Text -- 1 Kings 9:11 (NET)

9:11 King Solomon gave King Hiram of Tyre twenty cities in the region of Galilee, because Hiram had supplied Solomon with cedars, evergreens, and all the gold he wanted.

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Wesley: 1Ki 9:11

Or, near the land of Galilee, bordering upon it; in those parts which were near, and adjoining to Hiram's dominions: with the cities, understand the territories belonging to them. These cities, though they were within those large bounds which God fixed to the land of promise, Gen 15:18; Jos 1:4, yet were not within those parts which were distributed by lot in Joshua's time. It is probable they were not inhabited by Israelites, but by Canaanites, or other Heathens; who being subdued, and extirpated by David or Solomon, those cities became a part of their dominions; and afterwards were reckoned a part of Galilee, as Josephus notes.

JFB: 1Ki 9:11

According to JOSEPHUS, they were situated on the northwest of it, adjacent to Tyre. Though lying within the boundaries of the promised land (Gen 15:18; Jos 1:4), they had never been conquered till then, and were inhabited by Canaanite heathens (Jdg 4:2-13; 2Ki 15:29). They were probably given to Hiram, whose dominions were small, as a remuneration for his important services in furnishing workmen, materials, and an immense quantity of wrought gold (1Ki 9:14) for the temple and other buildings [MICHAELIS]. The gold, however, as others think, may have been the amount of forfeits paid to Solomon by Hiram for not being able to answer the riddles and apothegms, with which, according to JOSEPHUS, in their private correspondence, the two sovereigns amused themselves. Hiram having refused these cities, probably on account of their inland situation making them unsuitable to his maritime and commercial people, Solomon satisfied his ally in some other way; and, taking these cities into his own hands, he first repaired their shattered walls, then filled them with a colony of Hebrews (2Ch 8:2).|| 09067||1||10||0||@this is the reason of the levy==--A levy refers both to men and money, and the necessity for Solomon making it arose from the many gigantic works he undertook to erect.

JFB: 1Ki 9:11

Part of the fort of Jerusalem on Mount Zion (2Sa 5:9; 1Ch 11:8), or a row of stone bastions around Mount Zion, Millo being the great corner tower of that fortified wall (1Ki 11:27; 2Ch 32:5).

JFB: 1Ki 9:11

Either repairing some breaches in it (1Ki 11:27), or extending it so as to enclose Mount Zion.

JFB: 1Ki 9:11

Fortified on account of its importance as a town in the northern boundary of the country.

JFB: 1Ki 9:11

(now Leijun)--Lying in the great caravan road between Egypt and Damascus, it was the key to the north of Palestine by the western lowlands, and therefore fortified.

JFB: 1Ki 9:11

On the western confines of Ephraim, and, though a Levitical city, occupied by the Canaanites. Having fallen by right of conquest to the king of Egypt, who for some cause attacked it, it was given by him as a dowry to his daughter, and fortified by Solomon.

Clarke: 1Ki 9:11

Solomon gave Hiram twenty cities - It is very likely that Solomon did not give those cities to Hiram so that they should be annexed to his Tyrian dominions, but rather gave him the produce of them till the money was paid which he had advanced to Solomon for his buildings. It appears however that either Hiram did not accept them, or that having received the produce till he was paid, he then restored them to Solomon; for in the parallel place, 2Ch 8:2, it is said, The cities which Hiram had restored to Solomon, Solomon built them, and caused the children of Israel to dwell there. Some think that they were heathen cities which Solomon had conquered, and therefore had a right to give them if he pleased, as they were not any part of the land given by promise to the Israelites.

TSK: 1Ki 9:11

Now Hiram : 1Ki 5:6-10; 2Ch 2:8-10, 2Ch 2:16

king Solomon : 2Ch 8:2

of Galilee : Jos 20:7

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: 1Ki 9:11

By the spirit, if not by the letter, of the Law, Solomon had no right to give away these cities, or any part of the inheritance of Israel Lev. 25:13-34. But the exigences of a worldly policy caused the requirements of the Law to be set aside.

Poole: 1Ki 9:11

Or, near (as beth oft signifies, as hath been proved before)

the land of Galilee bordering upon it; in those parts which were near and adjoining to Hiram’ s dominions: with the cities understand the lands and territories belonging to them.

Quest. How could Solomon give away any part of that land wherein the people had a right by a Divine lot, and God had a right, as being the only proprietary of it; upon which ground the total alienation of it, or any part of it, was forbidden, Lev 25:23 ?

Answ 1. It is not said that he gave them away wholly, and for ever; but he might assign them to him only for a time, until he was fully satisfied for his debt.

2. If these cities were possessed by Israelites, Solomon did not give him their particular possessions, but only his own royalties over them, and all the profits he received from them, which were very considerable, as may be gathered from that passage, 1Ki 12:4 .

3. These cities, though they were within those large bounds which God fixed to the Land of Promise, Gen 15:18 Jos 1:4 , yet were not within those parts which were distributed by Lot in Joshua’ s time, nor belonging to the tribe of Asher, (as some suppose,) as may be gathered both from Jos 19:27 , where their border is said to go out only to the land of Cabul , to wit, exclusively; and Jos 19:30 , where all their cities are said to be but twenty and two; and from 2Ch 8:2 , where it is said of those cities, when Hiram restored them, that Solomon built them, and caused the children of Israel to dwell there ; which makes it more than probable that these cities were not inhabited by Israelites, but by Canaanites, or other heathens; who being subdued and extirpated by David, or Solomon, those cities became a part of their dominions, and at their disposal; and afterwards were reckoned a part of Galilee, as Josephus notes; and may be one reason why he gave these rather than other cities, because they were in his power to give, when others were not.

Haydock: 1Ki 9:11

Galilee, the higher, which was nearer to the sea and the confines of Tyre; (Menochius) or rather the lower Galilee lay in this direction. (Calmet) ---

This was not a part of the country allotted to Israel, (Josue xix. 27.) but had been conquered: as Hiram gave the cities back, 2 Paralipomenon viii. 2. Solomon caused them to be rebuilt, and peopled by the Israelites. (Grotius) ---

If they had formed a part of his dominions before, he would not have had to send a colony thither. (Calmet) ---

Others think that he only ceded that country for a time to Hiram, till he should be indemnified. (Abulensis) (Tostat) (Menochius) (Tirinus) (Worthington) ---

The country belonged to the Lord, (Leviticus xxv. 13.) and could not be given away by the prince. In case it had been occupied by strangers, Solomon would have taken care that the Israelites should have the free exercise of their religion. But as Hiram rejected his offer, he would make him recompense by some other means; (Calmet) in ready money, ver. 14. (Josephus) (Tirinus)

Gill: 1Ki 9:11

(Now Hiram the king of Tyre had furnished Solomon with cedar trees and fir trees,.... For the building of both his houses; see 1Ki 5:8,

and with gold, according to all his desire): which is not before mentioned, and accounts for it from whence Solomon had his gold; if he made no use, as some think he did not, of what his father left him; see 1Ki 7:51 with which he covered several parts of the temple, and made several vessels in it. Hiram traded to Ophir, and had it from thence; and he could supply Solomon with it, and did, before he sent a navy thither:

that then Solomon gave Hiram twenty cities in the land of Galilee; that is, by or near it, for they were not in the land of Canaan; for then Solomon could not have disposed of them, being allotted and belonging to one of the tribes of Israel, and part of the Lord's inheritance; but they were upon the borders, particularly on the borders of Asher, if Cabul in Jos 19:27, can be thought to be the same with these; though some think that Solomon did not give Hiram the possession of these cities, but the royalties and revenues of them, their produce until the debt was paid: but they rather seem to be a gratuity, and a full grant of them, and might be cities which David had conquered, and taken out of the hands of the ancient inhabitants of them; and so Solomon had a right to dispose of them, being left him by his father; for it is plain as yet they were not inhabited by Israelites; see 2Ch 8:2. They are by a Jewish writer ^f said to be twenty two, very wrongly.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: 1Ki 9:11

¹ map For location see Map1 A2; Map2 G2; Map4 A1; JP3 F3; JP4 F3.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: 1Ki 9:1-28

1 God's covenant in a vision with Solomon.

10 The mutual presents of Solomon and Hiram.

15 In Solomon's works the Gentiles were his bondmen, the Israelites honourable servants.

24 Pharaoh's daughter removes to her house.

25 Solomon's yearly solemn sacrifices.

26 His navy fetches gold from Ophir.

MHCC: 1Ki 9:10-14

Solomon gave Hiram twenty cities. Hiram did not like them. If Solomon would gratify him, let it be in his own element, by becoming his partner in trade, as he did. See how the providence of God suits this earth to the various tempers of men, and the dispositions of men to the earth, and all for the good of mankind in general.

Matthew Henry: 1Ki 9:10-14

What agreement was made between Solomon and Hiram, when the building-work was to be begun, we read before, ch. 5. Here we have an account of their fair and friendly parting when the work was done. 1. Hiram made good his bargain to the utmost. He had furnished Solomon with materials for his buildings, according to all his desire (1Ki 9:11), and with gold, 1Ki 9:15. So far was he from envying Solomon's growing greatness and reputation, and being jealous of him, that he helped to magnify him. Solomon's power, with Solomon's wisdom, needs not be dreaded by any of his neighbours. God honours him; therefore Hiram will. 2. Solomon, no doubt, made good his bargain, and gave Hiram food for his household, as was agreed, 1Ki 5:9. But here we are told that, over and above that, he gave him twenty cities (small ones we may suppose, like those mentioned here, 1Ki 9:19) in the land of Galilee, 1Ki 9:11. It should seem, these were not allotted to any of the tribes of Israel (for the border of Asher came up to them, Jos 19:27, which intimates that it did not include them), but continued in the hands of the natives till Solomon made himself master of them, and then made a present of them to Hiram. It becomes those that are great and good to be generous. Hiram came to see these cities, and did not like them (1Ki 9:12): They pleased him not. He called the country the land of Cabul, a Phoenician word (says Josephus) which signifies displeasing, 1Ki 9:13. He therefore returned them to Solomon (as we find, 2Ch 8:2), who repaired them, and then caused the children of Israel to inhabit them, which intimates that before they did not; but, when Solomon received back what he had given, no doubt he honourably gave Hiram an equivalent in something else. But what shall we think of this? Did Solomon act meanly in giving Hiram what was not worth his acceptance? Or was Hiram humoursome and hard to please? I am willing to believe it was neither the one nor the other. The country was truly valuable, and so were the cities in it, but not agreeable to Hiram's genius. The Tyrians were merchants, trading men, that lived in fine houses, and became rich by navigation, but knew not how to value a country that was fit for corn and pasture (that was business that lay out of their way); and therefore Hiram desired Solomon to take them again, he knew not what to do with them, and, if he would please to gratify him, let it be in his own element, by becoming his partner in trade, as we find he did, 1Ki 9:27. Hiram, who was used to the clean streets of Tyre, could by no means agree with the miry lanes in the land of Cabul, whereas the best lands have commonly the worst roads through them. See how the providence of God suits both the accommodation of this earth to the various dispositions of men and the dispositions of men to the various accommodations of the earth, and all for the good of mankind in general. Some take delight in husbandry, and wonder what pleasure sailors can take on a rough sea; others take as much delight in navigation, and wonder what pleasure husbandmen can take in a dirty country, like the land of Cabul. It is so in many other instances, in which we may observe the wisdom of him whose all souls are and all lands.

Keil-Delitzsch: 1Ki 9:10-28

The Means by which the Buildings were Erected. - In order that all which still remained to be said concerning Solomon's buildings might be grouped together, different notices are introduced here, namely, as to his relation to Hiram, the erection of several fortresses, and the tributary labour, and also as to his maritime expeditions; and these heterogeneous materials are so arranged as to indicate the resources which enabled Solomon to erect so many and such magnificent buildings. These resources were: (1) his connection with king Hiram, who furnished him with building materials (1Ki 9:10-14); (2) the tributary labour which he raised in his kingdom (1Ki 9:15-25); (3) the maritime expedition to Ophir, which brought him great wealth (1Ki 9:26-28). But these notices are very condensed, and, as a comparison with the parallel account in 2 Chron 8 shows, are simply incomplete extracts from a more elaborate history. In the account of the tributary labour, the enumeration of the cities finished and fortified (1Ki 9:15-19) is interpolated; and the information concerning the support which was rendered to Solomon in the erection of his buildings by Hiram (1Ki 9:11-14), is merely supplementary to the account already given in 1Ki 9:5. 1Ki 9:24, 1Ki 9:25 point still more clearly to an earlier account, since they would be otherwise unintelligible. - In 2 Chron 8 the arrangement is a simpler one: the buildings are first of all enumerated in 2Ch 8:1-6, and the account of the tributary labour follows in 2Ch 8:7-11.

1Ki 9:10-14

The notices concerning Solomon's connection with Hiram are very imperfect; for 1Ki 9:14 does not furnish a conclusion either in form or substance. The notice in 2 Chron 8; 1:1-2:18 is still shorter, but it supplies an important addition to the account before us.

1Ki 9:10-14

1Ki 9:10, 1Ki 9:11 form one period. יתּן אז (then he gave) in 1Ki 9:11 introduces the apodosis to מק ויהי (and it came to pass, etc.) in 1Ki 9:10; and 1Ki 9:11 contains a circumstantial clause inserted as a parenthesis. Hiram had supported Solomon according to his desire with cedar wood and cypress wood, and with gold; and Solomon gave him in return, after his buildings were completed, twenty cities in the land of Galil . But these cities did not please Hiram. When he went out to see them, he said, "What kind of cities are these ( מה in a contemptuous sense) which thou hast given me, my brother?" אחו as in 1Ki 20:32, 1 Macc. 10:18; 11:30, 2 Macc. 11:22, as a conventional expression used by princes in their intercourse with one another. "And he called the land Cabul unto this day;"i.e., it retained this name even to later times. The land of Galil is a part of the country which was afterwards known as Galilaea , namely, the northern portion of it, as is evident from the fact that in Jos 20:7; Jos 21:32, Kedes in the mountains of Naphtali, to the north-west of Lake Huleh , is distinguished from the kadesh in southern Palestine by the epithet בּגּליל . It is still more evident from 2Ki 15:29 and Isa 9:1 and Galil embraced the northern part of the tribe of Naphtali; whilst the expression used by Isaiah, הגּוים גּליל , also shows that this district was for the most part inhabited by heathen (i.e., non-Israelites). The twenty cities in Galil , which Solomon gave to Hiram, certainly belonged therefore to the cities of the Canaanites mentioned in 2Sa 24:7; that is to say, they were cities occupied chiefly by a heathen population, and in all probability they were in a very bad condition. Consequently they did not please Hiram, and he gave to the district the contemptuous name of the land of Cabul . Of the various interpretations given to the word Cabul (see Ges. Thes . p. 656), the one proposed by Hiller ( Onomast . p. 435), and adopted by Reland, Ges., Maurer, and others, viz., that it is a contraction of כּהבּוּל , sicut id quod evanuit tanquam nihil , has the most to support it, since this is the meaning required by the context. At the same time it is possible, and even probable, that it had originally a different signification, and is derived from כּבל = חבל in the sense of to pawn, as Gesenius and Dietrich suppose. This is favoured by the occurrence of the name Cabul in Jos 19:27, where it is probably derivable from כּבל , to fetter, and signifies literally a fortress or castle; but in this instance it has no connection with the land of Cabul , since it is still preserved in the village of Cabul to the south-east of Acre (see the Comm. on Josh. l.c. ). The "land of Cabul"would therefore mean the pawned land; and in the mouths of the people this would be twisted into "good for nothing."In this case ויּקרא would have to be taken impersonally: "they called;"and the notice respecting this name would be simply an explanation of the way in which the people interpreted it. Hiram, however, did not retain this district, but gave it back to Solomon, who then completed the cities (2Ch 8:2).

(Note: This simple method of reconciling the account before us withthe apparently discrepant notice in the Chronicles, concerning whicheven Movers ( die biblische Chronik , p. 159) observes, that thechronicler interpolated it from a second (?) source, is so natural, thatit is difficult to conceive how Bertheau can object to it; since headmits that the accounts in the books of Kings and Chronicles areincomplete extracts from common and more elaborate sources.)

The only way in which we can give to 1Ki 9:14 a meaning in harmony with the context, is by taking it as a supplementary explanation of וּבזּהב ... נשּׂא ... חירם in 1Ki 9:11, and so rendering ויּשׁלח as a pluperfect, as in 1Ki 7:13 : "Hiram had sent the king a hundred and twenty talents of gold."If we reckon the value of gold as being ten times the worth of silver, a hundred and twenty talents of gold would be 3,141, 600 thalers (about £ 471,240: Tr.). This is no doubt to be regarded as a loan, which Solomon obtained from Hiram to enable him to complete his buildings. Although David may have collected together the requisite amount of precious metals for the building of the temple, and Solomon had also very considerable yearly revenues, derived partly from tribute paid by subjugated nations and partly from trade, his buildings were so extensive, inasmuch as he erected a large number of cities beside the temple and his splendid palace (1Ki 9:15-19), that his revenues might not suffice for the completion of these costly works; and therefore, since he would not apply the consecrated treasures of the temple to the erection of cities and palaces, he might find himself compelled to procure a loan from the wealthy king Hiram, which he probably intended to cover by ceding to him twenty cities on the border of the Phoenician territory. But as these cities did not please the king of Tyre and he gave them back to Solomon, the latter will no doubt have repaid the amount borrowed during the last twenty years of his reign.

1Ki 9:15-23

Solomon's tribute service, and the building of the cities . (Cf. 2Ch 8:3-10.) The other means by which Solomon made it possible to erect so many buildings, was by compelling the remnants of the Canaanitish population that were still in the land to perform tributary labour. המּס דּבר יד , "this is the case with regard to the tribute."For מס העלה compare 1Ki 5:13. To the announcement of the object which Solomon had in view in raising tributary labourers, namely, to build, etc., there is immediately appended a list of all the buildings completed by him (1Ki 9:15-19); and it is not till 1Ki 9:20 that we have more precise details concerning the tribute itself. Millo, the wall of Jerusalem, and the cities enumerated, are for the most part not new buildings, but simply fortifications, or the completion of buildings already in existence. David had already built the castle of Millo and the wall of Jerusalem (2Sa 5:9); so that Solomon's building was in both cases merely fortifying more strongly. On Millo see the fuller remarks at 2Sa 5:9; and on the building of the wall, those at 1Ki 3:1 and 1Ki 11:27. As Solomon thereby closed the breach of the city of David according to 1Ki 11:27, he probably extended the city wall so as to enclose the temple mountain; and he may possibly have also surrounded the lower city with a wall, since David had only built a fortification round about the upper city upon Zion (see at 2Sa 5:9). - Hazor : an old royal city of the Canaanites above Lake Huleh , which has not yet been discovered (see at Jos 11:1). Megiddo , i.e., Lejun (see at 1Ki 4:12). Gezer : also an old Canaanitish royal city, which stood close to the Philistian frontier, probably on the site of the present village of el Kubab (see at Jos 10:33).

1Ki 9:16

This city had been taken and burned down by the king of Egypt; its Canaanitish inhabitants had been put to death; and the city itself had been given as a marriage portion to his daughter who was married to Solomon. Nothing is known concerning the occasion and object of Pharaoh's warlike expedition against this city. The conjecture of Thenius, that the Canaanitish inhabitants of Gezer had drawn upon themselves the vengeance of Pharaoh, mentioned here, through a piratical raid upon the Egyptian coast, is open to this objection, that according to all accounts concerning its situation, Gezer was not situated near the sea-coast, but very far inland.

1Ki 9:17

This city Solomon built: i.e., he not only rebuilt it, but also fortified it. He did the same also to Lower Bethhoron , i.e., Beit-Ur Tachta , on the western slope of the mountains, four hours' journey from Gibeon. According to 2Ch 8:5, Solomon also fortified Upper Bethhoron , which was separated by a deep wady from Lower Bethhoron, that lay to the west (see Comm. on Jos 10:10 and Jos 16:3). The two Bethhorons and Gezer were very important places for the protection of the mountainous country of Benjamin, Ephraim, and Judah against hostile invasions from the Philistian plain. The situation of Megiddo on the southern edge of the plain of Jezreel, through which the high road from the western coast to the Jordan ran, was equally important; and so also was Hazor as a border fortress against Syria in the northern part of the land.

1Ki 9:18

Solomon also built, i.e., fortified, Baalath and Tadmor in the desert. According to Jos 19:44, Baalath was a city of Dan, and therefore, as Josephus ( Ant . viii. 6, 1) justly observes, was not far from Gezer; and consequently is not to be identified with either Baalgad or Baalbek in Coele-syria (Iken, ich. Rosenm.; cf. Robinson, Bibl. Res . p. 519). תמר ( Chethîb ) is either to be read תּמר , or according to Ewald ( Gesch . iii. p. 344) תּמּר , palm, a palm-city. The Keri requires תּדמר (Tadmor, after 2Ch 8:4), a pronunciation which may possibly have simply arisen from Aramaean expansion, but which is still the name for the city current among the Arabs even in the present day (Arabic tadmur , locus palmarum ferax ). The Greeks and Romans called it Palmyra . It was situated in what is certainly now a very desolate oasis of the Syrian desert, on the caravan road between Damascus and the Euphrates, - according to modern accounts, not more than seventeen hours' journey from that river; and there are still magnificent ruins which attest the former glory of this wealthy and, under queen Zenobia, very powerful city (cf. Ritter, Erdk . xvii. 2, p. 1486ff., and E. Osiander in Herzog's Cycl .). The correctness of this explanation of the name is placed beyond all doubt by the words "in the wilderness;"and consequently even Movers has given up his former opinion, viz., that it was the city of Thamar in southern Judah (Eze 47:19; Eze 48:28), which Thenius has since adopted, and has decided in favour of Palmyra, without being led astray by the attempt of Hitzig to explain the name from the Sanscrit (vid., Deutsche morgld. Ztschr . viii. p. 222ff.). The expression בּארץ appears superfluous, as all the cities named before were situated in the land or kingdom of Solomon, and Tadmor is sufficiently defined by בּמּדבּר (in the desert). The text is evidently faulty, and either the name of the land, namely Hamath (according to 2Ch 8:4), has dropped out, or בּארץ is to be taken in connection with what follows (according to the Cod. Al. of the lxx), and the cop. ו before כּל־ערי את must be erased and inserted before בּארץ ("and in the land of all the magazine-cities").

1Ki 9:19-21

The "magazine-cities"( המּסכּנות ערי ) were fortified cities, in which the produce of the land was collected, partly for provisioning the army, and partly for the support of the rural population in times of distress (2Ch 17:12; 2Ch 32:28), similar to those which Pharaoh had built in the land of Goshen (Exo 1:11). If they were situated on the great commercial roads, they may also have served for storing provisions for the necessities of travellers and their beasts of burden. The cities for the war-chariots ( הרכב ) and cavalry ( הפּרשׁים ) were probably in part identical with the magazine-cities, and situated in different parts of the kingdom. There were no doubt some of these upon Lebanon, as we may on the one hand infer from the general importance of the northern frontier to the security of the whole kingdom, and still more from the fact that Solomon had an opponent at Damascus in the person of Rezin (1Ki 11:24), who could easily stir up rebellion in the northern provinces, which had only just been incorporated by David into the kingdom; and as we may on the other hand clearly gather from 2Ch 16:4, according to which there were magazine-cities in the land of Naphtali. Finally, the words "and what Solomon had a desire to build"embrace all the rest of his buildings, which it would have occupied too much space to enumerate singly. That the words חשׁק את are not to be so pressed as to be made to denote simply "the buildings undertaking for pure pleasure,"like the works mentioned in Ecc 2:4., as Thenius and Bertheau suppose, is evident from a comparison of 1Ki 9:1, where all Solomon's buildings except the temple and palace, and therefore the fortifications as well as others, are included in the expression "all his desire."- Fuller particulars concerning the tributary workmen are given in 1Ki 9:20. The Canaanitish population that was left in the land were made use of for this purpose, - namely, the descendants of the Canaanites who had not been entirely exterminated by the Israelites. "Their children,"etc., supplies a more precise definition of the expression "all the people,"etc., in 1Ki 9:20.

1Ki 9:22-23

Solomon did not make Israelites into tributary slaves; but they were warriors, ministers, and civil and military officers. עבדים are the king's servants; שׂרים , the heads of the military and civil service; שׁלשׁים , royal adjutants (see at 2Sa 23:8); וּפרשׁיו רכבּו שׂרי , captains over the royal war-chariots and cavalry. - For 1Ki 9:23 compare 1Ki 5:16.

1Ki 9:24-25

1Ki 9:24, 1Ki 9:25 contain two notices, with which the account of Solomon's buildings is brought to a close. Both verses point back to 1Ki 3:1-4 (viz., 1Ki 9:24 to 1Ki 3:1, and 1Ki 9:25 to 1Ki 3:2-4), and show how the incongruities which existed at the commencement of Solomon's reign were removed by his buildings. When Solomon married Pharaoh's daughter, he brought her into the city of David (1Ki 3:1), until he should have finished his palace and built her a house of her own within it. After this building was completed, he had her brought up from the city of David into it. עלה , came up, inasmuch as the palace stood upon the loftier summit of Zion. אך is to be connected with אז which follows, in the sense of only or just as : as soon as Pharaoh's daughter had gone up into the house built for her, Solomon built Millo.

(Note: Nothing certain can be gathered from this notice as to thesituation of this castle. The remark made by Thenius, to the effectthat it must have joined that portion of the palace in which theharem was, rests upon the assumption that Millo was evidentlyintended to shelter the harem,- an assumption which cannot be raisedinto a probability, to say nothing of a certainty. The building of Milloimmediately after the entrance of Pharaoh's daughter into the houseerected for her, may have arisen from the fact that David (?Solomon- Tr.) could not undertake the fortification of Jerusalem bymeans of this castle till after his own palace was finished, because hehad not the requisite labour at command for carrying on all thesebuildings at the same time.)

1Ki 9:25

After the building of the temple, the practice of sacrificing upon the altars of the high places could be brought to an end (1Ki 3:2). Solomon now offered burnt-offerings and thank-offerings three times a year upon the altar which he had built to the Lord, i.e., upon the altar of burnt-offering in the temple, or as 2 Chron 8; 12 adds by way of explanation, "before the porch.""Three times in the year:"i.e., at the three great yearly feasts - passover, the feast of weeks, and the feast of tabernacles (2Ch 8:13). The words which follow, אתּו והקטיר , "and indeed burning (the sacrifice) at the (altar) which was before Jehovah,"cannot be taken as parallel to the preceding clause, and understood as referring to the incense, which was offered along with the bleeding sacrifices, because הקטיר is not a preterite, but an inf. absol., which shows that this clause merely serves as an explanation of the preceding one, in the sense of, "namely, burning the sacrifices at the altar which was before Jehovah." חקטיר is the technical expression here for the burning of the portions of the sacrificial flesh upon the altar, as in Exo 29:18; Lev 1:9, etc. On the use of אשׁר after אתּו , which Thenius and Böttcher could not understand, and on which they built up all kinds of conjectures, see Ewald, §333, a ., note. - את־הבּית ושׁלּם , "and made the house complete,"i.e., he put the temple into a state of completion by offering the yearly sacrifices there from that time forward, or, as Böttcher explains it, gave it thereby its full worth as a house of God and place of worship. ושׁלּם is to be taken grammatically as a continuation of the inf. abs. הקטיר .

1Ki 9:26-28

He sends ships to Ophir . - Solomon built a fleet ( אני is collective, ships or fleet; the nom. unitatis is אניּה ) at Eziongeber, near Eloth, on the coast of the Red Sea ( ים־סוּף : see at Exo 10:19), in the land of Edom; and Hiram sent in the fleet "shipmen that had knowledge of the sea"along with Solomon's servants to Ophir, whence they brought to king Solomon 420 talents of gold. Eziongeber , a harbour at the north-eastern end of the Elanitic Gulf, was probably the "large and beautiful town of Asziun "mentioned by Makrizi (see at Num 33:35), and situated on the great bay of Wady Emrag (see Rüppell, Reisen in Nubien , pp. 252-3). Eloth (lit., trees, a grove, probably so named from the large palm-grove in the neighbourhood), or Elath (Deu 2:8; 2Ki 14:22 : see at Gen 14:6), the Aila and Aelana of the Greeks and Romans, Arab. Aileh , was situated at the northern point of the (Elanitic) gulf, which took its name from the town; and in the time of the Fathers it was an important commercial town. It was not far from the small modern fortress of Akaba , where heaps of rubbish still show the spot on which it formerly stood (compare Rüppell, Nub . p. 248, with plates 6 and 7, and Robinson, Pal . i. p. 251ff.). - The corresponding text, 2Ch 8:17-18, differs in many respects from the account before us. The statement in the Chronicles, that Solomon went to Eziongeber and Elath, is but a very unimportant deviation; for the building of the fleet makes it a very probable thing in itself that Solomon should have visited on that account the two towns on the Elanitic Gulf, which were very near to one another, to make the requisite arrangements upon the spot for this important undertaking. There is apparently a far greater deviation in 1Ki 9:27, where, in the place of the statement that Hiram sent בּאני , in the (or a) fleet, his servants as sailors who had knowledge of the sea, the chronicler affirms that Hiram sent by his servants ships and men who had knowledge of the sea. For the only way in which Hiram could send ships to Eziongeber was either by land or (as Ritter, Erdk . xiv. p. 365, supposes) out of the Persian Gulf, supposing that the Tyrians had a fleet upon that sea at so early a date as this. The statement in the Chronicles receives an apparent confirmation from 1Ki 10:22, "The king had a Tarshish fleet upon the sea with the fleet of Hiram,"if indeed this passage also refers to the trade with Ophir, as is generally supposed; for then these words affirm that Hiram sent ships of his own to Ophir along with those of Solomon. We do not think it probable, however that the words "Hiram sent ships by his own men"are to be so pressed as to be taken to mean that he had whole ships, or ships taken to pieces, conveyed to Eziongeber either from Tyre or out of the Mediterranean Sea, although many cases might be cited from antiquity in support of this view.

(Note: Thus, for example, according to Arriani exped. Alex . l. v. p. 329, and vii. p. 485 (ed. Blanc), Alexander the Great had shipstransported from Phoenicia to the Euphrates, and out of the Indusinto the Hydaspes, the ships being taken to pieces for the landtransport ( ἐτμήθησαν ), and the pieces ( τμήματα ) afterwardsjoined together again. Plutarch relates ( vita Anton . p. 948, ed. Frkf. 1620) that Cleopatra would have had her whole fleet carried acrossthe isthmus which separates Egypt from the Red Sea, and haveescaped by that means, had not the Arabs prevented the execution ofher plan by burning the first ships that were drawn up on the land. According to Thucydides, bell. Pelop . iv. 8, the Peloponnesiansconveyed sixty ships which lay at Corcyra across the Leucadianisthmus. Compare also Polyaeni strateg . v. 2, 6, and Ammian. Marcell. xxiv. 7, and from the middle ages the account of Makrizi inBurckhardt's Reisen in Syrien , p. 331.)

In all probability the words affirm nothing more than that Hiram supplied the ships for this voyage, that is to say, that he had them built at Eziongeber by his own men, and the requisite materials conveyed thither, so far as they were not to be obtained upon the spot. At any rate, Solomon was obliged to call the Tyrians to his help for the building of the ships, since the Israelites, who had hitherto carried in no maritime trade at all, were altogether inexperienced in shipbuilding. Moreover, the country round Eziongeber would hardly furnish wood adapted for the purpose, as there are only palms to be found there, whose spongy wood, however useful it may be for the inside of houses, cannot be applied to the building of ships. But if Hiram had ships built for Solomon by his own men and sent him sailors who were accustomed to the sea, he would certainly have some of his own ships engaged in this maritime trade; and this explains the statement in 1Ki 10:22.

The destination of the fleet was Ophir , whence the ships brought 420 or (according to the Chronicles) 450 talents of gold. The difference between 420 and 450 may be accounted for from the substitution of the numeral letter נ (50) for כ (20). The sum mentioned amounted to eleven or twelve million dollars (from £ 1,600,000 to £ 1,800,000 - Tr.), and the question arises, whether this is to be taken as the result of one voyage, or as the entire profits resulting from the expeditions to Ophir. The words admit of either interpretation, although they are more favourable to the latter than to the former, inasmuch as there is no allusion whatever to the fact that they brought this amount all at once or on every voyage. (See also at 1Ki 10:14, 1Ki 10:22.) The question as to the situation of Ophir has given rise to great dispute, and hitherto no certain conclusion has been arrived at; in fact, it is possible that there are no longer any means of deciding it. Some have endeavoured to prove that it was in southern Arabia, others that it was on the eastern coast of Africa, and others again that it was in Hither India.

(Note: Compare the thorough examination of the different viewsconcerning Ophir in C. Ritter's Erdk . xiv. pp. 348-431, with thebriefer collection made by Gesenius in his Thes . p. 141f. and in the Allgem. Encyclop. der Wissenschaft u. Künste , 3 Sect. Bd. 4, p. 201ff., and by Pressel, art. "Ophir,"in Herzog's Cyclopaedia .- Weneed not dwell upon the different opinions held by the earlier writers. But among modern authors, Niebuhr, Gesenius, Rosenmüller, andSeetzen decide in favour of Arabia; Quatremère ( Mémoire sur le paysd'Ophir in Mém. de l'Instit. roy . 1845, t. xv. P. ii. p. 350ff.) andMovers, who takes Ophir to be the name of an emporium on theeastern coast of Africa, in favour of Sofala; while Chr. Lassen( Indische Alterthumskunde , i. p. 537ff., ii. p. 552ff.) and C. Ritter arethe principal supporters of India. On the other hand, Albr. Roscher( Ptolemäus und die Handelsstrassen in Central-Africa , Gotha 1857, p. 57ff.) has attempted to connect together all these views by assumingthat the seamen of Hiram and Solomon fetched the gold of WesternAfrica from the island of Dahlak in the Red Sea, and having taken itto India to exchange, returned at the end of a three years'voyageenriched with gold and the productions of India.)

The decision is dependent upon a previous question, whether 1Ki 10:22, "The king had a Tarshish fleet upon the sea with the fleet of Hiram; once in three years came the Tarshish fleet, bringing gold, silver,"etc., also applies to the voyage to Ophir. The expression "Tarshish fleet;"the word בּיּם ("on the sea"), which naturally suggests that sea to which the Israelites applied the special epithet היּם , namely the Mediterranean; and lastly, the difference in the cargoes, - the ships from Ophir bringing gold and algummim wood (1Ki 9:28 and 1Ki 10:11), and the Tarshish fleet bringing gold, silver, ivory, apes, and peacocks (1Ki 10:22), - appear to favour the conclusion that the Tarshish fleet did not sail to Ophir, but upon the Mediterranean Sea to Tarshish, i.e., Tartessus in Spain; to which we may add the fact that תרשׁישׁ אני is reproduced in 2Ch 9:21 by תּרשׁישׁ הלכות אניּות , "ships going to Tarshish."Nevertheless, however plausible these arguments may appear, after a renewed investigation of the subject I cannot regard them as having decisive weight: for (1) the expression "Tarshish fleet"is used in 1Ki 22:49 in connection with ships that were intended to go to Ophir; (2) בּיּם (upon the sea) might receive its more precise definition from what precedes; and (3) the difference in the cargoes reduces itself to this, that in addition to the gold, which was the chief production of Ophir, there are a few other articles of trade mentioned, so that the account in 1Ki 10:22 is more complete than that in 1Ki 9:28 and 1Ki 10:11. The statement concerning the Tarshish fleet in 1Ki 10:22 contains a passing remark, like that in 1Ki 10:11, from which we must infer that both passages treat in the same manner simply of the voyage to Ophir, and therefore that the term "Tarshish ships,"like our Indiamen ( Indienfahrer ), was applied to ships intended for long voyages. If, in addition to the ships sailing to Ophir, Solomon had also had a fleet upon the Mediterranean Sea which sailed with the Phoenicians to Tartessus, this would certainly have been mentioned here (1Ki 9:27-28) at the same time as the Ophir voyage. On all these grounds we can come to no other conclusion than that the expression in 2Ch 9:21, "ships going to Tarshish,"is simply a mistaken exposition of the term "Tarshish fleet,"- a mistake which may easily be explained from the fact, that at the time when the Chronicles were written, the voyages not only of the Israelites but also of the Tyrians both to Ophir and Tarshish had long since ceased, and even the geographical situation of these places was then unknown to the Jews (see my Introduction to the Old Test . p. 442, ed. 2).

The name Ophir occurs first of all in Gen 10:29 among the tribes of Southern Arabia, that were descended from Joktan, between Seba and Havilah, i.e., the Sabaeans and Chaulotaeans. Hence it appears most natural to look for the gold-land of Ophir in Southern Arabia. But as there is still a possibility that the Joktanide tribe of Ophir, or one branch of it, may subsequently have emigrated either to the eastern coast of Africa or even to Hither India, and therefore that the Solomonian Ophir may have been an Arabian colony outside Arabia, the situation of this gold country cannot be determined without further evidence from Gen 10:29 alone; but before arriving at an actual decision, we must first of all examine the arguments that may be adduced in support of each of the three countries named. Sofala in Eastern Africa, in the Mozambique Channel, has nothing in common with the name Ophir , but is the Arabic sufâlah (Heb. שׁפלה ), i.e., lowland or sea-coast; and the old Portuguese accounts of the gold mines in the district of Fura there, as well as the pretended walls of the queen of Saba, have far too little evidence to support them, to have any bearing upon the question before us. The supposed connection between the name Ophir and the city of Σουπάρα mentioned by Ptolemaeus, or Οὔππαρα by Periplus ( Geogr. min . i. p. 30), in the neighbourhood of Goa , or the shepherd tribe of Abhira , cannot be sustained. Σουπάρα or Sufâra (Edrisi) answers to the Sanscrit Supara , i.e., beautiful coast (cf. Lassen, Ind. Alterthk . i. p. 107); and Οὔππαρα in Periplus is not doubt simply a false reading for Σουπάρα , which has nothing in common with אופיר . And the shepherd tribe of Abhira can hardly come into consideration, because the country which they inhabited, to the south-east of the mouths of the Indus, has no gold. - Again, the hypothesis that India is intended derives just as little support from the circumstance that, with the exception of Gen 10:29, the lxx have always rendered אופיר either Σωφιρά or Σουφίρ , which is, according to the Coptic lexicographers, the name used by the Copts for India, and that Josephus ( Ant . viii. 6, 4), who used the Old Test. in the Alexandrian version, has given India as the explanation of Ophir, as it does from this supposed resemblance in the names. For, according to the geographical ideas of the Alexandrians and later Greeks, India reached to Ethiopia, and Ethiopia to India, as Letronne has conclusively proved (see his Mémoire sur une mission arienne , etc., in Mém. de l'Instit. Acad. des Inscript. et Bell. Lettres , t. x. p. 220ff.).

Greater stress has been laid upon the duration of the voyages to Ophir, - namely, that the Tarshish fleet came once in three years, according to 1Ki 10:22, and brought gold, etc. But even Lassen, who follows Heeren, observes quite truly, that "this expression need not be understood as signifying that three whole years intervened between the departure and return, but simply that the fleet returned once in the course of three years."Moreover, the stay in Ophir is to be reckoned in as part of the time occupied in the voyage; and that this is not to be estimated as a short one, is evident from the fact that, according to Homer, Odyss . xv. 454ff., a Phoenician merchantman lay for a whole year at one of the Cyclades before he had disposed of his wares of every description, in return for their articles of commerce, and filled his roomy vessel. If we add to this the slowness of the voyage, - considering that just as at the present day the Arabian coasters go but very slowly from port to port, so the combined fleet of Hiram and Solomon would not be able to proceed with any greater rapidity, inasmuch as the Tyrians were not better acquainted with the dangerous Arabian Sea than the modern Arabians are, and that the necessary provisions for a long voyage, especially the water for drinking, could not be taken on board all at once, but would have to be taken in at the different landing-places, and that on these occasions some trade would be done, - we can easily understand how a voyage from Eziongeber to the strait of Bab el Mandeb and the return might occupy more than a year,

(Note: It is no proof to the contrary, that, according to thetestimony of ancient writer, as collected by Movers ( Phöniz . ii. 3, p. 190ff.), the Phoenicians sailed almost as rapidly as the modernmerchant ships; for this evident simply applies to the voyages on theMediterranean Sea with which they were familiar, and to the periodwhen the Phoenician navigation had reached its fullest development,so that it has no bearing upon the time of Solomon and a voyageupon the Arabian Sea, with which the Phoenicians were hitherto quiteunacquainted.- Again, the calculation made by Lassen (ii. pp. 590-1),according to which a voyage from Eziongeber to the mouth of theIndus could have been accomplished in a hundred days, is foundedupon the assumption that the Phoenicians were already acquaintedwith the monsoon and knew what was the best time for thenavigation of the Red Sea,- an assumption which can neither be provednor shown to be probable.)

so that the time occupied in the voyage as given here cannot furnish any decisive proof that the fleet sailed beyond Southern Arabia to the East Indies.

And lastly, the same remarks apply to the goods brought from Ophir, which many regard as decisive evidence in favour of India. The principal article for which Ophir became so celebrated, viz., the gold, is not found either in Sufâra near Goa, or in the land of Abhira . Even if India be much richer in gold than was formerly supposed (cf. Lassen, ii. p. 592), the rich gold country lies to the north of Cashmir (see Lassen, ii. pp. 603-4). Moreover, not only is it impossible to conceive what goods the Phoenicians can have offered to the Indian merchants for their gold and the other articles named, since large sums of gold were sent to India every year in the Roman times to pay for the costly wares that were imported thence (see Roscher, pp. 53, 54); but it is still less possible to comprehend how the shepherd tribe of Abhira could have come into possession of so much gold as the Ophir fleet brought home. The conjecture of Ritter ( Erdk . xiv. p. 399) and Lassen (ii. p. 592), that this tribe had come to the coast not very long before from some country of their own where gold abounded, and that as an uncultivated shepherd tribe they attached but very little value to the gold, so that they parted with it to the Phoenicians for their purple cloths, their works in brass and glass, and for other things, has far too little probability to appear at all admissible. If the Abhira did not know the value of the gold, they would not have brought it in such quantities out of their original home into these new settlements. We should therefore be obliged to assume that they were a trading people, and this would be at variance with all the known accounts concerning this tribe. - As a rule, the gold treasures of Hither Asia were principally obtained from Arabia in the most ancient times. If we leave Havilah (Gen 2:11) out of the account, because its position cannot be determined with certainty, the only other place specially referred to in the Old Testament besides Ophir as being celebrated as a gold country is Saba, in the south-western portion of Yemen. The Sabaeans bring gold, precious stones, and incense (Isa 60:6; Eze 27:22); and the queen of Saba presented Solomon with 120 talents of gold, with perfumes and with precious stones (1Ki 10:10). This agrees with the accounts of the classical writers, who describe Arabia as very rich in gold (cf. Strabo, xvi. 777f. and 784; Diod. Sic. ii. 50, iii. 44; also Bochart, Phaleg , l. ii. c. 27). These testimonies, which we have already given in part at Exo 38:31, are far too distinct to be set aside by the remark that there is no gold to be found in Arabia at the present time. For whilst, on the one hand, the wealth of Arabia in gold may be exhausted, just as Spain no longer yields any silver, on the other hand we know far too little of the interior of Southern Arabia to be able distinctly to maintain that there is no gold in existence there. - Silver, the other metal brought from Ophir, was also found in the land of the Nabataeans, according to Strabo, xvi. p. 784, although the wealth of the ancient world in silver was chiefly derived from Tarshish or Tartessus in Spain (cf. Movers, Phöniz . ii. 3, p. 36ff., where the different places are enumerated in which silver was found). - That precious stones were to be found in Arabia is evident from the passages cited above concerning the Sabaeans. - On the other hand, however, it has been supposed that the remaining articles of Ophir could only have been brought from the East Indies.

According to 1Ki 10:12, the Ophir ships brought a large quantity of אלמגּים עצי (almuggim wood: 2Ch 2:7, אלגּמּים ). According to Kimchi (on 2Ch 2:7), the אלמוּג or אלגוּם is arbor rubri coloris, dicta lingua arabica albakam (Arabic ‛l -bqm ), vulgo brasilica . This tree, according to Abulfadl (Celsius, Hierob . i. p. 176), is a native of India and Ethiopia; and it is still a question in dispute, whether we are to understand by this the Pterocarpus Santal ., from which the true sandal-wood comes, and which is said to grow only in the East Indies on Malabar and Java, or the Caesalpinia Sappan L ., a tree which grows in the East Indies, more especially in Ceylon, and also in different parts of Africa, the red wood of which is used in Europe chiefly for dyeing. Moreover the true explanation of the Hebrew name is still undiscovered. The derivation of it from the Sanscrit Valgu , i.e., pulcher (Lassen and Ritter), has been set aside by Gesenius as inappropriate, and mocha , mochâta , which is said to signify sandal-wood in Sanscrit, has been suggested instead. But no evidence has been adduced in its favour, nor is the word to be found in Wilson's Sanscrit Lexicon . If, however, this derivation were correct, אל would be the Arabic article, and the introduction of this article in connection with the word mocha would be a proof that the sandal-wood, together with its name, came to the Hebrews through merchants who spoke Arabic. - The other articles from Ophir mentioned in 1Ki 10:22 are שׁגהבּים , ὀδόντες ἐλεφάντινοι (lxx), dentes elephantorum or ebur (Vulg.), דפיל ,).gluV( שׁן , elephants' teeth (Targ.). But however certain the meaning of the word may thus appear, the justification of this meaning is quite as uncertain. In other cases ivory is designated by the simple term שׁן (1Ki 10:18; 1Ki 22:39; Psa 45:9; Amo 3:15, etc.), whereas Ezekiel (Eze 27:15) calls the whole tusk קרנות שׁן , horns of the tooth. הבּים is said to signify elephants here; and according to Benary it is contracted from האבּים , the Sanscrit word ibha , elephant; according to Ewald, from הלבּים , from the Sanscrit Kalabha ; and according to Hitzig, from נהבים = להבים , Libyi ; or else שׁגהבּים is a false reading for והבנים שׁן , ivory and ebony, according to Eze 27:15 (see Ges. Thes . p. 1453). Of these four derivations the first two are decidedly wrong: the first, because ibha as a name for the elephant only occurs, according to Weber, in the later Indian writings, and is never used in the earlier writings in this sense (vid., Roediger, Addenda ad Ges. thes . p. 115); the second, because Kalabha does not signify the elephant, but catulum elephanti , before it possesses any teeth available for ivory. The third is a fancy which its originator himself has since given up and the fourth a conjecture, which is not raised to a probability even by the attempt of Böttcher to show that הבּים is a case of backward assimilation from הבנים , because the asyndeton הבּים שׁן between two couples connected by ו is without any analogy, and the passages adduced by Böttcher, viz., Deu 29:22; Jos 15:54., and Even Eze 27:33, are to be taken in quite a different way. - The rendering of קפים by apes, and the connection of the name not only with the Sanscrit and Malabar kapi , but also with the Greek κῆπος and κῆβος , also κεῖβος , are much surer; but, on the other hand, the assumption that the Greeks, like the Semitic nations, received the word from the Indians along with the animals, is very improbable: for κῆπος in Greek does not denote the ape ( πίθηκος ) generally, but simply a species of long-tailed apes, the native land of which, according to the testimony of ancient writers, was Ethiopia,

(Note: Compare Aristoteles, hist. animal . ii. 8: ἔστι δὲ ὁ μέν κῆβος πίθηκος ἔχων οὐράν . Strabo, xvii. p. 812: ἔστι δὲ ὁ κῆπος τὸ μέν πρόσωπον ἐοικὼς Σατύρῳ, τ ̓ ἄλλα δὲ κυνὸς καὶ ἄρκτου μεταξύ· γεννᾶται δ ̓ ἐν Αἰθιοπίᾳ . Plinius, h. n. viii. 19 (28): Iidem (the games of Pompey the Great) ostenderunt ex Aethiopia quas vocant κήπους , quarum pedes posteriores pedibus humanis et cruribus, priores manibus fuere similes . Solinus Polyh. says the same(Bochart, Hieroz . i. lib. iii. c. 31).

and the Ethiopian apes are hardly likely to have sprung from India. - And lastly, even in the case of תּכּיּים , according to the ancient versions peacocks , the derivation from the Malabaric or Tamul tôgai or tôghai (cf. Roediger in Ges. Thes . p. 1502) is not placed beyond the reach of doubt.

If, in conclusion, we look through all the articles of commerce that were brought to Jerusalem from the Ophir voyages, apart from the gold and silver, which were not to be found in the land of Abhira, the ivory and ebony (supposing that we ought to read והבנים שׁן for שׁגהבּים ) furnish no evidence in support of India, inasmuch as both of them could have been brought from Ethiopia, as even Lassen admits (ii. pp. 554). And even if the words Almuggim, Kophim , and Tucchijim really came from India along with the objects to which they belonged, it would by no means follow with certainty from this alone that Ophir was situated in India. - For since, for example, there are indisputable traces of very early commercial intercourse between India and Hither Asia and Africa, especially Southern Arabia and Ethiopia, reaching far beyond the time of Solomon, the seamen of Hiram and Solomon may have obtained these articles either in Arabia or on the Ethiopian coast. For even if the statements of Herodotus and Strabo, to the effect that the Phoenicians emigrated from the islands of the Erythraean Sea, Tylos (or Tyros?) and Arados, to the Phoenician coast, do not prove that the Phoenicians had already extended their commercial enterprise as far as India even before the twelfth century, as Lassen (ii. 597 and 584-5) supposes; if the Tyrians and Aradians, who were related to them by tribe, still continued to dwell upon the islands of the Persian Gulf, from which they could much more easily find the way to India by sea, - since the historical character of these statement has been disputed by Movers ( Phönizier , ii. 1, p. 38ff.) on very weighty grounds; yet it is evident that there was a very early intercourse between East India and Africa, reaching far beyond all historical testimony, from the following well-established facts: that the Egyptians made use of indigo in the dyeing of their stuffs, and this could only have been brought to them from India; that muslins,which were likewise of Indian origin, are found among the material sin which the mummies are enveloped; and that in the graves of the kings of the eighteenth dynasty, who ceased to reign in the year 1476 b.c., there have been discovered vases of Chinese porcelain (cf. Lassen, ii. p. 596). And the intercourse between the southern coast of Arabia and Hither India may have been quite as old, if not older; so that Indian productions may have been brought to Hither Asia by the Sabaeans long before the time of Solomon (vid., Lassen, ii. pp. 593-4, and Movers, Phöniz . ii. 3, pp. 247,256). But the commercial intercourse between Arabia and the opposite coast of Ethiopia, by which African productions reached the trading inhabitants of Arabia, was unquestionably still older than the trade with India. If we weigh well all these points, there is no valid ground for looking outside Arabia for the situation of the Solomonian Ophir. But we shall no doubt be obliged to give up the hope of determining with any greater precision that particular part of the coast of Arabia in which Ophir was situated, inasmuch as hitherto neither the name Ophir nor the existence of gold-fields in Arabia has been established by modern accounts, and moreover the interior of the great Arabian peninsula is still for the most part a terra incognita .

(Note: If the notice of Eupolemus contained in a fragment in Eusebius( praepar. ev . ix. 30), to the effect that David (a mistake forSolomon) sent miners to the island of Οὐρφῆ (for which Geseniusconjectures that we should read Οὐφρῆ or Οὐφήρ ) in the Red Sea,which was rich in gold mines, and that they brought gold thence toJudaea, could be proved to be historical through any earlier testimony,Ophir would have been an island of the Erythraean Sea, either Dahlak inside Bab el Mandeb, or Diu Zokatara (the Sanscrit Dwipa Sukhatara ,i.e., the happy island) by the present Cape Guardafui. But this noticeis evidently simply a conjecture founded upon the Old Testament,having no historical value.)

Constable: 1Ki 1:1--11:43

I. THE REIGN OF SOLOMON chs. 1--11

The Holy Spirit led the writer of Kings to give an interpretation of history, not just a chronologically sequential record of events. This is true of all the writers of the Old Testament historical books. Some of the events in Kings are not in chronological order. They appear in the text as they do to make a point that was primarily theological (i.e., to reveal a spiritual lesson from history). The writer chose the historical data he included for this purpose under the superintending inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The lesson that Kings teaches is that failure to honor the revealed will of God results in ruin and destruction.¹² For Israel the revealed will of God was the Mosaic Law and the later revelations of the prophets.

"By way of contrast with the other two books covering the historical details of the united and divided kingdoms, one might say that whereas Samuel's author uses a biographical style and Chronicles is written from a theological standpoint, the author of Kings employs a largely narrative-annalistic approach."¹³

All three major sections of Kings emphasize many theological lessons, but each one repeats and reinforces the main motif, the importance of obeying the Mosaic Law to succeed. This motif stands out clearly in the first major section dealing with Solomon's reign (chs. 1-11). The nation of Israel reached the height of its power and prestige in Solomon's day. It began to decline because of Solomon's unfaithfulness and failure to honor the Mosaic Covenant.

One writer observed that the structure of the record of Solomon's reign is as follows. Chapters 1-2 and 11:14-43 draw a frame around the whole history of Solomon's rule. Within this frame two similar sections form the body of the revelation. The first (3:1-8:66) is favorable to Solomon and the second (9:1-11:13) is critical of him.¹⁴ Each of these sections begins with a dream (3:1-15; 9:1-10a), and each ends with a revelation of Solomon's attitude toward God (chs. 6-8; 11:1-13). The first section has two parts. Part one reveals Solomon's domestic policy with sub-sections on women and wisdom (3:16-28), and administration and wisdom (4:1-5:14). Part two deals with Solomon's labor relations and has sub-sections on the contract with Hiram (5:15-18) and the corvée (5:28-33). The second section also has two parts. Part one gives more information about Solomon's labor relations and has sub-sections on the contract with Hiram (9:10b-14) and the corvée (9:15-28). Part two explains Solomon's foreign policy with sub-sections on women and wisdom (10:1-13), and wealth and wisdom (10:14-29). Thus there is both a chiastic and an unfolding structure in chapters 1-11.¹⁵

Constable: 1Ki 9:10-28

2. Further evidences of God's blessing 9:10-28

Somewhat after the mid-point of Solomon's 40-year reign God was blessing him for his faithfulness. What the writer described in this section took place after Solomon had completed his major building projects in Jerusalem that took about 20 years.

Constable: 1Ki 9:10-14

Solomon's gifts to Hiram 9:10-14

Solomon mortgaged 20 Galilean towns (settlements) bordering Phoenicia to Hiram. This brought the border of Phoenicia farther south. This arrangement compensated Hiram for all the lumber and 9,000 pounds of gold he had sent Solomon for his building projects. Hiram may have called them Cabul, a word that sounds like the Hebrew word for "good for nothing" (v. 13), because they were not in a productive region. This cheap gift did not contribute to ongoing good relations between Israel and Phoenicia.

"The border villages may have been fortified for defence [sic] purposes and seem to have been redeemed later (2 Ch. 8:2), perhaps following successful trade (v. 14) or tribute brought from Sheba (cf. 10:10)."⁹⁷

"This episode shows a conniving side of Solomon."⁹⁸

Guzik: 1Ki 9:1-28

1 Kings 9 - God's Warning to Solomon

A. God appears to Solomon again.

1. (1-5) God confirms the answer to Solomon's prayer.

And it came to pass, when Solomon had finished building the house of the LORD and the king's house, and all Solomon's desire which he wanted to do, that the LORD appeared to Solomon the second time, as He had appeared to him at Gibeon. And the LORD said to him: "I have heard your prayer and your supplication that you have made before Me; I have consecrated this house which you have built to put My name there forever, and My eyes and My heart will be there perpetually. Now if you walk before Me as your father David walked, in integrity of heart and in uprightness, to do according to all that I have commanded you, and if you keep My statutes and My judgments, then I will establish the throne of your kingdom over Israel forever, as I promised David your father, saying, 'You shall not fail to have a man on the throne of Israel.' "

a. When Solomon had finished building the house of the LORD and the King's house: This was some 24 years after Solomon came to the throne. The temple and the palace work at Jerusalem were finished. Now Solomon had to deal with life after completing his greatest accomplishment.

i. "It was the hour when the accomplishment of work means the relaxation of effort. That is always a perilous hour, and the greater the work done the graver the peril. A life which has been full of activity, when that activity ceases, demands some new interest, and will find it, either high or low, noble or ignoble." (Morgan)

ii. John Trapp on the words, all Solomon's desire: "The word signifieth such a desire as a young man hath after his mistress, or a bridegroom toward his bride; which showeth that Solomon took too much content in his buildings and furniture, passed over his affections too much unto them, and here began his fall."

b. The LORD appeared to Solomon the second time: God was good to give Solomon a special appearance at the beginning of his reign in (1 Kings 3:5-9). It was even better of God to grant a unique appearance to Solomon the second time.

i. "Brethren, we want renewed appearances, fresh manifestations, new visitations from on high; and I commend to those of you who are getting on in life, that while you thank God for the past, and look back with joy to his visits to you in your early days, you now seek and ask for a second visitation of the Most High." (Spurgeon)

ii. "We do not need to be converted again; yet we do want that again over our heads the windows of heaven should be opened, that again a Pentecost should be given, and that we should renew our youth like the eagles, to run without weariness, and walk without fainting. The Lord fulfill to everyone of his people to-night his blessing upon Solomon!" (Spurgeon)

c. I have heard your prayer: The great prayer of Solomon in 1 Kings 8 meant nothing unless God heard the prayer. The true measure of our prayer is if God in heaven answers the prayer.

i. "Have you never known what it is to leave off prayer when you are in the middle of it, and say, "I am heard: I am heard"? Have you not felt that you needed not to cry any longer, for you had gained your suit, and must rather begin to praise than continue to pray? When a man goes to a bank with a cheque, and he gets the money, he does not stand loafing about the counter: he goes off about his business. And oftentimes before God, he that is prepared to be a long time in prayer if it should be necessary, feels that he must be brief in petition and long in thanksgiving." (Spurgeon)

ii. This answer seems to have come many years after the actual dedication of the temple. Yet God also gave Solomon an immediate answer of approval at the time of dedication, when the sacrifices were consumed with fire from heaven (2 Chronicles 7:1-7).

d. I have consecrated this house which you have built: The building was Solomon's work, done in the power and inspiration of the LORD. The consecration of the building was God's work. Solomon could build a building, but only God could hallow it.

i. "Man builds; God hallows. This co-operation between man and God pervades all life. Man performs the outward and mechanical; God the inward and spiritual . . . We must be careful to do our part with reverence and godly fear, remembering that God must work in realms we cannot touch, and to issues we cannot reach, before our poor exertions can avail." (Meyer)

e. Now if you walk before Me as your father David walked . . . then I will establish the throne of your kingdom over Israel forever: God's answer to Solomon's previous prayer had a great condition. If Solomon walked before God in obedience and faithfulness, he could expect blessing on his reign and the reign of his descendants, and the dynasty of David would endure forever.

i. God did not demand perfect obedience from Solomon. David certainly did not walk perfectly before the LORD, and God told Solomon to walk before Me as your father David walked. This was not out of reach for Solomon.

2. (6-9) God warns Solomon.

"But if you or your sons at all turn from following Me, and do not keep My commandments and My statutes which I have set before you, but go and serve other gods and worship them, then I will cut off Israel from the land which I have given them; and this house which I have consecrated for My name I will cast out of My sight. Israel will be a proverb and a byword among all peoples. And as for this house, which is exalted, everyone who passes by it will be astonished and will hiss, and say, 'Why has the LORD done thus to this land and to this house?' Then they will answer, 'Because they forsook the LORD their God, who brought their fathers out of the land of Egypt, and have embraced other gods, and worshiped them and served them; therefore the LORD has brought all this calamity on them.' "

a. But if you or your sons at all turn from following Me . . . then I will cut off Israel from the land: The positive promise of 1 Kings 9:1-5 is followed by a negative promise. If Solomon or his descendants turn from following the LORD, God promised to correct a disobedient Israel.

b. And this house which I have consecrated for My name I will cast out of My sight: God answered Solomon's prayer in 1 Kings 8, but it was not an unqualified promise to bless the temple in any circumstance. God blessed the temple and filled it with the glory of His presence, but he would cast it out of His sight if the kings of Israel forsook the LORD.

i. With such a glorious temple, Israel would be tempted to forsake the God of the temple and make an idol of the temple of God. Here the LORD made them know that He could never bless this error.

c. Israel will become a proverb . . . everyone who passes by it will be astonished and will hiss: Under the Old Covenant, God promised to use Israel to exalt Himself among the nations one way or another. If Israel obeyed He would bless them so much that others had to recognize the hand of God upon Israel. If Israel disobeyed He would chastise them so severely that the nations would be astonished at the hard work of God among His disobedient people, and they would know that the LORD has brought all this calamity on them.

i. The Living Bible has a vivid wording of 1 Kings 9:7: "Israel will become a joke to the nations and an example and proverb of sudden disaster."

B. The ways and means of Solomon's great building projects.

1. (10-14) Lumber and gold from King Hiram of Tyre.

Now it happened at the end of twenty years, when Solomon had built the two houses, the house of the LORD and the king's house (Hiram the king of Tyre had supplied Solomon with cedar and cypress and gold, as much as he desired), that King Solomon then gave Hiram twenty cities in the land of Galilee. Then Hiram went from Tyre to see the cities which Solomon had given him, but they did not please him. So he said, "What kind of cities are these which you have given me, my brother?" And he called them the land of Cabul, as they are to this day. Then Hiram sent the king one hundred and twenty talents of gold.

a. Hiram the king of Tyre had supplied Solomon with cedar and cypress and gold: Tyre - the prominent city of the land just north of Israel (modern Lebanon) - was noted for its fine wood.

b. King Solomon then gave Hiram twenty cities in the land of Galilee: This was not good. Hiram was indeed a friend to both David and Solomon, but the land of Israel was given to Israel by divine decree. Trading Israel's land for a glorious temple and palace was not a good deal.

i. However, the transaction may be described here to show that Solomon was a shrewd dealer and got the better of Hiram in these arrangements. It seems that Solomon gave Hiram some fairly insignificant settlements and received a large amount of gold in return.

ii. "To pay for the gold Solomon mortgaged twenty 'settlements' (rather than towns, for irim is used of any group of habitations from a hamlet to a metropolis)." (Wiseman)

iii. "It is clear that Hiram considered the cities to be worthless, and taunted Solomon for giving him 'good-for-nothing' towns. Hiram nicknamed the cities Kabul, which literally means "good-for-nothing." Even though he was displeased with the trade, Hiram went ahead with it in good humor and sent Solomon 120 talents of gold." (Dilday) A talent is calculated to be about 70 pounds of gold. Dilday puts the value of this gold at more than $50 million.

c. But they did not please him: We don't know exactly why Hiram was displeased with these cities. Perhaps he was displeased with his compromise, knowing that Solomon did something his father David never would.

2. (15-24) Slave labor from remnant Canaanite peoples.

And this is the reason for the labor force which King Solomon raised: to build the house of the LORD, his own house, the Millo, the wall of Jerusalem, Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer. (Pharaoh king of Egypt had gone up and taken Gezer and burned it with fire, had killed the Canaanites who dwelt in the city, and had given it as a dowry to his daughter, Solomon's wife.) And Solomon built Gezer, Lower Beth Horon, Baalath, and Tadmor in the wilderness, in the land of Judah, all the storage cities that Solomon had, cities for his chariots and cities for his cavalry, and whatever Solomon desired to build in Jerusalem, in Lebanon, and in all the land of his dominion. All the people who were left of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, who were not of the children of Israel; that is, their descendants who were left in the land after them, whom the children of Israel had not been able to destroy completely; from these Solomon raised forced labor, as it is to this day. But of the children of Israel Solomon made no forced laborers, because they were men of war and his servants: his officers, his captains, commanders of his chariots, and his cavalry. Others were chiefs of the officials who were over Solomon's work: five hundred and fifty, who ruled over the people who did the work. But Pharaoh's daughter came up from the City of David to her house which Solomon had built for her. Then he built the Millo.

a. This is the reason for the labor force which King Solomon raised: Solomon raised this massive labor force to complete massive building projects. Archaeology is a witness to the ambitious and successful building projects of Solomon.

b. The Millo: The Hebrew term millo is probably a name for a prominent fortress near the temple and the palace. However, it is possible that it describes architectural terracing and buttressing along the northeastern slope of the east hill of Jerusalem, the city of David.

c. Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer: These were three prominently fortified cities in the days of Solomon. "Recent work has demonstrated that these three cities had certain characteristics in common with regard particularly to their fortifications attributable to the Solomonic era . . . Most distinctive are the gate complexes, which are identical in plan and virtually of the same dimensions in all three cities." (Patterson and Austel)

i. "Hazor was strategically placed in the north (c. three miles north of the Sea of Galilee), being situated at the juncture of the two major highways approaching from the north. It became Israel's chief bulwark against northern invaders until it was destroyed in the eighth century by Tiglath-pileser III." (Patterson and Austel)

ii. "Megiddo was the great fortress that controlled on the major passes from the Plain of Sharon on the coast into the Valley of Jezreel through the Carmel range. It figures in prophecy as the staging area for the last great battle (Armageddon) in which Christ will defeat the forces of the Antichrist." (Patterson and Austel)

iii. "Gezer, on the road from Joppa to Jerusalem, had been a powerful Canaanite city. Though it was included in the tribal territory of Ephraim, it was not occupied by the Israelites until the time of Solomon. Then it was given to Solomon as a wedding gift by Pharaoh to his daughter." (Patterson and Austel)

d. All the people who were left of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites . . . from these Solomon raised forced labor, as it is to this day: This is another apparent compromise by Solomon. God strictly commanded that the remnants of these tribes be driven out of the land, not used as slave laborers in Israel. Solomon didn't make Israelites forced laborers, but used them to oversee the remnants of the Canaanite tribes.

3. (25-28) Financing from naval expeditions that brought back gold

Now three times a year Solomon offered burnt offerings and peace offerings on the altar which he had built for the LORD, and he burned incense with them on the altar that was before the LORD. So he finished the temple. King Solomon also built a fleet of ships at Ezion Geber, which is near Elath on the shore of the Red Sea, in the land of Edom. Then Hiram sent his servants with the fleet, seamen who knew the sea, to work with the servants of Solomon. And they went to Ophir, and acquired four hundred and twenty talents of gold from there, and brought it to King Solomon.

a. Three times a year Solomon offered burnt offerings and peace offerings on the altar which he had built for the LORD, and he burned incense: It is possible that this was another transgression by Solomon. It may be that he took upon himself the exclusive duties of a priest, offering burnt offerings and incense. However, as is the case in some other passages, this may refer to Solomon initiating such sacrifice and ceremony properly through a priest.

b. They went to Ophir, and acquired four hundred and twenty talents of gold from there: It is hard to say with certainty where the land of Ophir was. Some suggest it was in southern Arabia or the eastern coast of Africa. This shows the great enterprise and industriousness of Solomon's administration.

i. "No man knows certainly, to this day, where this Ophir was situated. There were two places of this name; one somewhere in India, beyond the Ganges, and another in Arabia, near the country of the Sabaeans, mentioned by Job 22:24." (Clarke)

© 2004 David Guzik - No distribution beyond personal use without permission

Introduction / Outline

JFB: 1 Kings (Book Introduction)

THE FIRST AND SECOND BOOKS OF KINGS, in the ancient copies of the Hebrew Bible, constitute one book. Various titles have been given them; in the Septuagint and the Vulgate they are called the Third and Fourth Books of Kings. The authorship of these books is unknown; but the prevailing opinion is that they were compiled by Ezra, or one of the later prophets, from the ancient documents that are so frequently referred to in the course of the history as of public and established authority. Their inspired character was acknowledged by the Jewish Church, which ranked them in the sacred canon; and, besides, it is attested by our Lord, who frequently quotes from them (compare 1Ki 17:9; 2Ki 5:14 with Luk 4:24-27; 1Ki 10:1 with Mat 12:42).

JFB: 1 Kings (Outline)

• ABISHAG CHERISHES DAVID IN HIS EXTREME AGE. (1Ki 1:1-4)
• ADONIJAH USURPS THE KINGDOM. (1Ki. 1:5-31)
• SOLOMON, BY DAVID'S APPOINTMENT, IS ANOINTED KING. (1Ki. 1:32-49)
• ADONIJAH, FLEEING TO THE HORNS OF THE ALTAR, IS DISMISSED BY SOLOMON. (1Ki 1:50-53)
• DAVID DIES. (1Ki 2:1-11)
• SOLOMON SUCCEEDS HIM. (1Ki 2:12-24)
• JOAB SLAIN. (1Ki. 2:28-45)
• SHIMEI PUT TO DEATH. (1Ki 2:34-46)
• SOLOMON MARRIES PHARAOH'S DAUGHTER. (1Ki 3:1)
• HIGH PLACES BEING IN USE, HE SACRIFICES AT GIBEON. (1Ki 3:2-5)
• HE CHOOSES WISDOM. (1Ki 3:6-15)
• HIS JUDGMENT BETWEEN TWO HARLOTS. (1Ki 3:16-28)
• SOLOMON'S PRINCES. (1Ki 4:1-6)
• HIS TWELVE OFFICERS. (1Ki 4:7-21)
• HIS WISDOM. (1Ki 4:29-34)
• HIRAM SENDS TO CONGRATULATE SOLOMON. (1Ki 5:1-6)
• FURNISHES TIMBER TO BUILD THE TEMPLE. (1Ki 5:7-12)
• SOLOMON'S WORKMEN AND LABORERS. (1Ki 5:13-18)
• THE BUILDING OF SOLOMON'S TEMPLE. (1Ki 6:1-4)
• THE CHAMBERS THEREOF. (1Ki 6:5-10)
• GOD'S PROMISES UNTO IT. (1Ki 6:11-14)
• THE CEILING AND ADORNING OF IT. (1Ki 6:15-22)
• THE TIME TAKEN TO BUILD IT. (1Ki 6:37-38)
• BUILDING OF SOLOMON'S HOUSE. (1Ki 7:1)
• OF THE HOUSE OF LEBANON. (1Ki 7:2-7)
• HIRAM'S WORKS. (1Ki. 7:13-51)
• THE DEDICATION OF THE TEMPLE. (1Ki 8:1-12)
• SOLOMON'S BLESSING. (1Ki 8:12-21)
• HIS PRAYER. (1Ki. 8:22-61)
• HIS SACRIFICE OF PEACE OFFERING. (1Ki 8:62-64)
• THE PEOPLE JOYFUL. (1Ki 8:65)
• GOD'S COVENANT IN A SECOND VISION WITH SOLOMON. (1Ki 9:1-9)
• THE MUTUAL PRESENTS OF SOLOMON AND HIRAM. (1Ki 9:10-23)
• SOLOMON'S YEARLY SACRIFICES. (1Ki 9:24-28)
• THE QUEEN OF SHEBA ADMIRES THE WISDOM OF SOLOMON. (1Ki 10:1-13)
• HIS RICHES. (1Ki. 10:14-29)
• SOLOMON'S WIVES AND CONCUBINES IN HIS OLD AGE. (1Ki 11:1-8)
• GOD THREATENS HIM. (1Ki 11:9-13)
• REFUSING THE OLD MEN'S COUNSEL. (1Ki 12:1-5)
• JEROBOAM MADE KING OVER THEM. (1Ki 12:20-33)
• JEROBOAM'S HAND WITHERS. (1Ki. 13:1-22)
• THE DISOBEDIENT PROPHET SLAIN BY A LION. (1Ki 13:23-32)
• AHIJAH DENOUNCES GOD'S JUDGMENTS AGAINST JEROBOAM. (1Ki. 14:1-20)
• REHOBOAM'S WICKED REIGN. (1Ki 14:21-24)
• SHISHAK SPOILS JERUSALEM. (1Ki 14:25-31)
• ABIJAM'S WICKED REIGN OVER JUDAH. (1Ki 15:1-8)
• ASA'S GOOD REIGN. (1Ki 15:9-22)
• NADAB'S WICKED REIGN. (1Ki 15:25-34)
• JEHU'S PROPHECY AGAINST BAASHA. (1Ki 16:1-8)
• ZIMRI'S CONSPIRACY. (1Ki 16:9-22)
• OMRI BUILDS SAMARIA. (1Ki 16:23-28)
• JOSHUA'S CURSE FULFILLED UPON HIEL THE BUILDER OF JERICHO. (1Ki 16:34)
• ELIJAH, PROPHESYING AGAINST AHAB, IS SENT TO CHERITH. (1Ki 17:1-7)
• HE IS SENT TO A WIDOW OF ZAREPHATH. (1Ki 17:8-16)
• HE RAISES HER SON TO LIFE. (1Ki 17:17-24)
• ELIJAH MEETS OBADIAH. (1Ki. 18:1-16)
• ELIJAH, BY PRAYER, OBTAINS RAIN. (1Ki 18:41-46)
• ELIJAH FLEES TO BEER-SHEBA. (1Ki 19:1-3)
• ELISHA FOLLOWS ELIJAH. (1Ki 19:19-21)
• BEN-HADAD BESIEGES SAMARIA. (1Ki 20:1-12)
• THE SYRIANS ARE SLAIN. (1Ki 20:13-20)
• A PROPHET REPROVES HIM. (1Ki 20:35-42)
• NABOTH REFUSES AHAB HIS VINEYARD. (1Ki 21:1-4)
• JEZEBEL CAUSES NABOTH TO BE STONED. (1Ki 21:5-16)
• ELIJAH DENOUNCES JUDGMENTS AGAINST AHAB AND JEZEBEL. (1Ki 21:17-29)
• AHAB SLAIN AT RAMOTH-GILEAD. (1Ki. 22:1-36)

TSK: 1 Kings 9 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

1Ki 9:1, God’s covenant in a vision with Solomon; 1Ki 9:10, The mutual presents of Solomon and Hiram; 1Ki 9:15, In Solomon’s works the Gentiles were his bondmen, the Israelites honourable servants; 1Ki 9:24, Pharaoh’s daughter removes to her house; 1Ki 9:25, Solomon’s yearly solemn sacrifices; 1Ki 9:26, His navy fetches gold from Ophir.

Poole: 1 Kings (Book Introduction)

FIRST BOOK OF KINGS COMMONLY CALLED

THE THIRD BOOK OF THE KINGS

THE ARGUMENT

THESE two Books called Of the Kings, because they treat of the kings of Judah and Israel, were written by the prophets, or holy men of God, living in or near their several times, and by some one of them digested into this order. But whoever was the penman, that these are a part of those Holy Scriptures which were Divinely inspired is sufficiently evident first,

From the concurring testimony of the whole Jewish church in all ages, to whom were committed the oracles of God, Rom 3:2 , who also did faithfully discharge their duty in preserving and delivering them entirely and truly to their posterity from time to time, as plainly appears, because Christ and his apostles, who reproved them freely for their several sins, never taxed them with this fault, of depraving the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament. Secondly, Because this is manifest concerning divers parcels of them which were taken out of the records of the prophets Nathan, Ahijah, and Iddo, 2Ch 9:29 , and out of the prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah; and the rest doubtless were of the same nature.

Thirdly, From the approbation of these books by the New Testament, both generally, as 2Ti 3:16 , All Scripture is given by inspiration from God, &c., which is affirmed concerning all those Holy Scriptures which Timothy had known, from a child, 2Ti 3:15 , and therefore must necessarily be meant of all the books of the Old Testament, which the Jews owned for canonical Scripture; and particularly Rom 11:2,3 , &c., where a passage out of these books is quoted and owned as a part of the Holy Scripture, called the Scripture by way of eminency.

Poole: 1 Kings 9 (Chapter Introduction)

KINGS CHAPTER 9

God’ s covenant, in a second vision, with Solomon, 1Ki 9:1-9 . The mutual presents of Solomon and Hiram, 1Ki 9:10-14 . Strong holds built by Solomon, 1Ki 9:15-19 . The Gentiles are bondmen: the Israelites not so, 1Ki 9:20-23 . Pharaoh’ s daughter removeth to her house, 1Ki 9:24 . Solomon’ s yearly solemn sacrifices, 1Ki 9:25 . His navy fetcheth gold from Ophir, 1Ki 9:26-28 .

MHCC: 1 Kings (Book Introduction)

The history now before us accounts for the affairs of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel, yet with special regard to the kingdom of God among them; for it is a sacred history. It is earlier as to time, teaches much more, and is more interesting than any common histories.

MHCC: 1 Kings 9 (Chapter Introduction)

(1Ki 9:1-9) God's answer to Solomon.

(1Ki 9:10-14) The presents of Solomon and Hiram.

(1Ki 9:15-28) Solomon's buildings, His trade.

Matthew Henry: 1 Kings (Book Introduction)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The First Book of Kings

Many histories are books of kings and their reigns, to which the affairs of their kingdoms are reduced; this is a piece of honour that has commonly been paid to crowned heads. The holy Scripture is the history of the kingdom of God among men, under the several administrations of it; but there the King is one and his name one. The particular history now before us accounts for the affairs of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel, yet with special regard to the kingdom of God among them; for still it is a sacred history, much more instructive and not less entertaining than any of the histories of the kings of the earth, to which (those of them that are of any certainty) it is prior in time; for though there were kings in Edom before there was any king in Israel, Gen 36:31 (foreigners, in that point of state, got the precedency), yet the history of the kings of Israel lives, and will live, in holy Writ, to the end of the world, whereas that of the kings of Edom is long since buried in oblivion; for the honour that comes from God is durable, while the honour of the world is like a mushroom, which comes up in a night and perishes in a night. - The Bible began with the story of patriarchs, and prophets, and judges, men whose converse with heaven was more immediate, the record of which strengthens our faith, but is not so easily accommodated to our case, now that we expect not visions, as the subsequent history of affairs like ours under the direction of common providence; and here also we find, though not many types and figures of the Messiah, yet great expectations of him; for not only prophets, but kings, desired to see the great mysteries of the gospel, Luk 10:24 - The two books of Samuel are introductions to the books of the Kings, as they relate the origin of the royal government in Saul and of the royal family in David. These two books give us an account of David's successor, Solomon, the division of his kingdom, and the succession of the several kings both of Judah and Israel, with an abstract of their history down to the captivity. And as from the book of Genesis we may collect excellent rules of economics, for the good governing of families, so from these books we may collect rules of politics, for the directing of public affairs. There is in these books special regard had to the house and lineage of David, from which Christ came. Some of his sons trod in his steps, and others did not. The characters of the kings of Judah may be thus briefly given: - David the devout, Solomon the wise, Rehoboam the simple, Abijah the valiant, Asa the upright, Jehoshaphat the religious, Jehoram the wicked, Ahaziah the profane, Joash the backslider, Amaziah the rash, Uzziah the mighty, Jotham the peaceable, Ahaz the idolater, Hezekiah the reformer, Manasseh the penitent, Amon the obscure, Josiah the tender-hearted, Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah, all wicked, and such as brought ruin quickly on themselves and their kingdom. The number of the good and bad is nearly equal, but the reigns of the good were generally long and those of the bad short, the consideration of which will make the state of Israel not altogether so bad in this period as at first it seems. In this first book we have, I. The death of David, ch. 1 and 2. II. The glorious reign of Solomon, and his building the temple (ch. 3-10), but the cloud his sun set under, ch. 11. III. The division of the kingdoms in Rehoboam, and his reign and Jeroboam's, ch. 12-14. IV. The reigns of Abijah and Asa over Judah, Baasha and Omri over Israel, ch. 15 and 16. V. Elijah's miracles, ch. 17-19. VI. Ahab's success against Benhadad, his wickedness and fall, ch. 20-22. And in all this history it appears that kings, though gods to us, are men to God, mortal and accountable.

Matthew Henry: 1 Kings 9 (Chapter Introduction)

In this chapter we have, I. The answer which God, in a vision, gave to Solomon's prayer, and the terms he settled with him (1Ki 9:1-9). II. The interchanging of grateful kindnesses between Solomon and Hiram (1Ki 9:10-14). III. His workmen and buildings (1Ki 9:15-24). IV. His devotion (1Ki 9:25). V. His trading navy (1Ki 9:26-28).

Constable: 1 Kings (Book Introduction)

Introduction

Title

The Books of 1 and 2 Kings received their names because they document the reigns of the 40 kings of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah following David.¹

In the Hebrew Bible 1 and 2 Kings were one book until the sixteenth century. The ancients regarded them as the continuation of the narrative begun in Samuel. The Septuagint (Greek) translation of the Hebrew text, dating from about 250 B.C., was the first to divide Kings into two books. That division has continued to the present day. The Septuagint translators, however, called these two books 3 and 4 Kingdoms. First and 2 Kingdoms were our 1 and 2 Samuel. Jerome's Vulgate (Latin) translation, which dates about A.D. 400, changed the name from Kingdoms to Kings.

"The English Bible presents the books primarily as historical accounts. Their placement next to 1, 2 Chronicles demonstrates the collectors' interest in detailing all the events of Israel's history. In contrast, the Hebrew Bible places Joshua-Kings with the prophets, which highlights their common viewpoints. This decision implies that 1, 2 Kings are being treated as proclamation and history."²

Writer and Date

Most Old Testament scholars today believe several different individuals wrote and edited Kings because of theories concerning textual transmission that have gained popularity in the last 150 years. However, many conservatives have continued to follow the older tradition of the church that one individual probably put Kings together.³ This view finds support in the stylistic and linguistic features that run through the whole work and make it read like the product of a single writer. Some of these features are the way the writer described and summarized each king's reign, the consistent basis on which he evaluated all the kings, and recurring phrases and terms.

The identity of the writer is unknown today and has been for centuries. Ancient Jewish tradition suggested Ezra or Ezekiel as possible writers since both of these men were biblical writers who lived after the Babylonian exile. The record of King Jehoiachin's release from Babylonian captivity (2 Kings 25:27-30) points to a date of final composition sometime after that event. Jeremiah has traditional Talmudic support as well though he never went to Babylon but died in Egypt. Of course, someone else may have written Kings. Scholars have suggested these men only because they were famous writers who lived when Kings reached its final form.

Most non-conservatives date Kings considerably later than the sixth or fifth centuries.⁴

Scope

The historical period Kings covers totals about 413 years. The events that frame this period were Solomon's coronation as co-regent with David (973 B.C.) and Jehoiachin's release from Babylonian exile (560 B.C.).

However, most of Kings deals with the period that spans Solomon's coronation and the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 B.C., a period of 387 years. In terms of the temple, at the beginning we see the temple built and at the end the temple burnt.

". . . 1, 2 Kings present Israel's history as a series of events that describe how and why the nation fell from the heights of national prosperity to the depths of conquest and exile."⁵

"More specifically, 1, 2 Kings explain how and why Israel lost the land it fought so hard to win in Joshua and worked so hard to organize in Judges and 1, 2 Samuel."⁶

"Plot relates the causes and effects in a story. Thus, the story line in 1, 2 Kings may be that Israel went into exile, but the plot is Israel went into exile because of its unfaithfulness to God. To make cause and effect unfold, plots normally have at least two basic aspects: conflict and resolution. A plot's conflict is the tension in a story that makes it an interesting account, while a plot's resolution is the way the conflict is settled. How the author develops these two components usually decides the shape and effectiveness of the plot."⁷

This historical period is more than twice that of the one the Books of Samuel covered, which was about 150 years in length. The Book of Judges covers about 300 years of Israel's history.

The dates of the kings of Israel and Judah that I have used in the following notes are those of Edwin Thiele.⁸ He has worked out the many problems regarding these dates more satisfactorily than anyone else in the opinion of most scholars.⁹

Message¹⁰

The fact that this book opens and closes with death should be a clue as to its message.

It opens with David's death, and it closes with Ahab's death. The intervening period of about a century and a half is a story of national decline, disruption, disintegration, and disaster. Israel and Judah passed from affluence and influence to poverty and paralysis.

There is an emphasis in this book on thrones.

Obviously there were the thrones of Judah and Israel on earth with their kings who succeeded one another. However there is also the throne in heaven with its one King. Rehoboam and Jeroboam had their successors, the kings who replaced one another. Yahweh also in a sense had His successors, the prophets who replaced one another as His messengers to the people. While the kings remind us of the thrones on earth, the prophets remind us of the throne in heaven.

The thrones on earth present a story of disruption, disintegration, and disaster in both kingdoms, Judah and Israel. This trend continued despite changes in the methods the various rulers employed to govern their people.

Solomon's method of government was oppression. He taxed the people greatly and conscripted them into government service. The result was material magnificence. He multiplied riches and manifested great displays in the temple, the palace, and throughout his kingdom. He increased the military strength of the nation. Nevertheless in the process he ground down the people. The state became more important than the people. The testimony to this appears in 12:4. The result was dissatisfaction with Solomon's method of government.

In reaction to this method Rehoboam chose a new method of government: autocracy. He decided to tighten his grip on the people so he could control them (12:14). He believed the people should trust in their rulers, but he did not trust in God. Consequently he failed. Autocracy led to revolution (12:16).

Jeroboam chose a third method of government: democracy. He let the people determine how they would live. While this resulted in more pleasant conditions for the people, it also resulted in ultimate disaster for his nation. Notice what democracy produced in Jeroboam's day: 12:27-29. People cannot rule themselves effectively. We need God to govern us. Jeroboam believed rulers should trust in the people, but he did not trust in God. Consequently he failed. He made religion convenient, and the people became corrupt (12:30-31).

Rehoboam's successors in Judah chose a method of government we could call government by policy. That is, they chose to follow precedent, the pattern of their predecessors, rather than getting and following God's direction for their nation. There were some exceptions to this approach, but on the whole this was Judah's method of government.

Jeroboam's successors in Israel, however, chose a different method of government: selfishness. The kings of Israel cared little for the people of Israel. What concerned them primarily was what they could get out of being king for themselves. That is why the story of the kingdom of Israel is a story of intrigue, assassinations, and much bloodshed.

In summary, every form of human government results in disastrous failure if people do not acknowledge God's sovereignty. People cannot govern themselves effectively. The result is always decline, disruption, and disintegration. This is one of the great revelations of 1 Kings.

However there is another throne in view in this book: the throne in heaven. Whereas 1 Kings reveals that human government always fails, it also reveals that God's government never fails. There are two ways God exercised His kingship over His people during Israel's monarchy.

First, He broke in on human life with messages that the prophets delivered. Ahijah announced the division of the kingdom (11:26-39). Later he announced the death of Jeroboam's son (14:4-16). Shemaiah directed Rehoboam not to fight against Jeroboam (12:21-24). An unnamed prophet announced the fate of Jeroboam's altar (13:1-10). Jehu announced Baasha's doom (16:1-4). Elijah vindicated Yahweh in the days of Ahab's apostasy (chs. 17-21). Another unnamed prophet rebuked Ahab for allowing Ben-Hadad to escape (20:35-43). Micaiah foretold Israel's scattering (22:8-28). These are all evidences that God was governing His people independently of the kings when they forgot Him. The heavenly throne ruled in spite of the earthly thrones.

The second way God exercised His rule, in addition to sending messages by the prophets, was by directly and indirectly intervening in the lives of His people. He appeared and spoke directly to Solomon, which resulted in the building of the temple. He raised up an adversary to Solomon, namely Jeroboam. He slew Abijah. He withheld rain and brought famine. He sent fire from heaven on Mt. Carmel. He sent rain. He appeared to Elijah in an earthquake. He enticed Ahab into battle through the mouths of lying prophets.

In short, God ruled by exercising direct and indirect influence over people, by directly intervening and by controlling circumstances occasionally. He manipulated history. God sits in perfect control and continuity over all the human chaos that peoples' failure to rule themselves causes.

The message of the book, therefore, is that when people exclude God, every method of human government will fail; but even so God is still on His throne and is in control.

If people exclude God, every method of government ends in disaster. Even though in Solomon's reign the king emphasized religious forms and ceremonies, internal development, foreign treaties, and intellectual attainment, his oppression did not bring stability and peace. Autocracy will end in revolution eventually. Democracy that locks God out can result in the most terrible consequences for the people whose interests it professes to advocate. Government by policy can only deteriorate. Selfish rulers will only rape their nations.

Man cannot govern himself because he does not know himself apart from God's Word. How can he govern others about whom he knows even less? If people do not submit to the throne in heaven, no matter what method of government they choose, they will fail. As Christians, we must remember who is in control. We must look beyond our government to our God.

First Kings also reveals God's method in the midst of human failures.

First, when a throne on earth rebels against the throne in heaven God abandons that throne on earth. He separated Himself from it. He allowed the evil choices of the rulers to work themselves out to their inevitable consequences. Departure leads to disaster. Apostasy results in awful consequences (cf. Rom. 1).

Second, God keeps some consciousness of Himself and His government alive in the hearts and minds of a remnant. The prophets spoke. All Christians exercise that ministry today. We should speak for God to our generation.

Third, God maintains ultimate control. He controls history directly and indirectly so His purposes get accomplished. The Christian never needs to panic. God has revealed His plan for history. Knowledge of the Word should give us stability in uncertain times.

What I have said is true on the national scale is also true on the individual level. If a person excludes God from his or her life, no matter how the person may live, he or she will fail. We can resist God's authority, but we cannot overcome it. People only break themselves by refusing to submit to the throne in heaven. People need reminding of the throne in heaven. These principles have worked out throughout history. God's plan moves ahead.

Constable: 1 Kings (Outline)

Outline

I. The reign of Solomon chs. 1-11

A. Solomon's succession to David's throne 1:1-2:12

1. David's declining health 1:1-4

2. Adonijah's attempt to seize the throne 1:5-53

3. David's charge to Solomon 2:1-9

4. David's death 2:10-12

B. The foundation of Solomon's reign 2:13-4:34

1. Solomon's purges 2:13-46

2. Solomon's wisdom from God ch. 3

3. Solomon's political strength ch. 4

C. Solomon's greatest contribution chs. 5-8

1. Preparations for building ch. 5

2. Temple construction ch. 6

3. Solomon's palace 7:1-12

4. The temple furnishings 7:13-51

5. The temple dedication ch. 8

D. The fruits of Solomon's reign chs. 9-11

1. God's covenant with Solomon 9:1-9

2. Further evidences of God's blessing 9:10-28

3. Solomon's greatness ch. 10

4. Solomon's apostasy ch. 11

II. The divided kingdom -1 Kings 12-2 Kings 17

A. The first period of antagonism 12:1-16:28

1. The division of the kingdom ch. 12

2. Jeroboam's evil reign in Israel 12:25-14:20

3. Rehoboam's evil reign in Judah 14:21-31

4. Abijam's evil reign in Judah 15:1-8

5. Asa's good reign in Judah 15:9-24

6. Nadab's evil reign in Israel 15:25-32

7. Baasha's evil reign in Israel 15:33-16:7

8. Elah's evil reign in Israel 16:8-14

9. Zimri's evil reign in Israel 16:15-20

10. Omri's evil reign in Israel 16:21-28

B. The period of alliance -1 Kings 16:29-2 Kings 9:29

1. Ahab's evil reign in Israel 16:29-22:40

2. Jehoshaphat's good reign in Judah 22:41-50

3. Ahaziah's evil reign in Israel -1 Kings 22:51-2 Kings 1:18

(Continued in notes on 2 Kings)

One writer observed that a chiastic structure marks the Books of Kings.¹¹

A Solomon/United Monarchy -- 1 Kings 1:1-11:25

B Jeroboam/Rehoboam; the division of the kingdom -- 1 Kings 11:26-14:31

C Kings of Judah/Israel -- 1 Kings 15:1-16:22

D The Omride dynasty; the rise and fall of the Baal cult in Israel and Judah -- -1 Kings 16:23-2 Kings 12

C' Kings of Judah/Israel -- 2 Kings 13-16

B' The fall of the Northern Kingdom -- 2 Kings 17

A' The Kingdom of Judah -- 2 Kings 18-25.

Constable: 1 Kings

1 Kings

Bibliography

Aharoni, Yohanan. "The Building Activities of David and Solomon." Israel Exploration Journal 24:1(1974):13-16.

Aharoni, Yohanan, and Michael Avi-Yonahl. The Macmillan Bible Atlas. Revised ed., New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1977.

Albright, William F. Archaeology and the Religion of Israel. 5th ed. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1968.

_____. The Archaeology of Palestine. 1949 Revised ed. Pelican Archaeology series. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, Eng.: Penguin Books, 1956.

_____. "Two Cressets From Marisa and the Pillars of Jachin and Boaz." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 85 (February 1942):18-27.

_____. Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1969.

Allen, Nigel. "Jeroboam and Shechem." Vetus Testamentum 24:3(July1974):353-57.

Allen, Ronald B. "Elijah the Broken Prophet." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 22:3(1979):193-202.

Andersen, Francis I. "The Socio-Juridical Background of the Naboth incident." Journal of Biblical Literature 85(1966):46-57.

"Annotated Bibliography on I Kings." Biblical Viewpoint 17:1 (April 1973):57-63.

Ap-Thomas, D. R. "Elijah on Mount Carmel." Palestine Exploration Quarterly 92(1960):146-55.

Archer, Gleason L., Jr. "Old Testament History and Recent Archaeology From Solomon to Zedekiah." Bibliotheca Sacra 127:507 (July-September 1970):195-211.

_____. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Revised ed. Chicago: Moody Press, 1974.

Auld, A. Graeme. I & II Kings. Daily Study Bible Series. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986.

_____. "Prophets and Prophecy in Jeremiah and Kings." Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 96:1(1984):66-82.

B., J. G. Short Meditations on Elisha. New York: Loizeaux Brothers, n.d.

Ball, E. "The Co-Regency of David and Solomon (1 Kings 1). Vetus Testamentum 27:3 (July 1977):268-79.

Bartlett, John R. "The Moabites and Edomites." In Peoples of Old Testament Times, pp. 229-258. Edited by D. J. Wiseman. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973.

Battenfield, James R. "YHWH's Refutation of the Baal Myth through the Actions of Elijah and Elisha." In Israel's Apostasy and Restoration: Essays in Honor of Roland K. Harrison, pp. 19-37. Edited by Avraham Gileadi. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988.

Baxter, J. Sidlow. Explore the Book. 6 vols. London: Marshall, Morgan, and Scott, n.d.; reprint ed., 6 vols. in 1, Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1966.

Berlin, Adele. "Characterization in Biblical Narrative: David's Wives." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 23 (July 1982):69-85.

Berry, George Ricker. "The Glory of Yahweh and the Temple." Journal of Biblical Literature 56(1937):115-17.

Bright, John A. A History of Israel. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1959.

Brindle, Wayne A. "The Causes of the Division of Israel's Kingdom." Bibliotheca Sacra 141:563 (July-September 1984):223-33.

Bronner, Leah. The Stories of Elijah and Elisha. Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1968.

Burney, C. F. Judges and Kings. Reprint ed. New York: KTAV Publishing House, 1970.

Bury, J. B.; S. A. Cook; and F. E. Adcock, eds. The Cambridge Ancient History. 12 vols. 2nd ed. reprinted. Cambridge, Eng.: University Press, 1928.

Carroll, R. P. "The Elijah-Elisha Sagas: Some Remarks on Prophetic Succession in Ancient Israel." Vetus Testamentum 19:4 (October 1969):408-14.

Childs, Brevard S. Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986.

Chisholm, Robert B., Jr. "Does God Deceive?" Bibliotheca Sacra 155:617 (January-March 1998):11-28.

_____. "The Polemic against Baalism in Israel's Early History and Literature." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:603 (July-September 1994):267-83.

Cohen, Rudolph. "The Fortresses King Solomon Built to Protect His Southern Border." Biblical Archaeology Review 11:3 (May-June 1985):56-70.

_____. "Solomon's Negev Defense Line Contained Three Fewer Fortresses." Biblical Archaeology Review 12:4 (July-August 1986):40-45.

Cohen, Shaye J. D. "Solomon and the Daughter of Pharaoh: Intermarriage, Conversion, and the Impurity of Women." Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 16-17 (1984-85):23-27.

Cohn, Robert L. "The Literary Logic of 1 Kings 17-19." Journal of Biblical Literature 101:3 (September 1982):333-50.

_____. "Literary Technique in the Jeroboam Narrative." Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 97 (1985):23-35.

Constable, Thomas L. "Analysis of Bible Books--Old Testament." Paper submitted for course 685 Analysis of Bible Books--Old Testament. Dallas Theological Seminary, January 1967.

_____. "1 Kings." In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament, pp. 483-536. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1985.

Crenshaw, James L. Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction. Atlanta: John Knox, 1981.

Crockett, William Day. A Harmony of the Books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1973.

Cross, Frank M, Jr. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973.

_____. "An Interpretation of the Nora Stone." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 208 (December 1972):13-19.

Danelius, Eva. "The Sins of Jeroboam Ben-Nebat." Jewish Quarterly Review 58:(1967-68):95-114 and 204-23.

Darby, John Nelson. Synopsis of the Books of the Bible. 5 vols. Revised ed. New York: Loizeaux Brothers Publishers, 1942.

Davis, John J., and John C Whitcomb. A History of Israel. Reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980.

Day, John. "Asherah in the Hebrew Bible and Northwest Semitic Literature." Journal of Biblical Literature 105:3 (September 1986):385-408.

de Vaux, Roland. Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions. 2 vols. Translated by John McHugh. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961.

DeVries, Simon. 1 Kings. Word Biblical Commentary. Waco: Word Books, 1985.

Dumbrell, William J. "What Are You Doing Here? Elijah at Horeb." Crux 22:1 (March 1986):12-19.

Edwards, I. E. S. "Egypt: From the Twenty-second to the Twenty-fourth Dynasty." In Cambridge Ancient History. 3rd ed. Edited by John Boardman, et al. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1982.

Farrar, F. W. The First Book of Kings. Reprint ed. Minneapolis: Klock and Klock, 1981.

Fensham, F. C. "A Few Observations on the Polarisation between Yahweh and Baal in I Kings 17-19." Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 92:2 (1980):227-36.

Fritz, Volkmar. "Temple Architecture." Biblical Archaeology Review 13:4 (July-August 1987):38-49.

Gaebelein, Arno C. The Annotated Bible. 4 vols. Reprint ed. Chicago: Moody Press, and New York: Loizeaux Brothers, Inc., 1970.

Galil, Gershon. "The Message of the Book of Kings in Relation to Deuteronomy and Jeremiah." Bibliotheca Sacra 158:632 (October-December 2001):406-14.

Gates, John T., and Harold Stigers. "First and Second Kings." In The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, pp. 307-66. Edited by Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison. Chicago: Moody Press, 1962.

Gray, John. I & II Kings. Old Testament Library series. London: SCM Press, 1964; revised ed., Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1970.

Green, Alberto R. "Israelite Influence at Shishak's Court." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 233 (1979):59-62.

Gross, Walter. "Lying Prophet and Disobedient Man of God in 1 Kings 13: Role Analysis as an Instrument of Theological Interpretation of an OT Narrative Text." Semeia 15 (1979):97-135.

Gunn, David M. "David and the Gift of the Kingdom (2 Samuel 2-4, 9-20, 1 Kings 1-2)." Semeia 3 (1975):14-45.

Halpern, Baruch. The Constitution of the Monarchy in Israel. Harvard Semitic Monograph 25. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1981.

_____. "Levitic Participation in the Reform Cult of Jeroboam I." Journal of Biblical Literature 95:1 (1976):31-42.

Harrison, Roland K. Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1969.

Harton, George M. "Fulfillment of Deuteronomy 28-30 in History and in Eschatology." Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1981.

Hayman, Leo. "A Note on I Kings 18:27." Journal of Near Eastern Studies 10(1951):57-58.

Heater, Homer, Jr. "A Theology of Samuel and Kings." In A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament, pp. 115-55. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1991.

Hendricks, Howard G. Taking A Stand. Portland: Multnomah Press, 1983.

Herrmann, Siegfried. A History of Israel in Old Testament Times. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975.

Hickman, D. "The Chronology of Israel and Judah." Catastrophism and Ancient History 7:2 (July 1985):57-70; 8:1 (January 1986):5-23.

Hoffmeier, James K. "Egypt As an Arm of Flesh: A Prophetic Response." In Israel's Apostasy and Restoration: Essays in Honor of Roland K. Harrison, pp. 79-97. Edited by Avraham Gileadi. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988.

House, Paul R. 1, 2 Kings. New American Commentary series. N.c.: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995.

Hurowitz, V. I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writing. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 115. Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992.

Johnson, John E. "The Old Testament Offices as Paradigm for Pastoral Identity." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:606 (April-June 1995):182-200.

Jones, Gwilym H. 1 and 2 Kings. 2 vols. New Century Bible Commentary series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., and London: Marshall, Morgan, and Scott, 1984.

Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston. Antiquities of the Jews. London: T. Nelson and Sons, 1866.

Kaufman, Asher S. "Where the Ancient Temple of Jerusalem Stood." Biblical Archaeology Review 9:2 (March-April 1983):40-59.

Keil, C. F. The Books of the Kings. Translated by James Martin. Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament. Reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., n.d.

Kitchen, K. A. The Bible In the World. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1977.

_____. "The Old Testament in its Context: 4 The Twin Kingdom, Judah and Assyria (c. 930-640 BC)." Theological Students' Fellowship Bulletin 62 (1972):2-10.

Klein, Ralph W. "Jeroboam's Rise to Power." Journal of Biblical Literature 89:2 (June 1970):217-18.

_____. "Once More: Jeroboam's Rise to Power.'" Journal of Biblical Literature 92:4(December 1973):582-84.

Krummacher, F. W. Elijah the Tishbite. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, n.d.

Lange, John Peter, ed. Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. 12 vols. Reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1960. Vol. 3: Samuel-Kings, by Chr. Fr. David Erdmann and Karl Chr. W. T. Bahr. Translated, enlarged, and edited by C. H. Toy, John A. Broadus, Edwin Harwood, and W. G. Sumner.

Liver, J. "The Books of the Acts of Solomon." Biblica 48:1(1967):75-101.

Long, Burke O. "A Darkness Between Brothers: Solomon and Adonijah." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 19 (February 1981):79-94.

Luckenbill, D. D. "Benhadad and Hadadezer." American Journal of Semitic Languages 27(1911):267-84.

Lundquist, John M. "Temple, Covenant, and Law in the Ancient Near East and in the Old Testament." In Israel's Apostasy and Restoration: Essays in Honor of Roland K. Harrison, pp. 293-305. Edited by Avraham Gileadi. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988.

Lust, J. "A Gentle Breeze or a Roaring Thunderous Sound?" Vetus Testamentum 25:1(January 1975):110-15.

Maller, Allen S. "Hiram from Tyre." Journal or Reform Judaism 29:2(Spring 1982):41-42.

Mayhue, Richard L. "False Prophets and the Deceiving Spirit." Master's Seminary Journal 4:2 (Fall 1993):135-63.

Mazar, Benjamin. "The Campaign of Pharaoh Shishak to Palestine." Vetus Testamentum Supplements 4 (1957):57-66.

McFall, Leslie. "A Translation Guide to the Chronological Data in Kings and Chronicles." Bibliotheca Sacra 148:589 (January-March 1991):3-45.

McNeely, Richard I. First and Second Kings. Everyman's Bible Commentary series. Chicago: Moody Press, 1979.

McNicol, Allan J. "The Heavenly Sanctuary in Judaism: A Model for Tracing the Origin of an Apocalypse." Journal of Religious Studies 13:2 (1987):66-94.

Meyer, F. B. Elijah and the Secret of His Power. Chicago: Fleming H. Revell, n.d.

Mitchell, T. C. "Israel and Judah Until the Revolt of Jehn (931-841 B.C.)." In Cambridge Ancient History. 3rd ed. Edited by John Boardman, et al. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1982.

Miller, J. Max. "So Tibni Died." Vetus Testamentum 18(1968):392-94.

Monson, James M. The Land Between. Jerusalem: By the author, P.O. Box 1276, 1983.

Montgomery, James A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings. International Critical Commentary series. Edited by Henry Snyder Gehman. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1967.

_____. "Archival Data in the Books of Kings." Journal of Biblical Literature 53(1934):46-52.

Morgan, G. Campbell. Living Messages of the Books of the Bible. 2 vols. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1912.

Morgenstern, Julian. "Chronological Data of the Dynasty of Omri." Journal of Biblical Literature 59(1940):385-96.

Myers, Jacob. II Chronicles. Anchor Bible series. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1965.

Napier, B. D. "The Omrides of Jezreel." Vetus Testamentum 9 (1959):366-78.

Nelson, R. D. First and Second Kings. Interpretation: A Biblical Commentary for Preaching and Teaching series. Louisville: John Knox, 1987.

Newsome, James D., Jr. ed. A Synoptic Harmony of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986.

Noth, Martin. The Deuteronomistic History. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, 15. Sheffield, Eng.: JSOT Press, 1981.

Oppenheim, A. Leo. Ancient Mesopotamia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964.

Oswalt, John N. "The Golden Calves and the Egyptian Concept of Deity." Evangelical Quarterly 45 (1973):13-20.

Ovellette, Jean. "The Solomonic Debir according to the Hebrew Text of I Kings 6." Journal of Biblical Literature 89:3 (September 1970):338-43.

Parker, Kim Ian. "Repetition as a Structuring Device in 1 Kings 1-11." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 42 (October 1988):19-27.

Patterson, Richard D. "The Widow, the Orphan, and the Poor in the Old Testament and the Extra-Biblical Literature." Bibliotheca Sacra 130:519 (July-September 1973):223-34.

Patterson, Richard D., and Hermann J Austel. "1, 2 Kings." In 1 Kings--Job. Vol. 4 of The Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and Richard P. Polcyn. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1988.

Payne, J. Barton. The Theology of the Older Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1962.

Pfeiffer, Charles F., and Howard F. Vos. The Wycliffe Historical Geography of Bible Lands. Chicago: Moody Press, 1967.

Porten, Bezalel. "The Structure and Theme of the Solomon Narrative (1 Kings 3-11)." Hebrew Union College Annual 38 (1967):93-128.

Pritchard, James B., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 2nd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1955.

Rasmussen, Carl G. "The Economic Importance of Caravan Trade for the Solomonic Empire." In A Tribute to Gleason Archer, pp. 153-66. Edited by Walter C. Kaiser Jr. and Ronald F. Youngblood. Chicago: Moody Press, 1986.

Rendsburg, Gary A. "The Mock of Baal in 1 Kings 18:27." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 50:3 (July 1988):414-17.

Rice, Gene. Nations under God. International Theological Commentary series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., and Edinburgh: The Handsel Press Ltd., 1990.

Ringgren, Helmer. Religions of the Ancient Near East. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1973.

Rofe, Alexander. "The Vineyard of Naboth: The Origin and Message of the Story." Vetus Testamentum 38:1 (1988):89-104.

Rogers, Jeffrey S. "Narrative Stock and Deuteronomistic Elaboration in 1 Kings 2." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 50:3 (July 1988):398-413.

Rowley, H. H. "Elijah on Mount Carmel." Bulletin of the Johns Rylands Library 43:1 (September 1960):190-219.

Ruth, Richard L. "The Doctrine of Dreams." Bibliotheca Sacra 124:500 (October-December 1968):360-64.

Ruthven, Jon. "A Note on Elijah's Fire from Yahweh.'" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 12:2 (1969):111-15.

Saint-Laurent, George. "Light from Ras Shamra on Elijah's Ordeal upon Mount Carmel." In Scripture in Context, pp. 123-39. Edited by Carl D. Evans, et al. Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1980.

Savran, George. "1 and 2 Kings." In The Literary Guide to the Bible, pp. 146-64. Edited by Robert Alter and Frank Kermode. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987.

Schulman, Alan R. "Diplomatic Marriage in the Egyptian New Kingdom." Journal of Near Eastern Studies 38 (1979):177-193.

Schwantes, Siegfried J. A Short History of the Ancient Near East. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1965.

Selms, A. Van. "The Origin of the Title The King's Friend.'" Journal of Near Eastern Studies 16 (1957):118-23.

Shea, William H. "A Note on the Date of the Battle of Qarqar." Journal of Cuneiform Studies 29 (1977):240-42.

Simon, Uriel. "I Kings 13: A Prophetic Sign--Denial and Persistence." Hebrew Union College Annual 47 (1976):81-117.

Slotki, I. W. Kings. London: Soncino Press, 1950.

Smith, James E. "Prolegomena to the Study of Kings." Seminary Review 21:3 (September 1975):77-115.

Soards, Marion L., Jr. "Elijah and the Lord's Word: A Study of I Kings 17:17-24." Studia Biblica et Theologica 13:1 (April 1983):39-50.

Soggin, J. Alberto. "Compulsory Labor Under David and Solomon." In Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays, pp. 259-67. Edited by Tomoo Ishida. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1983.

Smith, Morton. "The So-Called Biography of David' in the Books of Samuel and Kings." Harvard Theological Review 44 (1951):167-69.

Smith, J. M. P. "The Character of King David." Journal of Biblical Literature 52 (1933):1-11.

Student Map Manual. Jerusalem: Pictorial Archive (Near Eastern History) Est., 1979.

Thiele, Edwin R. A Chronology of the Hebrew Kings. Contemporary Evangelical Perspectives series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981.

_____. "Coregencies and Overlapping Reigns Among the Hebrew Kings." Journal of Biblical Literature 93 (1974):174-200.

_____. The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1965.

Thomsom, H. C. "A Row of Cedar Beams." Palestinian Exploration Quarterly 92 (1960):57-63.

"Tirzah: An Early Capital of Israel." Buried History 22:1 (March 1986):14-24.

Torcszyner, Harry. "The Riddle in the Bible." Hebrew Union College Annual 1 (1924):125-49.

Tromp, Nicholas J. "Water and Fire on Mount Carmel." Biblica 56:4 (1975):480-502.

Ullendorff, Edward. "The Queen of Sheba." Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 45:2 (1963):486-504.

Unger, Merrill F. Israel and the Aramaeans of Damascus. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980.

Ussishkin, David. "King Solomon's Palaces." Biblical Archaeologist 36 (1973):78-105.

Van Beek, Gus W. "Frankincense and Myrrh." Biblical Archaeologist 23:3 (September 1960):70-95.

Von Wyrick, Stephen. "Israel's Golden Calves." Biblical Illustrator 13:1 (Fall 1986):3, 9-12.

Wallace, N. H. "The Oracles Against the Israelite Dynasties in 1 and 2 Kings." Biblica 67:1 (1986):21-40.

Weinfeld, Moshe. "The Counsel of the Elders' to Rehoboam and Its Implications." MAARAV 3:1 (January 1982):27-53.

Whitelam, Keith W. "The Defence of David." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 29 (June 1984):61-87.

_____. "The Symbols of Power." Biblical Archaeologist 49:3 (September 1986):166-73.

Williamson, H. G. M. 1 and 2 Chronicles. New Century Bible Commentary series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1982.

Wiseman, Donald John. 1 & 2 Kings: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries series. Downers Grove, Ill.. and Leicester, Eng.: Inter-Varsity Press, 1993.

Wood, Leon. Elijah, Prophet of God. Des Plaines, Ill.: Regular Baptist Press, 1968.

_____. Israel's United Monarchy. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979.

_____. A Survey of Israel's History. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970.

Zevit, Ziony. "Deuteronomistic Historiography in -1 Kings 12-2 Kings 17 and the Reinvestiture of the Israelian Cult." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 32 (1985):57-73.

Zuidhof, Albert. "King Solomon's Molten Sea and (pi)." Biblical Archaeologist 45:3 (Summer 1982):179-84.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

Haydock: 1 Kings (Book Introduction)

THE THIRD BOOK OF KINGS.

INTRODUCTION.

This and the following Book are called by the holy Fathers, The Third and Fourth Book of Kings; but by the Hebrews, the First and Second. They contain the history of the kingdoms of Israel and Juda, from the beginning of the reign of Solomon to the captivity. As to the writer of these books, it seem most probable they were not written by one man, nor at one time; but as there was all along a succession of prophets in Israel, who recorded, by divine inspiration, the most remarkable things that happened in their days, these books seem to have been written by these prophets. See 2 Paralipomenon, alias 2 Chronicles ix. 29., xii. 15., xiii. 22., xx. 34., xxvi. 22., and xxxii. 32. (Challoner) --- This book informs us of the death of David, chap. ii. 11, where some Greek copies concluded the second book "of the reigns or kingdoms," as they style all the four books. Theodoret and Diodorus follow this division. The point is of no consequence; and the Hebrew editions have often varied. Origen observes, that the Jews denoted these two books from the first words, "Ouammelech David." (Eusebius, Hist. vi. 25.) (Haydock) --- In St. Jerome's time, the four books made only two. The present book details the actions of Solomon, (Calmet) till the end of the 12th chapter. Then we behold the division of the kingdom: Roboam, Abias, Asa, and Josaphat, reign over Juda; Jeroboam, &c., over Israel; while the prophets Abias, Elias, Eliseus, appear in the remaining eleven chapters. (Worthington) --- Though the memoirs seem to have been left by contemporary authors, (Haydock) one, and most probably Esdras, made the compilation, after the captivity, inserting frequently the very words of his authors, yet so as to make some additional reflections. (Calmet) --- The Rabbins generally attribute the work to Jeremias. (Haydock) --- He is more attentive to the house of David, and to display the rewards of the piety, and the punishment of vice, as well as the glory of the temple and of religion, than to describe the military exploits, which occupy so much of the profane history. (Calmet)

Gill: 1 Kings (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO 1 KINGS

This, and the following book, properly are but one book, divided into two parts, and went with the Jews under the common name of Kings. This, in the Syriac version, is called the Book of Kings; and in the Arabic version, the Book of Solomon, the Son of David the Prophet, because it begins with his reign upon the death of his father; and, in the Vulgate Latin version, the Third Book of Kings, the two preceding books of Samuel being sometimes called the First and Second Books of Kings, they containing the reigns of Saul and David; and in the Septuagint version both this and the following book are called Kingdoms, because they treat of the kingdom of Israel and Judah, after the division in the times of Rehoboam, son of Solomon, and of the several kings of them; as of Solomon before the division, so afterwards of the kings of Judah; Rehoboam, Abijam, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, Ahaziah, Jehoash, Amaziah, Uzziah or Azariah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh, Amon, Josiah, Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah; and of the kings of Israel, Jeroboam, Nadab, Baasha, Elah, Zimri, Omri, Ahab, Ahaziah, Jehu, Jehoahaz, Jehoash, Jeroboam the son of Joash, Zachariah, Shallum, Menahem, Pekahiah, Pekah, and Hoshea; so that these books may, with great propriety, be called the books or histories of the kings in the two kingdoms of Judah and Israel: who they were written by, is not easy to say; some think they were written by piecemeal by the prophets that lived in the several reigns successively, as Nathan, Ahijah the Shilonite, Iddo, Isaiah, and Jeremiah, and afterwards put together by an inspired writer. The Jews commonly say ^a, that Jeremiah wrote the book of the Kings, by which they mean this, and the following book; though very probably they were written by Ezra, since the history in them is carried down to the liberty granted to Jehoiachin in Babylon; but that Ezra was the writer of all the preceding historical books, and even of the Pentateuch, cannot be admitted, which is the conceit of Spinosa ^b; part of whose tract is just now republished by somebody, word for word, under a title as in the margin ^c; but that Ezra was not the writer of the Pentateuch is clear, since he refers to it as written by Moses, and as the rule of religion and worship in his times, Ezr 3:2; and it is certain these writings were in being in the times of Josiah, Amaziah, Joash, yea, of David, and even of Joshua, 2Ch 34:14; and as for the book of Joshua, that also was written long before Ezra's time; it must be written long before the times of David, before the Jebusites were expelled from Jerusalem, since the writer of it says, that they dwelt there in his days, Jos 15:63; the book of Judges must be written before the times of Samuel and David, since the former refers to the annals of it, 1Sa 12:9; and the latter alludes to some passages in it, Psa 68:7; see Jdg 5:4; and a speech of Joab's, 2Sa 11:21, shows it to be an history then extant: to which may be added, that in it Jerusalem is called Jebus, Jdg 19:10; which it never was, after it was taken by David out of the hands of the Jebusites, 2Sa 5:6; the book of Ruth very probably was written by Samuel; had it been of a later date, or written by Ezra, the genealogy with which it concludes, would doubtless have been carried further than to David: the Book of Samuel, and particularly the song of Hannah in it, were written in all probability before the penning of the hundred thirteenth psalm, Psa 113:1, in which some expressions seem to be taken from it wherefore, though the two books of Kings may be allowed to be written or compiled by Ezra, the ten preceding ones cannot be assigned to him: however, there is no room to doubt of the divine authority of these two books, when the honour our Lord has done them is observed, by quoting or referring to several histories in them; as to the account of the queen of Sheba coming to hear the wisdom of Solomon; of the famine in the times of Elijah; and of that prophet being sent to the widow of Sarepta, and of the cleansing of Naaman the Syrian in the times of Elisha, Mat 12:42 from 1Ki 17:1 2Ki 5:10; to which may be added, the quotations and references made by the apostles to passages in them, as by the Apostle Paul in Rom 11:2 from 1Ki 19:14 where this book is expressly called the Scripture; and by the Apostle James, Jam 5:17; who manifestly refers to 1Ki 17:1; and there are various things in this part of Scripture, which are confirmed by the testimonies of Heathen writers, as will be observed in the exposition of it. The use of these books is to carry on the history of the Jewish nation, to show the state of the church of God in those times, and his providential care of it amidst all the changes and vicissitudes in the state; and, above all, to transmit to us the true genealogy of the Messiah, which serves to confirm the Evangelist Matthew's account of it.

Gill: 1 Kings 9 (Chapter Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO 1 KINGS 9

This chapter relates a second vision Solomon had at Gibeon, in which he received an answer to his prayer in the preceding chapter, 1Ki 9:1 that passed between him and Hiram king of Tyre, 1Ki 9:10, the places that Solomon built or repaired, 1Ki 9:15, the Canaanitish people that became bondmen to him, and the officers he had among the children of Israel, 1Ki 9:20 the removal of Pharaoh's daughter to the house built for her, 1Ki 9:24. Solomon's attention to religious services, 1Ki 9:25 and the navy of ships he employed, which brought him in great riches, 1Ki 9:26.