had no military strength, so we wonder whether, as intended, he was beginning to have a personal faith in Yahweh. For He alone would help in this situation.

1 Kings 20:12 It happened, when Ben Hadad heard this message, as he was drinking, he and the kings, in the pavilions, that he said to his servants, Prepare to attack! They prepared to attack the city-

Benhadad comes over as an overconfident drunkard, leading from the rear. Sometimes God apparently supports the lesser of two sinners because He wishes to judge pride and fleshly confidence more than anything else. But that doesn't thereby justify the lesser sinner, Ahab in this case.

1 Kings 20:13 Behold, a prophet came near to Ahab king of Israel and said-

The prophet is not named. If indeed 1 Kings 21 is before this incident (see on :1), it surely would have been noted if it were Elijah. Perhaps the point is that Elijah was so wrong to arrogantly claim that he was the only prophet of Yahweh left. There were others, such as this anonymous prophet, and the schools of the prophets mentioned in 2 Kings. Not to mention the 100 prophets Obadiah had hidden in a cave.

Thus says Yahweh, ‘Have you seen all this great multitude? Behold, I will deliver it into your hand this day; and you shall know that I am Yahweh’-

As explained on :3, the intention of this series of events was to bring Ahab to Yahweh. And finally, it worked. It is a parade example of how we should never give up with those who apparently have no interest in the ways of God. The victory was given by God's grace and not because of Ahab's faith or spirituality. And thereby he came to "know Yahweh", for the essence of Yahweh is His grace in giving undeserved favour. For Ahab was indeed ripe for judgment, and Benhadad appeared the logical person to use for that.

1 Kings 20:14 Ahab said, By whom? He said, Thus says Yahweh, ‘By the young men of the princes of the provinces’. Then he said, Who shall begin the battle? He answered, You-

Part of the purpose of these events was to bring Ahab to greater personal responsibility, rather than living the life of an overgrown pampered adolescent, born into wealth and rulership, with a dominant wife who arranged everything for him. And so he was told that he was to lead off the battle; he who had no military experience and was clearly a coward by nature. The object of all this was that Ahab would "know Yahweh" (:13). So God was showing what He was like in that the victory was to be won by "young men" from the provinces, and by a cowardly king with no military experience.

1 Kings 20:15 Then he mustered the young men of the princes of the provinces, and they were two hundred and thirty-two. After them, he mustered all the people, even all the children of Israel, being seven thousand-

"Thousand" may not mean a literal 1000, but rather a division or regiment. But they were not used in the initial conflict. Just 232 young men were the vanguard of the Israelite attack. And they were followed by the army (:19), who only played a role in pursuing the much larger Syrian army once the 232 young men had won the battle and turned them to flight. As explained on :14, the purpose of this was that Ahab would "know Yahweh", the God who saves by the weak, the young, the inexperienced; because grace and humility are foremost in the things He values, and which comprise His Name.

1 Kings 20:16 They went out at noon. But Ben Hadad was drinking himself drunk in the pavilions, he and the kings, the thirty-two kings who helped him-

Battles were usually won by lightning strikes at night or dawn. To attack at noon continues the theme discussed on :15; God was granting this victory by grace, when everything was very weak on the Israelite side, in secular terms. As it happened, noon was no bad time to attack in this case because Benhadad and all the leaders of the Syrian army were drunk.

1 Kings 20:17 The young men of the princes of the provinces went out first; and Ben Hadad sent out, and they told him, saying, Men are coming out from Samaria-

LXX "sons of the leaders". We get the impression that the leaders of the Syrian army were too drunk and distant to really be leaders, and the leaders of Israel feared to fight themselves, with Ahab their king a weak minded coward.

1 Kings 20:18 He said, If they have come out for peace, take them alive; or if they have come out for war, take them alive-

The arrogance of Benhadad is clear. He assumed that his soldiers could easily capture alive 232 young men. As noted on :12, sometimes God apparently supports the lesser of two sinners because He wishes to judge pride and fleshly confidence more than anything else.

1 Kings 20:19 So these went out of the city, the young men of the princes of the provinces, and the army which followed them-

As explained on :15, it was the 232 young men who won the battle. The army which followed them played no role in the victory apart from to chase the fleeing Syrians. The idea was that cowardly Ahab, a king with no military experience, should march at the front of those young men. For he was to 'lead forth' the battle (see on :14). There is no record that he did as he was asked; he only "went out" after the young men had won the battle (:21).

1 Kings 20:20 They each killed his opponent. The Syrians fled, and Israel pursued them. Ben Hadad the king of Syria escaped on a horse with horsemen-

As with the duel between David and Goliath, the idea may have been that these young men fought the Syrian young men, as also seen in 2 Sam. 2:14. Each of those young Israelites killed the man they were given to fight.

1 Kings 20:21 The king of Israel went out, and struck the horses and chariots, and killed the Syrians with a great slaughter-

Ahab was to 'lead forth' the battle (see on :14), at the head of the 232 young men. But it seems he didn't; he only "went out" once the battle had been won, to lead the chase. The point of it all was to make him realize that he, the coward, had been given a great victory and had gone down as a king who won a battle against great odds. This was all by the grace of the Yahweh whom he had so resisted. And so through this grace he came to "know Yahweh" (:13). They destroyed very many horses and chariots (:25). Ahab loved horses, for he personally had gone around Israel during the drought seeking for fodder for them. For him, the worst thing about the drought was the damage done to his horses. So we wonder why the horses were "struck" or destroyed (:25). Was it not because he knew that the king of Israel should not have horses and chariots, and he wished to follow Joshua's example in destroying them when he captured them (Josh. 11:6)? We see the beginnings of faith and response, as intended.

1 Kings 20:22 The prophet came near to the king of Israel and said to him, Go, strengthen yourself, and mark, and see what you do; for at the return of the year the king of Syria will come up against you-

For "the prophet", see on :13. The repeat of the situation was because as discussed on :3, these events were carefully designed to develop Ahab's faith, humility and sense of personal responsibility. "See what you do" is a phrase often used about seeing what God does or works (Ex. 6:1; 14:31; Num. 14:22; Dt. 4:3; 11:7 and often). Perhaps he was to take the hint that he would only win again if he recognized that God would work through him. Ahab was also being led to self awareness, personal responsibility and forward planning, rather than just leaving it all to Jezebel and living his life as he pleased.

1 Kings 20:23 The servants of the king of Syria said to him, Their god is a god of the hills; therefore they were stronger than we. But let us fight against them in the plain, and surely we shall be stronger than they-

Their impression was perhaps because of Israel's tendency to worship Yahweh on the "high places", mixing idolatry with Yahweh worship. Again, as noted on :12, there are times when God may apparently give blessing or victory to one side in a conflict because the other side is so blasphemous. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the winning side, Ahab in this case, are right before Him. He even considered sparing Israel from destruction in the desert because of what the nations would say about Him and His people.

1 Kings 20:24 Do this thing: take the kings away, every man out of his place, and put captains in their place-

This was a tacit recognition that no army can achieve victory if it is led by political rather than military leaders, who get drunk at the rear during a battle.

1 Kings 20:25 Muster an army, like the army that you have lost, horse for horse, and chariot for chariot. We will fight against them in the plain, and surely we will be stronger than them. He listened to their voice, and did so-

We see here the great extent of the first Israelite victory, involving destroying many horses and chariots. See on :21 for the significance of this.

1 Kings 20:26 It happened at the return of the year, that Ben Hadad mustered the Syrians, and went up to Aphek, to fight against Israel-

"Aphek" means 'strength', and the Syrians were determined to "be stronger than them" (:25), and Ahab had been told to make himself strong for this battle (:22). It was all about strength, and the purpose of the battle was to make Ahab trust in God's strength; for he was clearly weaker than Benhadad.

1 Kings 20:27 The children of Israel were mustered and were provisioned, and went against them. The children of Israel encamped before them like two little flocks of young goats; but the Syrians filled the country-

The Israelites seemed doomed to destruction. They were outnumbered, and are described as goats and not sheep; for they were condemned before God. So again, the lesson was to be of salvation by grace, when they didn't deserve it; so as to teach Ahab to "know Yahweh" (:28), to see what He was really like, and His grace is His lead characteristic.

1 Kings 20:28 A man of God came near and spoke to the king of Israel and said, Thus says Yahweh, ‘Because the Syrians have said, Yahweh is a god of the hills, but He is not a god of the valleys; therefore I will deliver all this great multitude into your hand, and you shall know that I am Yahweh’-

This "man of God" would appear to be a different one from the prophet who previously came to Ahab. Again the point is being made that Elijah was so wrong in assuming he was the only true prophet of Yahweh. There were others, and he was wrong to consider each of them to be astray on some point or other, and he alone right before Yahweh. The phrase "I will deliver this multitude into your hand" is a quotation from Jud. 4:7, where again a spiritually weak Israel, led by a woman [perceived as weak] were given victory over Sisera. And if Ahab had thought about it, he would have noticed that this victory was at the river Kishon, the place where Elijah had slain his prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18:40).

Although unrecorded, it is an inference of :42 that at this time the prophet of Yahweh had told Ahab to destroy Benhadad.

1 Kings 20:29 They encamped opposite one another seven days. So it was, that in the seventh day the battle was joined; and the children of Israel killed one hundred thousand footmen of the Syrians in one day-

"Thousand" often doesn't mean 1000, but refers instead to regiments or military divisions. The seven day period would have been a time for Ahab to consider how weak Israel were, as nothing before the hugely superior forces of Syria (:27). The camping opposite each other was to recall the situation with David and Goliath. Ahab was being humbled, and made to trust in God's strength (see on :3).

1 Kings 20:30 But the rest fled to Aphek, into the city; and the wall fell on twenty-seven thousand men who were left. Ben Hadad fled, and came into the city, into an inner room-

Again, "thousand" may refer to some kind of military division. The battles of Israel often feature some supernatural element behind their total victory, and that was intended to teach them that the victory was of God's grace and not solely their own bravery, tactics or strength. And surely in this case, this again was intended as part of Ahab's spiritual education.

There is a connection between Benhadad going into an inner room to hide when Ahab was given victory against him (1 Kings 20:30), and the false prophet Zedekiah going into an inner room to hide when Ahab was defeated (1 Kings 22:25). The same Hebrew words are used, and the connection becomes more apparent if we accept that 1 Kings 20 and 21 should be placed the other way around, as in LXX. This would mean that the hiding of Benhadad is recorded just a short time before that of Zedekiah. The connection would be to show that the false prophets were in fact bracketed together by God with Israel's enemies; whereas they had claimed that they were nationalists on Israel's side, proclaiming Israel's certain victory against their enemies. God sees not as man sees, and the real spiritual realities are often the very opposite of what appears. See on :31.

1 Kings 20:31 His servants said to him-

The very men who had advised and urged Benhadad to go into this battle (:23). The situation repeats in the context of Israel when the false prophet Zedekiah predicts Israel's victory and is proven wrong (1 Kings 22:25).

See now, we have heard that the kings of the house of Israel are merciful kings. Please let us put sackcloth on our bodies, and ropes on our heads, and go out to the king of Israel. Maybe he will save your life-

None of the kings of Israel are recorded as being particularly spiritual. But they apparently had a reputation for being merciful. Something of God's grace had rubbed off upon them.

1 Kings 20:32 So they put sackcloth on their bodies and ropes on their heads, and came to the king of Israel, and said, Your servant Ben Hadad says, ‘Please let me live’. He said, Is he still alive? He is my brother-

Ahab had still not been humbled as intended; see on :3. For suddenly (and probably unexpectedly) being placed in such a position of power and glory, he acts in pride. The fawning of a powerful king before him led him to play God, assuming he could give life to those whom God had commanded to be slain. Although unrecorded, it is an inference of :42 that the prophet of Yahweh had told Ahab to destroy Benhadad. And now Ahab repeats the sin of Saul concerning Amalek, and allows him to live.

1 Kings 20:33 Now the men observed diligently, and hurried to take this phrase; and they said, Your brother Ben Hadad. Then he said, Go, bring him. Then Ben Hadad came out to him; and he caused him to come up into the chariot-

This was indeed merciful and gracious in a secular sense, but it was not the grace of God. We must note that difference, between grace in a secular sense and in a Divine sense. Ahab was condemned for not destroying Benhadad.

1 Kings 20:34 Ben Hadad said to him, The cities which my father took from your father I will restore-

If these are the cities of 1 Kings 15:20, then they were taken from Baasha, who was not any relative of Ahab. Perhaps Benhadad uses the term "father" as meaning a previous king.

You shall make streets for yourself in Damascus, as my father made in Samaria. I, said Ahab, will let you go with this covenant. So he made a covenant with him, and let him go-

These streets would likely have been dedicated to the gods of Syria, whom the Israelites worshipped. Ahab agrees to the offer. But what names, then, was he to give the streets of Damascus? They were to be named after the gods of Israel. If Ahab named them after the gods Israel worshipped, then the names wouldn't have been changed at all. For Israel worshipped the Syrian gods. So Ahab was forced to assume that he would have to name the streets of Samaria after Yahweh. Israel only had one true God- Yahweh. So as "streets" in the plural were to be named after Israel's gods- what were they to be called, seeing Israel had only one national Deity? These practical questions were designed to bring Ahab to acceptance of Yahweh as Israel's only God.

1 Kings 20:35 A certain man of the sons of the prophets said to his fellow by the word of Yahweh, Please strike me! The man refused to strike him-

Again the point is made that Elijah was so wrong in thinking that he was the only prophet of Yahweh. The record shows how that during Elijah’s lifetime there were other prophets of Yahweh active in His service (1 Kings 20:13,35). And yet the lesson is that God still works through the conceited, the spiritually superior, those who despise their brethren. God didn’t give up on Elijah because he was like this, and neither should we give up in our relationship with such brethren.

1 Kings 20:36 Then he said to him, Because you have not obeyed the voice of Yahweh, behold, as soon as you are departed from me, a lion shall kill you. As soon as he was departed from him, a lion found him, and killed him-

The message was that God's word must be obeyed, even if it seems utterly counter instinctive to us. We are not to assume that we know better. It is all leading up to how Ahab is to be condemned for refusing to slay Benhadad. The use of a lion to kill him connects with how the prophet of Judah in 1 Kings 13 was slain by a lion for not being strictly obedient to God's word not to eat or return by the way he had come.

1 Kings 20:37 Then he found another man, and said, Please strike me. The man struck him, smiting and wounding him-

Maybe we are intended to infer that the slaying of the first prophet by a lion encouraged this prophet to zealously obey what he was commanded. But Ahab surely knew the story of 1 Kings 13. A man had been slain by a lion for lack of careful obedience to God's word. He should have known from this that he must be carefully obedient.

1 Kings 20:38 So the prophet departed, and waited for the king by the way-

He was the equivalent of the lion meeting the first prophet by the way. The prophetic word of future death was as powerful as death.

And disguised himself with his headband over his eyes-

The idea is of a bandage over his eyes (LXX), which also served to hide his face from Ahab, who apparently would have otherwise recognized him; see on :41.

1 Kings 20:39 As the king passed by, he cried to the king; and he said, Your servant went out into the midst of the battle; and behold, a man turned aside, and brought a man to me and said, ‘Guard this man! If by any means he be missing, then your life shall be for his life, or else you shall pay a talent of silver’-

The implication is that Ahab had been told beforehand that he must destroy Ahab, or else lose his life. Although see on :42 for another possibility. We note in this story that the man had to either give his life, or pay a talent of silver. Possibly there is here the hint that Ahab need not die for what he had done, but could somehow be redeemed from it- by repentance. But we simply learn that he went home depressed because of his judgment (:43), with no thought as to repentance.

1 Kings 20:40 As your servant was busy here and there, he was gone. The king of Israel said to him, So your judgment shall be; you yourself have decided it-

Ahab's sin was in fact also his own judgment. For he was to meet his death fighting the Syrians in 1 Kings 22. If he had slain Benhadad, this situation would not have occurred. It is a common theme that the wicked snare themselves, falling into their own pit, judged by their own words, rather than God specifically snaring them (e.g. Ps. 7:15; 9:15; 57:6; Prov. 26:27; 28:10; Ecc. 10:8). From their own mouth and words men will be judged (Mt. 12:37; Lk. 19:22 cp. 2 Sam. 1:16; 1 Kings 20:40). It could even be that the Lord cites the condemnatory words of the rejected uttered during their lifetimes and leaves these as their condemnation. Woe, therefore, to he or she who has said unrepentantly that they don’t want to be in the Kingdom if brother x or sister y are going to be there. “He that keepeth his mouth keepeth his life; but he that openeth wide his lips [in this life] shall have destruction” at judgment day (Prov. 13:3).

1 Kings 20:41 He hurried, and took the headband away from his eyes; and the king of Israel recognized that he was of the prophets-

This implies that the prophets were known to Ahab because they risked death at the hands of Jezebel by witnessing to him; as Elijah did. But Elijah obviously considered them all to be somehow insincere and fake, because he proudly considered himself the only prophet of Yahweh.

1 Kings 20:42 He said to him, Thus says Yahweh, ‘Because you have let go out of your hand the man whom I had devoted to destruction, therefore your life shall go for his life, and your people for his people’-

Ahab's sin was in fact his own judgment. For he was to meet his death fighting the Syrians in 1 Kings 22. If he had slain Benhadad, this situation would not have occurred.

Ahab was rebuked for not killing Benhadad, in obedience to God’s command (1 Kings 20:35,42). But it could be argued that Ahab is not recorded as ever having been told to do this. What he had been told was that Yahweh would deliver the Syrians into his hand (:28). Presumably, God expected Ahab to infer from this that he should kill Benhadad; and rebuked him for his lack of perception, just as Jesus rebuked the disciples after the resurrection. The New Testament also has examples of our being expected to deduce things which at first glance we might find somewhat demanding. 1 Cor. 14:21 rebukes the Corinthians for speaking to each other in languages which their brethren didn’t understand. Paul considered that they were immature in their understanding because they hadn’t perceived that Is. 28:11,12 states that it will be the Gentile non-believers who will speak to God’s people in a language they don’t understand.

1 Kings 20:43 The king of Israel went to his house sullen and angry, and came to Samaria-

See on :39. The character portrayal of Ahab is consistent, as we would expect from a Divinely inspired record. There is a clear connection with how he "came into his house sullen and angry" because Naboth would not sell him his vineyard (1 Kings 21:4). We get the impression of an overgrown spoilt child. He sulked over Naboth's vineyard because he wasn't obedient to God's word. And in 1 Kings 20:43 again Ahab "went to his house sullen and angry" because he was condemned for not having obeyed God's word. The LXX puts 1 Kings 20 and 21 the other way around. The experience with Naboth was intended to teach him obedience to God's word. He failed, so he "went to his house sullen and angry". He didn't learn from that lesson. And so he does the same again, when he fails to be obedient on an even more significant level.

1 Kings Chapter 21

1 Kings 21:1 It happened after these things, that Naboth the Jezreelite had a vineyard, which was in Jezreel, right next to the palace of Ahab king of Samaria-

Josephus and the LXX have chapters 20 and 21 the opposite way around. It was Ahab's incredibly selfish behaviour over the vineyard which led to the judgment at the hand of the Syrians described in 1 Kings 20.

1 Kings 21:2 Ahab spoke to Naboth saying, Give me your vineyard, that I may have it for a garden of herbs, because it is near to my house; and I will give you for it a better vineyard than it. Or, if it seems good to you, I will give you its worth in money-

"House" is LXX "threshingfloor". Ahab is acting exactly as Samuel predicted the kings of Israel would act, in taking away vineyards and inheritances from God's people (1 Sam. 8:14).  "Naboth" means 'fruitful' so he was identified with the fruitfulness of his vineyard. To take it from him was to take him away from who he was as a person. But Ahab didn't care for that. Ahab comes over as the spoilt child who never grew up. We recall how Ahab loved horses, for he personally had gone around Israel during the drought seeking for fodder for them. For him, the worst thing about the drought was the damage done to his horses. And this demand for a vineyard next to his own house seems to reflect the same characteristics. The Divinely inspired record presents his character in an absolutely consistent and realistic way, unheard of in contemporary national histories.

1 Kings 21:3 Naboth said to Ahab, May Yahweh forbid me, that I should give the inheritance of my fathers to you!-

Naboth was a worshipper of Yahweh, obedient to the relevant parts of the Mosaic law about inheritances. "The inheritance of my fathers" is clearly alluding to the law (Lev. 25:27,28; Num. 36:7,8). This yet again shows how wrong Elijah had been to insist that he was the only true worshipper of Yahweh left. He maybe knew Naboth, for he was told to go to Naboth as if he knew the place and man (:18). But Elijah judged him to be unfaithful to Yahweh, for this or that petty reason. The record brings before us several individuals who were faithful to Yahweh at this time, yet Elijah considered none of them genuine. And yet despite his arrogance and wrong sense of spiritual superiority, God still works through Elijah and seeks to bring him to the humility which is the acme of spiritual maturity.

1 Kings 21:4 Ahab came into his house-

Ahab returned to Samaria from his other home in Jezreel. It's clear the vineyard was in Jezreel not Samaria (2 Kings 9:16,26).

Sullen and angry because of the word which Naboth the Jezreelite had spoken to him; for he had said, I will not give you the inheritance of my fathers. He laid himself down on his bed, and turned away his face, and would eat no bread-

The character portrayal of Ahab is consistent, as we would expect from a Divinely inspired record. There is a clear connection with how he "came into his house sullen and angry" because Naboth would not sell him his vineyard (1 Kings 21:4). We get the impression of an overgrown spoilt child. He sulked over Naboth's vineyard because he wasn't obedient to God's word. And in 1 Kings 20:43 again Ahab "went to his house sullen and angry" because he was condemned for not having obeyed God's word. The LXX puts 1 Kings 20 and 21 the other way around. The experience with Naboth was intended to teach him obedience to God's word. He failed, so he "went to his house sullen and angry". He didn't learn from that lesson. And so he does the same again, when he fails to be obedient on an even more significant level.

1 Kings 21:5 But Jezebel his wife came to him and said to him, Why is your spirit so sad, that you eat no bread?-

Ahab comes over as pathetically weak and dominated by his wicked but far stronger wife. Away from her, he appears to have more potential for spirituality. The Divinely inspired record achieves perfect and credible characterization of the individuals.

1 Kings 21:6 He said to her, Because I spoke to Naboth the Jezreelite and said to him, ‘Give me your vineyard for money; or else, if it pleases you, I will give you another vineyard for it’. He answered, ‘I will not give you my vineyard’-

LXX adds "the inheritance of my fathers. Such argument from the law of Moses (see on :3) was of no value to Jezebel, who was a Gentile idolater.

1 Kings 21:7 Jezebel his wife said to him, Do you really now govern the kingdom of Israel? Arise, and eat bread, and let your heart be merry. I will give you the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite-

She could have phrased this another way. But the way she puts it, she seeks to put herself above God and to play God. For the whole argument in :3 and :6 LXX was that God had given specific inheritances to His people, and they were not to be sold or traded. But she claims to be able to give Naboth the vineyard. Perhaps too her emphasis is upon the way she had a plan to "give" Naboth the vineyard for free, without him even needing to pay for it. We are left with the question as to what Ahab ought to have done or said at this stage. He surely knew his wife was going to hatch a plan which was wrong. But he says nothing, and is happy to go along with inheriting the vineyard. Jezebel totally doesn't understand that being the king of Israel meant ruling only as representative of God, Israel's true king. She wrongly assumed that the leadership position meant power to have what you wanted.

1 Kings 21:8 So she wrote letters in Ahab’s name, and sealed them with his seal, and sent the letters to the elders and to the nobles who were in his city, who lived with Naboth-

Presumably at Jezreel, not Samaria. Ahab was deeply upset that he couldn't have the vineyard next to his holiday home in Jezreel; it wasn't even next to his palace in Samaria. That the "elders and nobles" went along with her evil plan shows their fear of her and their deep moral weakness.

1 Kings 21:9 She wrote in the letters saying, Proclaim a fast, and set Naboth on high among the people-

The wicked hypocrisy was that a fast was proclaimed because of the realization of sin (1 Sam. 7:6; Joel 2:12). Naboth was apparently held in high repute, and was to be given a prominent seat at the ceremony for repentance. Some evidence was to be given that things weren't going well in the town, and there needed to be repentance. Naboth was given a place of high honour and prominence because Jezebel knew that when a person in high public visibility is convicted of sin, especially sin which has made others suffer, there is an immediate upsurge of public anger against them. And this would allow Naboth to be killed without undue public protest.

1 Kings 21:10 Set two men, base fellows, before him, and let them testify against him saying, ‘You cursed God and the king!’ Then carry him out, and stone him to death-

To curse God's representative was seen as cursing God (1 Kings 21:10; Ex. 22:28). And so to curse "Yahweh's anointed" was seen as cursing Yahweh (2 Sam. 19:21) and worthy of death. The two witnesses were supposed to be enough to convict someone. In this case, the fact Naboth was known as a Yahweh worshipper and could prove it... was willingly ignored. It was to be a kangaroo court knowingly set up to prove a man guilty of death from the start.

1 Kings 21:11 The men of his city, even the elders and the nobles who lived in his city, did as Jezebel had sent to them, according as it was written in the letters which she had sent to them-

Their careful obedience to this woman rather than to God is an allusion to Dt. 16:18, where such elders were to "judge just judgment", and they did the very opposite.

1 Kings 21:12 They proclaimed a fast, and set Naboth on high among the people-

To "proclaim a fast" is a phrase used specifically for calling a fast and special meeting for repentance. The idea was that someone had sinned and everyone in town was suffering because of it. It is the term used in Is. 58:5 for how God was intensely angry with the proclamation of such fasts for sinful agendas.

1 Kings 21:13 The two men, the base fellows, came in and sat before him. The base fellows testified against him, even against Naboth, in the presence of the people saying, Naboth cursed God and the king! Then they carried him out of the city, and stoned him to death with stones-

There was a semblance of obedience to the Mosaic law, as there was in the condemnation and execution of the Lord Jesus. There were two witnesses (Dt. 17:6; 19:15); and stoning was indeed the punishment for blasphemy (Lev. 24:16), and was conducted outside the city according to the spirit of Lev. 24:14, just as the Lord Jesus died "outside the camp". Naboth's sons were also killed, so that there could be no possibility of any argument in future about the inheritance (2 Kings 9:26).

1 Kings 21:14 Then they sent to Jezebel saying, Naboth has been stoned, and is dead-

Ahab immediately and eagerly took possession of the vineyard, riding to Jezreel along with Jehu and Bidkar (2 Kings 9:25). We should not therefore think that he was merely manipulated by Jezebel, he was willing and eager himself.

1 Kings 21:15 It happened, when Jezebel heard that Naboth was stoned and was dead, that Jezebel said to Ahab, Arise, take possession of the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite, which he refused to give you for money; for Naboth is not alive, but dead-

The taking possession was apparently in the sense of permanently having the vineyard registered in his name. For he could have leased it from Naboth until the next Jubilee year. And possibly renewed the lease after that. But Ahab was so obsessive about what he wanted. He wanted the vineyard as his permanent possession. This was why Naboth had to be killed, along with his sons (2 Kings 9:26) so that they would not have any argument for inheriting it later. Ahab is reasoning in a very long term manner, forgetting his own mortality. He 'just loved the idea' not only of the vineyard, but of adding it to his inheritance. And so Naboth and his sons had to die, and the people and leaders of Jezreel led into major sin. And yet legally it is hard to see how he could have added it to his inheritance, unless he was some relative of Naboth. So all the drama was to obtain a piece of legal documentation that was always going to be questionable as to its validity. Therefore he did this evil "in vain" (:20 LXX).

1 Kings 21:16 It happened, when Ahab heard that Naboth was dead, that Ahab rose up to go down to the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite, to take possession of it-

Ahab "tore his clothes and put on sackcloth, in sorrow for what he had done" (1 Kings 21:16 LXX- omitted in the AV). See on :27. He repented and yet continued in his sin at the same time. This is psychologically credible. Men do this all the time. But in :27 it seems he did come to true repentance.

1 Kings 21:17 The word of Yahweh came to Elijah the Tishbite saying-

"The Tishbite" is perhaps added in accordance with the theme developed here. Naboth is repeatedly called the Jezreelite, and Ahab, we are reminded, was from Samaria (:18). Israel were to abide in the inheritances they had been given, and not do what Ahab had done, and covet those of others.

1 Kings 21:18 Arise, go down to meet Ahab king of Israel, who dwells in Samaria. Behold, he is in the vineyard of Naboth, where he has gone down to take possession of it-

The idea was that Ahab was from Samaria but had taken possession of property in Jezreel. "Go down" may mean Elijah was then in Carmel. Perhaps Elijah was being directed back to Gideon (Jud. 7:9), David (1 Sam. 23:4) and Moses, who were addressed by God with the same words (Dt. 9:12). He would have earlier seen Moses as Judaism does today, the unreachable acme of spirituality and closeness to God. But now he was being taught, as we are, that no Biblical character is a mere Sunday School figure; but rather our real practical inspiration. But as discussed on 1 Kings 19, Elijah was set up with the possibility of being like Moses, but ultimately failed to rise up to his humility.

1 Kings 21:19 You shall speak to him saying, ‘Thus says Yahweh, Have you killed and also taken possession?’-

The sin of taking possession (see on :15 for what it involved) is seen as separate to the murder. We note that Ahab is held as culpable for the murder. Even if Jezebel was likewise responsible. The guilt for sins like this never rests with just one person. Neither Ahab nor ourselves can wriggle out of responsibility by complaining we were manipulated into it. Otherwise human behaviour becomes of no real value before God, and man is reduced to a mere puppet of others and situations with no real individual personality and election in how we live life.

You shall speak to him saying, ‘Thus says Yahweh, In the place where dogs licked the blood of Naboth, dogs will lick your blood, even yours’-

According to 1 Kings 22:38 the dogs [LXX "the swine and the dogs"] licked Ahab's blood in the pool of Samaria, just outside the gate of Samaria; not in Jezreel. It could be argued that "the place" refers not to a geographical locality, but rather to the place where the garbage was thrown outside a city gate. The Lord uses 'Gehenna' to describe such a place as a figure for condemnation. The way 1 Kings 22:38 triumphs in the fulfilment of the prophecy suggests there was no perceived gap between the prediction and its fulfilment. But another possibility is that because of Ahab's repentance, the sentence was modified, just as that upon Adam was (for he didn't die in the day he sinned, although he did die). This reflects God's openness to human repentance in response to His stated judgments. In the gap between statement and fulfilment, there can be repentance and a change of outcomes. This is what gives intensity to our living in that gap. LXX adds to 1 Kings 21:19 "and the harlots shall wash in thy blood". 1 Kings 22:38 LXX says that this was fulfilled. Perhaps the idea is that they washed themselves in a spring in the rubbish dump where Ahab's blood as it were was eternally present.

1 Kings 21:20 Ahab said to Elijah, Have you found me, my enemy? He answered, I have found you, because you have sold yourself to do evil in the sight of Yahweh-

What appeared to be mere manipulation of a weak minded man by his wicked, dominant wife was in fact judged as a selling of himself to do evil. Weak mindedness was indeed Ahab's problem, but it did not thereby make him less culpable for what he actually did. Selling oneself is the language of prostitution. The implication is that Ahab was in covenant relationship with Yahweh, but had prostituted himself to do evil. The reasons he did this aren't allowed to ameliorate that judgment- his spoilt upbringing, the dominance of his wicked wife over his naturally weak mind, all these factors were weighted in God's judgment of him, but didn't finally ameliorate what he had done. LXX adds that he sold himself "in vain". I explained on :15 that the whole obsession of "taking possession" of the vineyard probably didn't even work out for Ahab in legal terms as he so coveted.

1 Kings 21:21 Behold, I will bring evil on you, and will utterly sweep you away and will cut off from Ahab every male, and him who is shut up and him who is left at large in Israel-

Elijah simply announces to Ahab: “Behold I will bring evil on you...”. We expect this to be prefaced by a “Thus says the Lord”- but Elijah was so close to God he assumed he was speaking directly from Him. And yet Elijah doesn’t repeat what God had told him to say in :19. Was he too familiar with God? Assuming he knew God’s will and words? But it must be said that he improves- in 2 Kings 1:6 he says that what he says is the word of Yahweh, and he repeats verbatim what he was told to say. We too know God’s word. We know the Bible text well. But this can lead to an assumption that we speak for God; that we must be right in all our attitudes and positions we adopt on issues.

The destruction of Ahab's children, including those "shut up" as too young to go outdoors alone, and those "at large" and independent, matches how Ahab had murdered the sons of Naboth in order to ensure the inheritance would be unquestionably his (2 Kings 9:26). All his obsession with getting "possession" of the vineyard (see on :15) were to be "in vain" (:20 LXX) because his descendants would all be destroyed.

1 Kings 21:22 I will make your house like the house of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, and like the house of Baasha the son of Ahijah for the provocation with which you have provoked Me to anger, and have made Israel to sin-

God can be grieved [s.w. 'provoke to anger']. He has emotions, and His potential foreknowledge doesn't mean that these feelings are not legitimate. They are presented as occurring in human time, as responses to human behaviour. This is the degree to which He has accommodated Himself to human time-space limits, in order to fully enter relationship and experience with us. As He can limit His omnipotence, so God can limit His omniscience, in order to feel and respond along with us.

The charge that Ahab made Israel to sin refers not just to his idolatry, but specifically in this context to what he did to Naboth. He had involved the elders and people of Jezreel in this sin, and set an example to others that they could despise God's principles about inheritance (see on :3).

1 Kings 21:23 Yahweh also spoke of Jezebel saying, The dogs shall eat Jezebel by the rampart of Jezreel-

The "rampart" of Jezreel where Jezebel was to be eaten (1 Kings 21:23) is s.w. "trench" in 2 Sam. 20:15. It would refer to the trench immediately below the city wall. Jezebel was in a house on the city wall when she was thrown out of it (2 Kings 9:36,37), and her body would have landed in the drainage ditch which was probably dry. Dogs wandered there looking for scraps of food thrown out of the windows of the houses on the city wall.

1 Kings 21:24 The dogs will eat him who dies of Ahab in the city; and the birds of the sky will eat him who dies in the field-

This repeats the judgment upon Jeroboam in 1 Kings 14:11. Ahab was another example of how Jeroboam made subsequent generations to sin, and thereby to share his judgment. Ahab was intended to have learnt from the history of Jeroboam, and we who have far more Biblical history available to us than he did... are intended to do the same from the biographies which the Bible is full of. Our responsibility is thereby the greater.

1 Kings 21:25 But there was none like Ahab, who sold himself to do that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh-

See on :20.

Whom Jezebel his wife stirred up-

The idea may be that there was no man who did so much evil at the stirring up of his wife. So many turn down the call of Christ because their partner is against it. We see here for all time the call to brave individuality, to totally personal response to God's principles. The word "stirred up" means to persuade or entice, suggesting Ahab was resistant, but allowed himself to be persuaded against his basic conscience. And his naturally weak minded personality was no excuse. Zedekiah likewise was persuaded against his basic conscience (Jer. 38:22 s.w.), and was still judged for allowing himself to be persuaded.

Chronicles says "Ahab persuaded Jehoshaphat to go up with him to Ramoth-gilead", just as Jezebel persuaded Ahab to do wickedness (1 Kings 21:25 Heb.). It is a story of sin leading to sin, and sinful attitudes and behaviour spreading through wrong and unwise associations.

1 Kings 21:26 He did very abominably in following idols, according to all that the Amorites did, whom Yahweh cast out before the children of Israel-

The idea is that they followed the idols just as the Amorites did. And that may be a general term referring to the local Canaanite population. The idea is that a worship of their gods was revived by Ahab. He did exactly what people did who were driven out of the Kingdom for doing those things. He utterly refused to learn from Biblical history.

1 Kings 21:27 It happened, when Ahab heard those words, that he tore his clothes, and put sackcloth on his flesh, and fasted, and lay in sackcloth, and went softly-

"They that will be rich... have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through  with many sorrows" (1 Tim. 6:9,10). The Greek translated "pierced themselves through" is related to the verb 'to crucify'. We are asked to crucify ourselves, to give up the brief materialism of this life. Yet if we refuse to do this, we still pierce ourselves through, we crucify ourselves, with the pain which comes from a mind dedicated to materialism and self-fulfilment, a life devoted to reaching the end of a rainbow. So what is the logical thing to do? It's crucifixion either way. The idea of piercing self through with sorrow is actually a direct quote from the LXX of 1 Kings 21:27, where Ahab was pierced with sorrow as a result of his coveting of Naboth’s vineyard. And yet when Naboth was dead, Ahab tore his clothes and put on sackcloth, in sorrow for what he had done (1 Kings 21:16 LXX- omitted in the AV); but these very words are used in describing how when Ahab heard the words of his condemnation, he tore his clothes and put on sackcloth (21:27). His sin brought him to tare his clothes, just as he did when his condemnation was pronounced. In his seeking for happiness he pierced himself through with the sorrow of condemnation.

I suggested on :19 that his repentance at least ameliorated the nature of the judgment upon him, and :29 says the same. If as suggested on :1, 1 Kings 21 should come before 1 Kings 20, then Ahab's subsequent failure to be obedient in 1 Kings 20 is the more tragic. His repentance here was genuine, so much so that God did take note of it, although He knew that the weak minded Ahab would again fail to retain that intensity.

1 Kings 21:28 The word of Yahweh came to Elijah the Tishbite saying-

There is no evidence Elijah spoke the words of mercy to Ahab of :29. If he did, we can imagine they would have gone right against the grain of his judgmental nature. He would have been the first to point out reasons to think Ahab's repentance wasn't complete or even genuine. But Elijah was being taught God's extreme sensitivity to human repentance, even if it is incomplete and the intensity of it may not be maintained.

1 Kings 21:29 See how Ahab humbles himself before Me? Because he humbles himself before Me, I will not bring the evil in his days; but in his son’s days will I bring the evil on his family-

And God kept His word about this (2 Kings 9:25), although if 1 Kings 20 follows 1 Kings 21 (see on :1), then Ahab's repentance was not totally maintained. God knew all Elijah’s weakness as He knows ours, and He perceives them far better than we do. And He actively worked with Elijah to bring him to a greater perception of Him. Elijah was told by God that Ahab “humbles himself before Me”. Yet Elijah also lived a life “before the Lord” (1 Kings 17:1); it’s as if God was trying to get Elijah to see himself in a similar position to Ahab. Living “before the Lord” is not only about faith in prayer and being aware of God. It’s also about being contrite before our Father, aware of our own very personal spiritual desperation. And it was this humility which Elijah lacked. And the Father sought to teach him it by drawing a similarity between Elijah and the man whom he spiritually despised- Ahab. In many Christian lives, we are much more spiritual than others around us. Yet we may be led to perceive that actually we are in essence no better than those to whom we consider ourselves so spiritually superior. See on 1 Kings 19:11.

1 Kings Chapter 22

1 Kings 22:1 They continued three years without war between Syria and Israel-

I suggested on 1 Kings 20:1; 21:1 that 1 Kings 20 and 21 should be the other way around, as they are in the LXX. In this case, 1 Kings 22 continues straight on from 1 Kings 20. That concluded with Ahab making a treaty with Benhadad of Syria, allowing him to go free if he renamed streets in Damascus after Ahab's God, and restored the cities his father had captured from Israel. Had Ahab done what he was told to and slain Benhadad, the events in this chapter which led to his death may not have happened. And all the treaty achieved was three years without war. Ahab is represented as a weak minded fool in making that agreement, caught up in the pride and glory of the moment.

1 Kings 22:2 It happened in the third year, that Jehoshaphat the king of Judah came down to the king of Israel-

One sin and weakness led to another. We learn from Chronicles that Jehoshaphat's son Jehoram had wrongly married Ahab’s daughter, Athaliah; probably under some false mantra of 'unity amongst God's people'. The visit was likely in connection with this. Had Jehoshaphat not fraternized with wicked Ahab, the possibility of the doomed venture which follows wouldn't have arisen. And if Ahab had slain Benhadad as commanded, Ramoth Gilead would have been returned to Israel. And indeed if Benhadad kept his covenant, it should have been returned anyway (1 Kings 20:34).

1 Kings 22:3 The king of Israel said to his servants, You know that Ramoth Gilead is ours, and we are sitting still, and don’t take it out of the hand of the king of Syria?-

"Ours" suggests he was playing on the false mantra of "unity amongst God's people" noted on :2. Ahab clearly intended the city to remain under his control and not that of Judah. So much foolishness, unwisdom and sacrifice of basic Godly principle has gone on under this mantra of "unity".

1 Kings 22:4 He said to Jehoshaphat, Will you go with me to battle to Ramoth Gilead? Jehoshaphat said to the king of Israel, I am as you are, my people as your people, my horses as your horses-

Chronicles says "Ahab persuaded Jehoshaphat to go up with him to Ramoth-gilead", just as Jezebel persuaded Ahab to do wickedness (1 Kings 21:25 Heb.). It is a story of sin leading to sin, and sinful attitudes and behaviour spreading through wrong and unwise associations. We note they both have "horses", which were forbidden for the kings of Israel under the law of Moses. Jehoshaphat likely reasoned that a weak Syria on the east bank of Jordan was good for Judah, but he was also caught up in the false mantra of "unity" which had led his son to marry Ahab's daughter.

1 Kings 22:5 Jehoshaphat said to the king of Israel, Please inquire first for the word of Yahweh-

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

1 Kings 22:6 Then the king of Israel gathered the prophets together, about four hundred men, and said to them, Shall I go against Ramoth Gilead to battle, or shall I forbear?-

Ahab had 400 false prophets earlier in his reign (1 Kings 18:19), who were slain on Carmel. So it seems that he didn't learn his lesson, and raised up another such group. This fits with the common theme of purges and repentances at the time of the kings needing to be repeated. For the purges were only surface level, despite all the evidence for them at the time. "Forbear" means 'to cease'. Ahab, like us at times, had already started the project without asking God's guidance, and his request for guidance in the project was compromised in integrity by the fact he had already begun it.

They said, Go up; for the Lord will deliver it into the hand of the king-

This recalls the instant answer of Nathan when David enquired about building a temple for Yahweh. Too easily we assume we know the will of God, and speak and act as if we have His blessing on our endeavours already.

1 Kings 22:7 But Jehoshaphat said, Isn’t there here a prophet of Yahweh, that we may inquire of Him?-

Ahab had provided the 400 prophets of Baal in response to the request for a word from Yahweh. Jehoshaphat realized this; and ought to have immediately pulled out of working with someone who was presenting Baal worship as Yahweh worship. He means of course 'an old time, old school prophet of Yahweh who is not also a prophet of Baal and repudiates Baal'.

1 Kings 22:8 The king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, There is yet one man-

The idea is, "one more man". He considered that the 400 prophets of Baal were also in touch with Yahweh (see on :5), and Micaiah was just one more who could do that, although he repudiated Baal worship.

By whom we may inquire of Yahweh, Micaiah the son of Imlah-

Again we are introduced to a true prophet of Yahweh who existed at the time of Elijah. His claim to be the only prophet of Yahweh is continually demonstrated to be false. Presumably Elijah knew these other prophets, but considered that they had all gone wrong on this or that point of doctrine or practice. And perhaps they had, but God still counted them as His prophets, and used them as such. And it was Elijah who was removed from the prophetic ministry because of his arrogance in considering none of them genuine, and he alone being the true representative of Yahweh. Micaiah had previously spoken critical things to Ahab in Yahweh's Name, hence Ahab says that this prophet only says "evil" about him and he doesn't want to consult him. Elijah was quite wrong to discount all these brave prophets as somehow not genuine.

But I hate him; for he does not prophesy good concerning me, but evil. Jehoshaphat said, Don’t let the king say so-

Again we sense the pouting, spoilt kid characteristics of Ahab. His characterization in the records is absolutely consistent and credible, as we would expect of a Divinely inspired history. We have here a parade example of how men come to God's word having already decided what they want to hear. Indeed there is a tendency to have "itching ears", heaping up teachers to confirm us in our own desires, lusts and hunches (2 Tim. 4:3; maybe a reference to Ahab heaping up 400 such teachers to tell him what he wanted to hear). This is why there are so many different interpretations of the Bible. Because readers / hearers like to hear only what confirms that which they already had a hunch about. To achieve a second naivety as we come to God's word, to be a born again virgin, is hard indeed. Jehoshaphat realized what Ahab was doing, and asked him not to talk like that- but to accept Yahweh's word. The fact Jehoshaphat himself still went into battle shows how he himself perceived the truth of all this, but didn't do accordingly. The "evil" prophesied was presumably of Ahab's condemnation, confirming Elijah's words.

1 Kings 22:9 Then the king of Israel called an officer, and said, Quickly get Micaiah the son of Imlah-

"Who is like Yah?" was a direct challenge to the idea that Yahweh could be worshipped through Baal worship (see on :5). According to :26, Micaiah was imprisoned at this time. The 'quick' summoning from prison by an officer to speak God's word would have recalled to Micaiah the example of faithful Joseph.

1 Kings 22:10 Now the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat the king of Judah were sitting each on his throne, arrayed in their robes, in an open place at the entrance of the gate of Samaria; and all the prophets were prophesying before them-

This was an impressive sight, and the area had clearly been especially prepared so that so many prophets could prophesy together. It was designed to sway Jehoshaphat according to the false maxim that the majority must be right, and how could so many be wrong. See on Ez. 10:5

1 Kings 22:11 Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah made him horns of iron and said, Thus says Yahweh, ‘With these you shall push the Syrians, until they are consumed’-

Zedekiah, like a typical apostate, is mixing the truth of God out of context with wrong ideas. He alludes to Moses'  blessing of Joseph in Dt. 33:17 to the northern tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh: “Buffalo horns are his (Joseph's) horns, with them he thrusts down nations”. But of course he overlooked the fact that the blessings of Moses were predicated upon obedience to the covenant. He probably made the horns and held them on his forehead. Micaiah's response is to also quote from the law of Moses, but about the judgment for disobedience to the covenant (:17).

1 Kings 22:12 All the prophets prophesied so, saying, Go up to Ramoth Gilead, and prosper; for Yahweh will deliver it into the hand of the king-

These 400 prophets of Baal [for they were the equivalent of the 400 executed on Mount Carmel] still used the name of Yahweh. Their position was that they conducted Yahweh worship through Baal worship. Perhaps their usage of the Hebrew word for "prosper" alluded to how the word is four times used of the prospering of Abraham's servant on his journey and mission (Gen. 24:21,40,42,56). And this is probably our most common temptation as believers; to mix the flesh and the spirit, to justify sin in the name of serving God. But Ahab had broken the covenant, and would not prosper (s.w. Dt. 28:29). Jehoshaphat later learnt this lesson, for he uses the word in saying that only those who hear Yahweh's prophets will "prosper" (2 Chron. 20:20).

1 Kings 22:13 The messenger who went to call Micaiah spoke to him saying, See now, the prophets declare good to the king with one mouth. Please let your word be like the word of one of them, and speak good-

We sense the build up of pressure upon Micaiah. He was imprisoned for having spoken God's word against Ahab (see on :9,26), and would be under huge pressure from the presence of the 400 prophets and the audience watching (:28 "all you people"). And as the officer led him from prison towards the huge crowd of people gathered before the two kings, he too added his pressure. The request of the officer was perhaps because he actually liked Micaiah and could foresee the death sentence being given if he again "spoke evil" and not "good" to Ahab, and he didn't want to have to carry that out. But he still totally fails to perceive that God's word cannot be changed or controlled by man.

1 Kings 22:14 Micaiah said, As Yahweh lives, what Yahweh says to me, that I will speak-

If Micaiah was at that time imprisoned for prophesying evil against Ahab (see on :9,26), bearing in mind Naboth had been slain for allegedly cursing the king, he would have been sorely tempted to now buy his freedom by saying what Ahab wanted to hear. And despite his determination not to do so, I suggest on :15 that he did temporarily fail. The pressure on him was intense. Micaiah uses the words and ideas of Balaam when pressured to not say Yahweh's word. He was clearly a spiritually minded man who was deeply aware of Biblical precedent for his situation, as we ought to be.

1 Kings 22:15 When he had come to the king, the king said to him, Micaiah, shall we go to Ramoth Gilead to battle, or shall we forbear? He answered him, Go up and prosper; and Yahweh will deliver it into the hand of the king-

It could be argued that by repeating the very words of the false prophets, Micaiah was just repeating them sarcastically, with the tone of his voice indicating that. But I prefer to conclude that this faithful man, who had gone to prison for his witness of God's word to Ahab, now faltered under the pressure of the presence of the 400 false prophets. He acted like Nathan when David enquired about building a temple for Yahweh, who gave the answer that his enquirer wanted to hear. Such failure of a moment would be absolutely true to human experience and would be psychologically and spiritually credible. See on :14.

1 Kings 22:16 The king said to him, How many times do I have to adjure you that you speak to me nothing but the truth in the name of Yahweh?-

See on :15. We are left to speculate which singular "king" it was who said this, Ahab or Jehoshaphat. The Biblical record is intentionally open ended at some points, to encourage us to think ourselves into the situation. The king sensed that Micaiah was cowed by the situation, and really wanted to know what Yahweh thought. So we sense "the king" in view was Jehoshaphat.

1 Kings 22:17 He said, I saw all Israel scattered on the mountains, as sheep that have no shepherd. Yahweh said, ‘These have no master. Let them each return to his house in peace’-

As explained on :11, Zedekiah had quoted Moses' blessings of the tribes as justification for a successful battle- which were conditional upon obedience to the covenant. Micaiah responds by quoting the curses for disobedience to the covenant (Num. 27:16,17). The removal of the master / shepherd implies that the shepherd or king of Israel is to be slain, and the sheep would return to their homes once the shepherd was slain. And that is just what happened when it was recognized that Ahab had been slain.

1 Kings 22:18 The king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, Didn’t I tell you that he would not prophesy good concerning me, but evil?-

Ahab intuitively sensed what Yahweh's true word was even before Micaiah pronounced it. His insistence on going ahead was therefore the more culpable. And God's word is often intuitively recognized as "truth" even by those who reject it, which is why they tend towards anger and other psychological reactions appropriate to denial.

1 Kings 22:19 Micaiah said, Therefore hear the word of Yahweh-

There does not follow a "Thus says the Lord", but rather a description of the vision Micaiah had seen, a peek into the heavenly throne room, the court of heaven. Discerning the vision was perhaps the essential "word of Yahweh" which the kings were to "hear".

I saw Yahweh sitting on His throne, and all the army of heaven standing by Him on His right hand and on His left-

The visions of 1 Kings 22:19-23, Isaiah 6 and Rev. 4 show God seated on a throne with Angels before Him, bringing information and requests to Him and departing with commands to obey; the idea of a council in Heaven is clearly hinted at in Job 1; Gen. 1:26; Ps. 89:7. God sitting on a throne implies that each request or piece of information presented is 'judged' and an appropriate decision made. The 'case' of the adversaries to God is presented by a 'satan' Angel in Job.

1 Kings 22:19-23 gives perhaps the most detailed picture of the Heavenly council. God told them His desire- for Ahab to die at Ramoth-Gilead. He then asked which Angel wanted to effect this- "Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth Gilead? And one (Angel) said on this manner, and another said on that manner". We thus learn that like us, on hearing God's desire the elohim all have different ways of trying to fulfil it. One "Spirit" (Angel) suggested that He would put a lying spirit in the mouth of Ahab's prophets, and this was the suggestion chosen and enabled by God. This shows that the Angels do not all automatically know the best way of bringing about God's purpose, and therefore they need to seek His advice and perhaps discuss things amongst themselves first before acting. Note that "all the host of Heaven" were there around the throne of God participating in this decision. And so all the Angels are involved in the decisions God and the Angels make about us. Lk. 15:6 implies the same.

The division of the Angels into groups on His right and left is interesting. Why would it be mentioned, if it were insignificant? All the Angels are of God's nature and obedient to Him, there are no sinful Angels. But there are Angels of evil, Angels specifically tasked with bringing evil (see on Ps. 78:49). We think of the Angel called "the destroyer" at Passover time, who was restrained by the Passover Angel from destroying the Israelite firstborn. And so one wonders whether "the destroyer" was one of those on the left hand side, and the Passover Angel one of those on the right hand.

1 Kings 22:20 Yahweh said, ‘Who shall entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth Gilead?’ One said one thing; and another said another-

"Entice" is the word elsewhere translated 'deceive'. Clearly God does deceive; for He confirms men in the mental path in which they themselves wish to go. Ez. 14:9 uses the word very clearly in this connection (see commentary there); and the teaching is confirmed in 2 Thess. 2:11.

In Revelation we see the incense of human prayers arising into Heaven, resulting in Angels coming to earth, pouring out bowls, blowing trumpets, and major events happening on earth (Rev. 5:8; 8:3). Prayer is noticed; it brings forth quite out of proportion responses. The Angels discuss their plans for us in the court of Heaven, coming up with various possibilities of how to act in our lives, discussing them with God (1 Kings 22:20-22). They play some part in the whole process of our prayers. When we read that “Surely the Lord does nothing without revealing his secret to his servants the prophets” (Am. 3:7), we might tend to take that as a statement of absolute principle that is obvious to all the Angels. But we find an Angel discussing with others: “Shall I hide from Abraham [who was a prophet] what I am about to do?” (Gen. 18:17). The Angels have more debate, expend more mental and physical energy than we surely realize, in order to operationalize things which we might consider to be standard and automatic in God’s work with men. In our context, what this means is that when men reject the machinations and schemings of God’s love, they reject an awful lot; and it grieves and disappoints Him, and appears tragic to those like the prophets who see things from His viewpoint.

1 Kings 22:21 A spirit-

God makes His Angels "spirits" (Ps. 104:4), and Angels are in view here. But the word 'spirit' has a wide range of meaning. It can refer to power, but also to the thought which is then expressed through the power of action. The Angel is here called a "spirit" because the idea was to place a thought in the mind or spirit of the false prophets, and thereby Ahab.

Came out-

This is the same word as in :22 "I will go out". The Angel was as it were demonstrating how he intended acting.

And stood before Yahweh-

It was the true prophets who stood before Yahweh (1 Kings 17:1). The connection is to show that the true prophets were represented by the Angels in the court of heaven, and this Angel was as it were on their side.

And said, ‘I will entice him’-

Ahab had been persuaded or enticed to do evil by Jezebel, and had enticed or persuaded Jehoshaphat to go to battle. But this was because he had himself been persuaded or enticed by God.

1 Kings 22:22 Yahweh said to him, ‘How?’ He said, ‘I will go out and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets’. He said, ‘You will entice him, and will also prevail-

God deceived prophets to speak things in His Name which were actually false (1 Kings 22:20-22; Ez. 14:9). He chose Israel's delusions by making their idols answer them (Is. 66:3,4). Jeremiah feared God had deceived him (Jer. 20:7)- showing he knew such a thing was possible. Dt. 13:1-3 warns Israel not to believe prophets whose prophecies came true although they taught false doctrines, because they may have been raised up to test their obedience. God deceived Israel by telling them about the peace which would come on Jerusalem in the future Kingdom; they didn't consider the other prophecies which were given at the same time concerning their imminent judgment, and therefore they thought that God was pleased with them and was about to establish the Messianic Kingdom; when actually the very opposite was about to happen (Jer.  4:10). This is why the Bible is confusing to those who aren’t humble to God’s word.

Go out and do so’-

This describes the Angels being sent out from the court of Heaven to do God’s word. So when we read of God sending lions (2 Kings 17:25,26), sending wild beasts and famine (Lev. 26:22; Ez. 5:17; Dt. 32:24), sending locusts (Joel 2:25), it would seem that Angels are sent forth from God’s throne in order to command animals to obey God’s word. And moreover, He sends an evil spirit between men (Jud. 9:23) and stubborn hearts are also sent from God (Ps. 81:13). The same Angels who are sent to control the animals can also therefore work to give men certain attitudes of mind.

1 Kings 22:23 Now therefore, behold, Yahweh has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; and Yahweh has spoken evil concerning you-

This was exactly what Micaiah had said before about Ahab, and Ahab intuitively knew that this was coming.

1 Kings 22:24 Then Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah came near and struck Micaiah on the cheek, and said, Which way did the Spirit of Yahweh go from me to speak to you?-

"Cheek" can be "ear". The idea was that Zedekiah implied Micaiah was saying that the spirit had left him and entered Micaiah through his ear. And so he smote that ear. To strike on the cheek was the punishment for a heretic, and was applied to the Lord Jesus (Mic. 5:1).

1 Kings 22:25 Micaiah said, Behold, you will see on that day when you go into an inner room to hide yourself-

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

1 Kings 22:26 The king of Israel said, Take Micaiah, and carry him back to Amon the governor of the city, and to Joash the king’s son-

These men were those who ran the prison, for "carry him back" means Micaiah was already in prison. See on :9. Again we see how wrong Elijah had been to claim that no prophet of Yahweh existed apart from himself. Micaiah had gone to prison for speaking God's word to Ahab. But Elijah presumably considered there was some curious point of theology or matter of legal practice which enabled Elijah to rubbish Micaiah as not sincere and not a true prophet. It reminds us of how truly committed Christians who have gone to jail or even death for their witness... are trashed by others as somehow not the real Christians. And only they the critics are in fellowship with God. They really need to learn the lesson of Elijah. For he was ejected from his ministry because of those attitudes.

1 Kings 22:27 Say, ‘Thus says the king, Put this fellow in the prison, and feed him with bread of affliction and with water of affliction, until I come in peace’-

I suggest on :9,26 that he was already in prison for his faithful witness against Ahab. So the idea here seems to be that he was to be put in the inner prison and given a very tough regime.

1 Kings 22:28 Micaiah said, If you return at all in peace, Yahweh has not spoken by me. He said, Listen, all you people!-

If I were Micaiah, I think I would have just shrugged and remained silent, fearing the harsh regime of punishment in :27 could easily be changed into the death sentence. For Naboth had been slain for 'cursing the king'. But Micaiah bravely invites the large audience to listen and take note, because he seeks their conversion.

1 Kings 22:29 So the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat the king of Judah went up to Ramoth Gilead-

The record is intentionally silent about the utter folly of Jehoshaphat in going ahead with this. He was keenly interested to 'know the truth' from God's word, and didn't want to hear false teaching. But when the truth was presented, he didn't follow it. We can take a huge lesson from this. He allowed the intense pressure of the crowd of prophets, and his family relationship with Ahab as the in-law of his son, to lead him to walk right against the 'truth' he had sought. And there are many who seem to rejoice more in 'searching for the truth' than in actually following it when they are find it or have it presented to them.

1 Kings 22:30 The king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, I will disguise myself, and go into the battle; but you put on your robes. The king of Israel disguised himself, and went into the battle-

LXX even suggests that Ahab asked Jehoshaphat to wear Ahab's robes. The next verse describes why this was; Ahab was aware of the king of Syria's desire to resolve the issue by capturing or killing Ahab. The incident is a parade example of 'bad friends'. We marvel at Jehoshaphat's stupidity in agreeing. For surely he must have foreseen what could happen. This was the pressure he felt from Ahab and Jezebel, the in-laws of his son. And so often family pressure leads otherwise solid believers into uncharacteristic actions, seriously unwise behaviour and positions which are utterly the opposite of all they stand for. Because quite simply, they do not really commit to following God's word, even if they stand with their backs to the world.

1 Kings 22:31 Now the king of Syria had commanded the thirty-two captains of his chariots saying, Fight neither with small nor great, except only with the king of Israel-

Only three years previously (see on :1), the king of Syria had been foolishly spared by Ahab. Perhaps he couldn't live down that humiliation, and wanted to kill the man who had shown him so much mercy. That again is absolutely true to observed human experience, and the record time and again is absolutely psychologically credible.

1 Kings 22:32 It happened, when the captains of the chariots saw Jehoshaphat, that they said, Surely that is the king of Israel! And they turned aside to fight against him. Jehoshaphat cried out-

The Hebrew implies that they surrounded him. He was clearly "lucky" to escape with his life. It was only by Divine grace that he did. His 'crying out' was surely to God to save him from his foolishness.

1 Kings 22:33 It happened, when the captains of the chariots saw that it was not the king of Israel, that they turned back from pursuing him-

This was in response to his crying out to God for salvation in :32. Chronicles adds: "and the Lord helped him and turned them off from him. And yet he was strongly rebuked by God in 2 Chron. 19:2. His actions provoked "the wrath of Yahweh", but God saved a man by grace whilst at the same time having great wrath against him. This is so different to human wrath and attempts to show grace, which seem usually to be displayed without any other pole of feeling in mind. But God had both in perfect balance at the same time. This is the wonder of His Name, which includes all these poles of feeling toward men within His personality.

1 Kings 22:34 A certain man drew his bow at random, and struck the king of Israel between the joints of the armour. Therefore he said to the driver of his chariot, Turn your hand, and carry me out of the battle; for I am severely wounded-

The gaps in armour around vital organs would have been relatively small. This is evidence for all time that there is no such thing as "random". This was so clearly of God.

1 Kings 22:35 The battle increased that day. The king was propped up in his chariot facing the Syrians, and died at evening. The blood ran out of the wound into the bottom of the chariot-

The weak minded Ahab genuinely wanted to do the best for his troops, and therefore remained in his chariot, propped up. Presumably Israelite soldiers knew where and who he was. It was this policy of not being removed from his chariot which resulted in the blood accumulating within it, which was required for the fulfilment of the prophecies about his blood.

1 Kings 22:36 A cry went throughout the army about the going down of the sun saying, Every man to his city, and every man to his country!-

This was the exact fulfilment of Micaiah's prophecy that the shepherd of Israel would be slain, and the sheep would return to their homes (:17).

1 Kings 22:37 So the king died, and was brought to Samaria; and they buried the king in Samaria-

The double emphasis upon the death and burial of "the king" is perhaps to signpost attention to the fact that the prophecy of Micaiah about the death of the shepherd / master of the flock had been fulfilled (:17).

1 Kings 22:38 They washed the chariot by the pool of Samaria; and the dogs licked up his blood where the prostitutes washed themselves; according to the word of Yahweh which He spoke-

The idea may be that the women were washing in the pool whilst the blood of Ahab was washed off into it. According to 1 Kings 21:19 "In the place where dogs licked the blood of Naboth, dogs will lick your blood, even yours" (Ahab's). But in 1 Kings 22:38 the dogs [LXX "the swine and the dogs"] licked Ahab's blood in the pool of Samaria, just outside the gate of Samaria; not in Jezreel. It could be argued that "the place" refers not to a geographical locality, but rather to the place where the garbage was thrown outside a city gate. The Lord uses 'Gehenna' to describe such a place as a figure for condemnation. The way 1 Kings 22:38 triumphs in the fulfilment of the prophecy suggests there was no perceived gap between the prediction and its fulfilment. But another possibility is that because of Ahab's repentance, the sentence was modified, just as that upon Adam was (for he didn't die in the day he sinned, although he did die). This reflects God's openness to human repentance in response to His stated judgments. In the gap between statement and fulfilment, there can be repentance and a change of outcomes. This is what gives intensity to our living in that gap. LXX adds to 1 Kings 21:19 "and the harlots shall wash in thy blood". 1 Kings 22:38 LXX says that this was fulfilled. Perhaps the idea is that they washed themselves in a spring in the rubbish dump where Ahab's blood as it were was eternally present.

1 Kings 22:39 Now the rest of the acts of Ahab, and all that he did, and the ivory house which he built, and all the cities that he built, aren’t they written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?-

This may not refer necessarily to the same books of Chronicles we have in our Bibles. Houses adorned with ivory were condemned by God in Am. 3:15. All of the Bible seems to cry out against high luxury living, in a world of such great spiritual and material need.

1 Kings 22:40 So Ahab slept with his fathers; and Ahaziah his son reigned in his place-

Ahab's naming his sons with the 'Yah' suffix in their names (he had another son called Jehoram, 2 Kings 3:1) would be a nod toward Yahweh worship. And yet he is famed as a Baal worshipper. This helps us better understand the nature of the Baal worship then practiced; it was a mixture of Yahweh worship with Baal worship, claiming to worship Yahweh through Baal worship. This is why when Ahab is asked to produce a prophet of Yahweh, he calls up the 400 prophets of Baal who had replaced those slain by Elijah on Carmel. And this is typical of so much of our failure; justifying sin in the name of worshipping God.

1 Kings 22:41 Jehoshaphat the son of Asa began to reign over Judah in the fourth year of Ahab king of Israel-

Jehoshaphat means 'whom Jehovah judges'. And this is largely the point of his life, which Chronicles records in more detail. He made major mistakes in his relationships with Israel, incited the wrath of God against him (2 Chron. 19:2), died without removing the high places, and yet overall was judged as having a faithful heart before God (:43; 2 Chron. 19:3). And so we have a parade example of how indeed 'Jehovah judges', factoring in the various dimensions of a man's life in a way in which we cannot. The lesson is indeed that we cannot judge, nor should we be tempted to judge a person according to the high and low points on their spiritual graph, nor upon the fact they may die with unconquered weaknesses.

1 Kings 22:42 Jehoshaphat was thirty-five years old when he began to reign; and he reigned twenty-five years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Azubah the daughter of Shilhi-

Again the mother is maybe mentioned because of her great influence upon the spiritual path of her children. However, there is also the theme that believers arise from unbelieving backgrounds. "Azubah" means "forsaken". It is the same word used in 2 Chron. 15:2, where Jehoshaphat's father Asa was told of God "If you forsake Him, He will forsake you". It could be that Asa forsook Azubah and she was effectively a divorced woman; or perhaps the wife was renamed this because Asa felt she had forsaken Yahweh, which is how the word "forsaken" ('Azubah') is usually used.

1 Kings 22:43 He walked in all the way of Asa his father; he didn’t turn aside from it, doing that which was right in the eyes of Yahweh: however the high places were not taken away; the people still sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places-

Again we marvel at God's positive overall opinion of Jehoshaphat. For he rejected Yahweh's word in going to fight at Ramoth Gilead, and was condemned by God for working together with those who hated Him, and "therefore is wrath upon you from Yahweh" (2 Chron. 19:2). A man may fail repeatedly, as Jehoshaphat did in his relations with Ahab and allowing his son to marry Jezebel's daughter, and even experience God's wrath. And yet finally be judged as having done what was right in God's eyes. That doing of right may refer therefore not to a spotless track record of behaviour, but rather to a basic faith in God, repentance and what the New Testament calls "abiding in Him". It is not the dramatic ups and downs on the graph of human spirituality over time which are significant to God. It is the overall state of the heart. And we can take courage from this in our own lives, and be guided therefore not to think too highly of those who at specific points show great commitment, nor to think too lowly of those who fail in specific points of their journey. We also learn that some men die with weaknesses, such as not taking away the high places. But this does not necessarily tip the balance towards their condemnation. This needs to be factored in to our thinking about the spiritual fate of those who die committing suicide.

1 Kings 22:44 Jehoshaphat made peace with the king of Israel-

Or, "kings". Ahab, Ahaziah, and Joram were all contemporary with Jehoshaphat, and he seems to be commended for this. And yet the Chronicles record clearly shows that he was too close to them. His son married a daughter of Ahab (2 Chron. 18:1), and his insistence on supporting Ahab was seen as loving those who hated Yahweh, and the wrath of God was upon him because of it (2 Chron. 19:2). And yet he is commended for having peace with the kings of Israel (1 Kings 22:44), even though  that desire for peace with them led him into major sin. But he was judged as having a heart right with God (2 Chron. 19:3). We sense God weighting Jehoshaphat's sins with his relations with Israel against his genuine desire for peace within God's people. And overall, as he was judged on the state of his heart, his desire for unity and peace was judged as his dominant desire. We simply cannot factor in or weight all the dimensions in a man's heart. Only God can. And the reason we are not to judge is because in fact we cannot judge, in that we don't have access to human hearts.

1 Kings 22:45 Now the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat, and his might that he showed, and how he warred, aren’t they written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?-

This is the common rubric found in the histories of the kings (1 Kings 15:23; 16:5,27; 22:45; 2 Kings 10:34; 13:8,12; 14:15,28; 20:20). "His might that he showed" uses a word for "might" which has the sense of victory / achievement. But the contrast is marked with the way that David so often uses this word for "might / victory / achievement" in the context of God's "might"; notably in 1 Chron. 29:11, which the Lord Jesus places in our mouths as part of His model prayer: "Yours is the power [s.w. "might"], and the glory and the majesty". The kings about whom the phrase is used were those who trusted in their own works. It therefore reads as a rather pathetic memorial; that this man's might / achievement was noted down. But the unspoken further comment is elicited in our own minds, if we are in tune with the spirit of David: "But the only real achievement is the Lord's and not man's". All human victory and achievement must be seen in this context. The same word is used in Jer. 9:23,24: "Don’t let the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might [s.w.]... but let him who glories glory in this, that he has understanding, and knows Me, that I am Yahweh who exercises loving kindness, justice, and righteousness, in the earth". The glorification of human "might" is often condemned. "Their might [s.w.] is not right" (Jer. 23:10; also s.w. Jer. 51:30; Ez. 32:29; Mic. 7:16 and often).

1 Kings 22:46 The remainder of the sodomites, from the days of his father Asa, he put away out of the land-

Here we again encounter the theme of partial purges and partial living according to God's standards; and also the reality of the fact that no soon was one apostacy stamped out by a king that it rose up again. It was this lack of abiding spiritual change which led the nation to a downward spiral which climaxed in their rejection by God as having sinned worse than Israel (Ez. 16,23).

1 Kings 22:47 There was no king in Edom: a deputy was king-

This explains why Solomon could have access to Ezion Geber (:48) which was in Edom (1 Kings 9:26). The "deputy" was surely one imposed by Jehoshaphat (s.w. 1 Kings 4:7). Perhaps this effective subjugation of Edom (2 Kings 8:20,22) by Jehoshaphat is part of the overall scene of his power over the surrounding nations which we find in 2 Chron. 17:10,11. Hadad of Edom had been an adversary to Solomon, who also traded through Ezion Geber (1 Kings 11:14); but not to Jehoshaphat.

1 Kings 22:48 Jehoshaphat made ships of Tarshish to go to Ophir for gold: but they didn’t go; for the ships were broken at Ezion Geber-

2 Chron. 20:36,37 says that this was a joint venture with Ahab's son Ahaziah. He was so slow to learn the lesson that he should not work together with the apostate ten tribe kingdom. He had almost lost his life because of this whilst fighting at Ramoth Gilead. And like us, the situations were repeated, but he was so slow to learn.

"Ships of Tarshish" is clearly a technical term for a long distance trading vessel. "Tarshish" appears to have been the source of gold, peacocks, silver etc., which are only found together in southern India. But a ship of Tarshish wasn't necessarily a ship which went to Tarshish. "Tarshish" means 'endurance' and refers to vessels which had a capacity for long distance trading. At that time, India was the end of the earth for someone living in Israel. There is an analogous situation with how 19th century long distance trading vessels were known as "Indiamen", not because they necessarily sailed the routes to India, but because they were long distance vessels of the kind which had sailed to India. This is why 'going to Tarshish' in 2 Chron. 20:36,37 is paralleled with 'going to Ophir in ships of Tarshish' in 1 Kings 22:48.

"Ophir" may have been a generic name for areas to the east, including southern Arabia (famed for gold in Ps. 72:15; Ez. 27:22) and India; Ophir was in Arabia according to Gen. 10:29. Sheba was nearby and was famed for gold, so it was through this trading that the Queen of Sheba heard of the wisdom of Solomon. 1 Kings 10:1 goes on to speak of her after mentioning gold of Ophir in 1 Kings 9:28, connecting her with this gold trade with Ophir. But 1 Kings 10:11 connects Ophir with "almug trees and precious stones". "Almug" appears to refer to sandalwood, "the Hebraized form of the Deccan word for sandal". This points to "Ophir" as being in the east, possibly as far as the Indian coast where these trees grow.

1 Kings 22:49 Then Ahaziah the son of Ahab said to Jehoshaphat, Let my servants go with your servants in the ships. But Jehoshaphat would not-

Jehoshaphat finally learned his lesson of not associating with the ten tribes because of their apostacy. But he was so very slow in learning it. We would have thought that his experience in the battle at Ramoth Gilead would have taught him. But it didn't. His ships had to be broken by the wind / storm of God's wrath (:48). And then when Ahaziah proposes another join venture, finally Jehoshaphat learns the lesson. We marvel again at God's patience with men. This means that we are to continue seeking the repentance of men and never cut them off, as is typically done by small minded churches 'disfellowshipping' people.

1 Kings 22:50 Jehoshaphat slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David his father; Jehoram his son reigned in his place-

"Jehoram", 'Raised by Yah', would reflect spirituality in Jehoshaphat. We note that so many of the kings of Israel didn't have the covenant Name within their names, whereas the kings of Judah did.

1 Kings 22:51 Ahaziah the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria in the seventeenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and he reigned two years over Israel-

The fact Ahab gave his son a name with the 'Yah' suffix ['Yah has seized'] indicates that Ahab did have some desire to show commitment to Yahweh despite Jezebel; for Jezebel surely would have been against this name. But he failed to raise the boy to be a follower of Yahweh, and in the end, Jezebel's influence was stronger upon him. We again see in Ahab a man who knew better than to live how he did, and who showed moments and aspects of commitment to the true God, but lived a life of overall failure until his final repentance.

1 Kings 22:52 He did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh, and walked in the way of his father and in the way of his mother, and in the way of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, in which he made Israel to sin-

The language here and in :53 appears to give no credit to Ahab for his repentance which had so pleased Yahweh. Perhaps that was of no abiding value, seeing that immediately before his death he specifically rejected the word of Yahweh for that of the false prophets, which led him to his death.

1 Kings 22:53 He served Baal and worshipped him, and provoked to anger Yahweh, the God of Israel, according to all that his father had done-

God can be grieved [s.w. 'provoke to anger']. He has emotions, and His potential foreknowledge doesn't mean that these feelings are not legitimate. They are presented as occurring in human time, as responses to human behaviour. This is the degree to which He has accommodated Himself to human time-space limits, in order to fully enter relationship and experience with us. As He can limit His omnipotence, so God can limit His omniscience, in order to feel and respond along with us.

Table of Contents

1 Kings: New European Christadelphian Commentary

Copyright

PREFACE

1 Kings

1 Kings Chapter 1

1 Kings Chapter 2

1 Kings Chapter 3

1 Kings Chapter 4

1 Kings Chapter 5

1 Kings Chapter 6

1 Kings Chapter 7

1 Kings Chapter 8

1 Kings Chapter 9

1 Kings Chapter 10

1 Kings Chapter 11

1 Kings Chapter 12

1 Kings Chapter 13

1 Kings Chapter 14

1 Kings Chapter 15

1 Kings Chapter 16

1 Kings Chapter 17

1 Kings Chapter 18

1 Kings Chapter 19

1 Kings Chapter 20

1 Kings Chapter 21

1 Kings Chapter 22