Ch. 1 Kings 9:1-9. God’s second appearance unto Solomon (2 Chronicles 7:11-22)

1. when Solomon had finished] We read (1 Kings 6:38) that Solomon was seven years in building the Temple, and in 1 Kings 7:1 that he was thirteen years building his own house. We find also below (in 1 Kings 9:9) that these periods were not reckoned concurrently, but that the whole period was twenty years. Hence arises a difficulty with regard to this second appearance of God to the king. From the words of God’s message “I have heard thy prayer &c.” (1 Kings 9:3) it is plain that this second vision was an answer to the dedication prayer. Was then the dedication of the Temple, though the structure was completed in seven years, delayed until all the rest of Solomon’s works were ended? Or was the answer of God delayed through the thirteen years that elapsed between the finishing of the Temple and the finishing of the king’s house? We can hardly accept the latter supposition as possible. It appears far more likely that the dedication was delayed. And this may have been necessary because of the amount of time which Hiram would need for casting the metal-work, the greater part of which was for things that were unconnected with the actual Temple-building. This work from its nature could be undertaken only by persons specially skilled, of whom the number would be limited, and in consequence of this the work might be spread over a long time.

all Solomon’s desire] The noun implies something by which special store was set, a special fancy. It seems to indicate that the king had gone to much nicety in his building schemes. The LXX. gives πραγματεία, perhaps in the sense of ‘careful carrying out of any plan’. In 2 Chronicles 7:11, it is said ‘he prosperously effected all that came into his heart to make.’

2. the Lord appeared to Solomon the second time] In 2 Chron. we are told that this was ‘by night,’ therefore in a vision. Josephus says ‘a vision appearing to the king in his sleep shewed him that God had hearkened to his prayer.’

at Gibeon] Cf. on 1 Kings 3:5 above.

3. I have heard thy prayer] This could not have been the form of God’s message, if thirteen years had passed away since the dedication. God’s way is rather that spoken of by Isaiah 65:24 ‘While they are yet speaking I will hear.’ The LXX. adds after the first clause of this verse ‘I have done for thee according to all thy prayer.’

to put my name there for ever] The place which God had chosen was now made known; and God’s purposes change not.

mine eyes and mine heart shall be there] As in the former vision at Gibeon, God had given more than Solomon asked, so it is here. The prayer was that God’s eyes might be open toward the house, the promise is that His heart shall be there perpetually.

This verse is largely expanded in 2 Chronicles 7:12 seqq. thus: ‘I have heard thy prayer and have chosen this place to myself for an house of sacrifice. If I shut up heaven that there be no rain, or if I command the locusts to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among my people; if my people which are called by my name shall humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. Now mine eyes shall be open and mine ears attent unto the prayer that is made in this place. For now I have chosen and sanctified this house that my name may be there for ever.’ This addition appears to be the work of a later writer who wished to express by it, that God’s answer was as large as the king’s prayer.

4. I have commanded thee] The LXX. reads ‘I commanded him,’ making the clause refer to David.

6. But if you shall at all turn from following me] The insertion of ‘at all’ here is an attempt to give some force to the Hebrew construction. It is a peculiarity of that language to use the infinitive of a verb followed by a finite tense to give emphasis to an expression. But undoubtedly ‘at all’ weakens the sense here. God’s warning is against utter apostasy, going and serving other gods. Hence there is more force in R.V. If ye shall turn away from following me.

and my statutes] There is no conjunction between the two nouns here, but there is in the parallel place in 2 Chronicles and in the versions it is represented. So small a letter as ו could easily drop out.

which I have set before you] The LXX. has ‘which Moses gave before you.’

7. then will I cut off] We have once more a passage very parallel to Deuteronomy 4:26; Deuteronomy 28:37; Deuteronomy 28:45; Deuteronomy 28:63, where ‘an astonishment, a proverb and a by-word’ occurs, as here.

this house … will I cast out of my sight] It is not here declared what shall be the consequence of God’s disregard but the idea of destruction must have been present to him who heard of God’s face being turned away. It is just the opposite of what the king had prayed for, that God’s eyes should be always open towards the Temple.

8. And at this house which is high] The connexion of these words is very difficult. The Hebrew text, standing alone, must be rendered ‘And this house shall be high.’ But in 2 Chron. the relative is expressed, and there can be little doubt that the text here is somehow faulty. The passage in 2 Chron. (1 Kings 7:21) reads ‘And this house which is high shall be an astonishment.’ To come as near to this sense as possible, while introducing no relative, R.V. gives ‘And though this house be high.’ Yet that rendering is somewhat doubtful. The text of the LXX. shows that they had our Hebrew before them: καὶ ὁ οἶκος οὖτος ἔσται ὁ ὑψηλός, πᾶς ὁ διαπορευόμενος κ.τ.λ.

9. out of the land of Egypt] The LXX. adds ‘out of the house of bondage.’

The two 1 Kings 9:8-9 are remarkably parallel to the language of Deuteronomy 29:21-26.

10–14. Solomon’s gift to Hiram king of Tyre (Not in Chronicles)

10. at the end of twenty years] See 1 Kings 6:38 and 1 Kings 7:1.

11. now Hiram the king … had furnished, &c.] We read of the supply of timber in 1 Kings 5:10, but the gold mentioned here does not appear in the earlier narrative. From 1 Kings 9:14 below we learn that the amount was ‘six score talents.’ Taking the value of a talent of gold at £6000 this sum would be worth £720,000. Josephus (Ant. viii. 5, 3) says Hiram had contributed much gold and still more silver.

Solomon gave Hiram twenty cities in the land of Galilee] These would most likely be in the extreme northern border of Galilee and so not remote from Hiram’s frontier. But they would be inland cities and no doubt, to a maritime people like the Tyrians, some territory along the seaboard would have been more acceptable. Josephus specially notes that the cities were not far from Tyre. The region in which they were situate was that called (Isaiah 9:1) ‘Galilee of the nations’ to indicate that the inhabitants were yet in heathendom. This might be a reason why Solomon chose them for his present to the Tyrian king.

12. came out from Tyre] The LXX. adds ‘and went into Galilee.’

13. What cities are these which thou hast given me?] No doubt spoken with a tone of reproach and disappointment. The language of Josephus is ‘he said to Solomon that he did not want the cities.’ They are just alluded to in Chronicles (2 Chronicles 8:2) as ‘the cities which Huram restored to Solomon.’

my brother] This form of address between persons of royal rank has been always common. Cf. 1 Kings 20:32-33; 1Ma 10:18; 1Ma 11:30; 2Ma 11:22. It need not necessarily imply friendly feeling.

And he called them] Or the Hebrew may mean ‘and one called them’ which was a common form to signify ‘they were called.’ We need not therefore of necessity impute the contemptuous name to Hiram. Josephus gives προσηγορεύθησαν

the land of Cabul] This appellation was given to indicate, what is stated in the text, that they were unsatisfactory. But it is not easy to know whence the name comes. There is a town so called in Joshua (Joshua 19:27) which was situated in the tribe of Asher. This tribe was in North Galilee but there would be no significance in the name, if it were already that of one of the twenty cities given to Hiram. The LXX. appears to have taken כבול (Cabul) to be the same as נבול (gebul) for they render the name Ὅριον, a boundary. Josephus transliterates by Χαβαλών, and adds that this word in Phœnician means ‘not pleasing,’ an interpretation, as it seems, which he evolved from the context. Some of the Hebrew commentators have connected the name with a verb which in Aramaic signifies ‘to bind,’ and have explained that the district was sandy or muddy, and that the feet were always deep sunk in the mire. A later derivation has taken the word to mean ‘worth nothing,’ as if from כ = as, and בול = בל = nothing. There are many other attempts at explanation but none that can be pronounced satisfactory.

15–25. Of the levy which king Solomon raised (2 Chronicles 8:4-11)

15. the reason of the levy] On the nature and amount of this compulsory service see notes on chap. 1 Kings 5:13 seqq. The present passage explains the whole purpose for which it was enforced.

and Millo] This word is always found in the original with the definite article ‘the Millo’ (2 Samuel 5:9; 1 Kings 11:27; 2 Chronicles 11:8; 2 Chronicles 32:5). Wherever it occurs it is in connexion with the walls or fortifications of Jerusalem. In 2 Chronicles 32:5 it is stated to be in the city of David. Now the most common rendering of the word in the LXX. is ἡ ἄκρα = ‘the citadel,’ a word which is constantly used in the Books of the Maccabees for the fortress on Mount Zion. It seems probable therefore that ‘the Millo’ was some specially important, and hence strongly fortified, portion of the oldest walls where they approached most closely to Zion. From 2 Samuel 5:9 we should conclude that the fortress was already existing before David conquered Jerusalem, and the name itself may have been given by the Jebusites.

and Hazor] A strong city, south of Kedesh-Naphtali in the north of Palestine. When the Israelites entered Canaan it was in the possession of king Jabin, but was taken and burnt by Joshua. Standing on a lofty position it was a post of much importance for the defence of the kingdom on the north. For this reason no doubt Solomon fortified it, but it must have already been rebuilt since its destruction by Joshua, for we read of it in Jdg 4:2; Jdg 4:17, as the city of another Jabin, whose commander in chief was Sisera, slain by Jael.

Megiddo] This city (Joshua 12:21) lay on the south side of the plain of Esdraelon, between Mt. Tabor and the modern bay of St Jean d’Acre, and must have been important as a protection against inroads from the northern highlands and from the direction of Phœnicia, commanding, as it would, the great road from the sea to the plain of the Jordan. Megiddo lay within the tribe of Issachar, but was allotted to Manasseh (Joshua 17:11; 1 Chronicles 7:29). The city was famous for the overthrow of Sisera, but most especially as the place where king Josiah was slain in the war against Pharaoh-Necho (2 Kings 23:29).

Gezer] The position of this ancient city has not been identified, and it is not clear that there were not two places of the same name. One Gezer is mentioned (Joshua 10:33) in connexion with Lachish and Eglon and other places in the south part of Canaan, but a Gezer is also spoken of as in the land assigned to the children of Joseph (Joshua 16:3), that is, the tribe of Ephraim, and as being not far from Beth-horon. If these two be references to the same place the king of Gezer came a long distance to help the king of Lachish. It seems more likely that they were distinct towns. The Gezer in Ephraim did however remain in the possession of the Canaanites (see Joshua 16:10), and so the king of Egypt may have come against it (as we read in the next verse) without being at war with Israel. Yet the fortification by Solomon of a place to protect his dominions on the south makes it perhaps a little more probable that some place nearer Eglon and Lachish is meant in the present passage, for there Canaanites might also be dwelling.

16. For Pharaoh king of Egypt] See above on 1 Kings 3:1.

and taken Gezer] This incursion was probably before Solomon had taken the king’s daughter to wife, though Josephus (Ant. viii. 6, i) says ‘he gave it to his daughter who had been married to Solomon.’ Philippson (die Israelitische Bibel) suggests that Solomon wishing to be rid of these Canaanites asked his father-in-law to undertake their extermination.

and given it for a present] By ‘present’ here is meant ‘a wedding-portion.’ The noun implies ‘a gift on sending away’ and the verb is found Joshua 12:9, where Ibzan the judge is said to have ‘sent abroad’ (i.e. apparently, portioned out in marriage) his thirty daughters and to have taken in thirty others from abroad as wives for his sons. Though it appears to have been the more usual custom in the East for a husband to make presents to his wife’s family, yet we find that Caleb (Jdg 1:15) gave lands with his daughter when she was married to Othniel.

17. and Beth-horon the nether] This was one of two towns named respectively ‘upper’ and ‘nether’ Beth-horon which lay between Gibeon and Azekah, the one at the top of the ascent, the other in the valley westward. The latter, which is the place here mentioned, was important as forming a barrier against foes from the direction of Philistia and Egypt, and for this reason no doubt it was fortified by Solomon. In earlier history the place is famous for Joshua’s victory (Joshua 10.) over the five kings of the Amorites, and later for the overthrow of the Syrian forces by Judas Maccabaeus (1 Maccabees 3.).

18. and Baalath] This place is mentioned (Joshua 19:44) among the places which fell to the tribe of Dan, and must therefore have been on the border of the country of the Philistines, and for that reason we may presume that it was included among the places which Solomon strengthened.

and Tadmor in the wilderness, in the land] Here the Hebrew text reads Tamar, and Tadmor is only given on the margin (Keri). The R.V. adopts the reading of the text, probably because of the words ‘in the land.’ All the places mentioned here lie in Palestine, and we know from Ezekiel (Ezekiel 47:19, Ezekiel 48:28) that there was a city Tamar on the south border of the Holy Land, which was towards the wilderness. It seems therefore most likely, as this place is spoken of as ‘in the land,’ that Tamar should be here preferred, and the position assigned to it in Ezekiel is that of a place which it would be most important to fortify. The marginal reading Tadmor is no doubt due to the mention of Tadmor among the cities which Solomon built in 2 Chronicles 8:4. But there Tadmor is mentioned in connexion with Hamath-Zobah and the conquest of the northern part of the land. This reading may be correct in Chronicles, for with Solomon’s ambition to extend his dominion and foster commerce, Tadmor in the wilderness (afterwards so famous as Palmyra) would be a place much to be coveted as a step on the road to Babylon. Tadmor grew famous, and Tamar was well-nigh forgotten, hence we can see how the former name (not mentioned anywhere but in Chronicles) should be substituted on the margin in the verse before us. It may well be that Solomon occupied both places, but there is no warrant for importing the name Tadmor into Kings, especially as the place here mentioned is spoken of as being ‘in the land.’

Josephus is very minute in his account of this city, which he (as was to be expected) says was Tadmor (Ant. viii. 6, i), ‘Having invaded the desert that lies above Syria, and acquired it, he founded there a very great city, two days’ journey from upper Syria, and one from the Euphrates, and its distance from the great city of Babylon was six days. And the reason why he built this city so distant from the inhabited parts of Syria was that nowhere in the land lower down was there water, but that there alone were found fountains and wells. So having built the city and surrounded it with very strong walls, he named it Thadamora, and it is still so called by the Syrians, but the Greeks name it Palmyra.’

19. and all the cities of store] In 2 Chronicles 8:4 the expression is store-cities, which reads better here, and is clearer in sense. These places would be provided so that surplus produce which could be preserved, as corn, oil, wine, &c. might be stored in times of plenty to be ready when need should require. We read that Hezekiah made some similar provision (2 Chronicles 32:28).

and cities for his chariots, and cities for his horsemen] Special places must have been needed for these, when we consider the great number of them (see below 1 Kings 10:26). In 1 Chronicles 4:31 there is a place called ‘town-of-chariots’ Beth-marcaboth, and another ‘court-of-horses’ Hazar-susim. The injunction of Deuteronomy 17:16 against the multiplication of horses by the king was apparently forgotten or disregarded. But the absence of any allusion to the command has been made by some an argument for the later date of Deuteronomy.

and that which Solomon desired to build] The force of the literal rendering on the margin of A. V. ‘the desire of Solomon which he desired to build’ is better brought out in the text of R.V. ‘that which Solomon desired to build for his pleasure.’ The noun is the same as in 1 Kings 9:1 of this chapter, and the writer here is evidently distinguishing these later-named works from the former. The first in the list were either fortifications, or strongholds, or store-cities, but the others are for the king’s own pleasure and enjoyment. (Cf. on the whole subject, Ecclesiastes 2:4-8.)

and in Lebanon] The place of all others to which for relaxation the king would retire. The scorching heat of the lower plains could there be escaped, while the fragrance of the vegetation made a residence there most enjoyable. The writer of Solomon’s Song paints for us the loveliness of the spot, ‘a fountain of gardens, a well of living waters and streams from Lebanon’ (1 Kings 4:15), and again, ‘his countenance is as Lebanon, excellent as the cedars’ (1 Kings 5:15), and ‘the smell of thy garments is like the smell of Lebanon’ (1 Kings 4:11). But it has been supposed by some that Lebanon is mentioned here as being an important military post.

20. which were not of the children of Israel] This clause is added because the people of Canaan had become much mixed up among the Israelite population, being still allowed to live in some cities from which at first it had been found impossible to dislodge them (see above, 1 Kings 9:16). But a distinction was made between these people and the people of Israel, now that Solomon was powerful enough to enforce it, in the kind of service they must render and the tribute they must bear. It may be that the five nations here mentioned were most largely represented in the surviving population, and that the other two out of the seven nations of Canaan had by this time been more nearly exterminated.

21. whom the children of Israel also were not able utterly to destroy] There is no word to represent ‘also’ in the original, nor does the English sentence require it. The utter destruction spoken of here is that which had been decreed upon them by God’s judgement, and which Israel was to be the agent in executing.

upon those did Solomon levy a tribute of bondservice] The Hebrew noun מם here rendered ‘tribute’ is applied in a concrete sense to the ‘renderers of the tribute.’ The verb also here is literally ‘he caused to go up.’ As the narrative in this verse is dealing entirely with the persons it is better to render (as R.V.) of these did Solomon raise a levy of bondservants. Theirs was slave service, such as is alluded to in Joshua 16:10.

unto this day] A faithful copying by the compiler of the Books of Kings from some earlier record which lay before him, and which noted the continuation of this forced service for some time after the reign of Solomon.

22. But of the children of Israel did Solomon make no bondman] This must be read in the light of chap. 1 Kings 5:13. There we are told of Solomon’s levy upon all Israel. But the 30,000 men there spoken of had duty forced on them only for a month at a time. Ten thousand served for one month, and were two months at home before their turn for service came round again. Moreover, when the work for which they were enrolled came to an end they were free. It may also be that in the course of 20 years Solomon changed his system, especially if he saw that his people were beginning to find his yoke heavy. But the Canaanite levy was continuous ‘unto this day.’

his servants] i.e. His officers. The position of the word between ‘men of war’ and ‘princes’ shews that the service here spoken of was a service of dignity. They were such ‘servants’ as are spoken of in 2 Samuel 8:7 “And David took the shields of gold that were on the servants of Hadadezer.’

23. These were the chief of the officers] Better, with R.V. the chief officers. This is a select class out of the whole number of such officers. A greater number, 3300, is spoken of in chap. 1 Kings 5:16, and it may be that while the works in Lebanon, and at the Temple and the king’s house, were in progress, the larger number of chief officers was engaged in the supervision; but afterwards, for the ordinary fortification and pleasaunce-building, the smaller number was found sufficient. In 2 Chronicles 8:11, two hundred and fifty is given as the number of these officials. Kennicott explains this variation by the reading of one letter for another in the Hebrew system of indicating numbers by the letters of the alphabet.

24. But Pharaoh’s daughter came up] On her residence in the city of David, see in 1 Kings 3:1.

Millo] See above, 1 Kings 9:15.

25. three times in a year did Solomon offer] Most likely this means at the three great feasts, the Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles. This may be understood in the sense ‘qui facit per alium, facit per se’. But some have contended that Solomon himself performed these priestly acts and that consequently the privileges of the Levitical caste were of later origin.

and he burnt incense upon the altar that was before the Lord] The marginal note of A.V. ‘upon it’ for ‘upon the altar’ shews where the difficulty in this verse is. The R.V. prefers, instead of ‘upon it’ to render ‘with it,’ i.e. therewith, and this is supported by the Hebrew punctuation. The translation then becomes ‘And he burnt incense therewith, upon the altar that was before the Lord,’ the italics being added to complete the sense. But the text can hardly be correct to need such an addition.

So he finished the house] It is clear from the language of this verse that the account was not brought into its present form on the completion of the work, but at some later time, when Solomon’s offerings at the great feasts had grown into a custom. The 1 Kings 9:15-25 are omitted by the LXX (Vat.).

26–28. Solomon’s navy (2 Chronicles 8:17-18)

26. in Ezion-geber] The name signifies ‘the Giant’s chine,’ and it was probably a promontory. Ezion-geber is mentioned first in the narrative of the journey of the Israelites from Egypt (Numbers 33:35). It was the last halting-place before they entered the wilderness of Zin. It lay at the top of the gulf of Akabah. Here was also Eloth (or Elath) of which we read (2 Kings 14:22) that, though it is here said to be in the land of Edom, it was conquered for Judah at a later time, and still later (2 Kings 16:6) came into the possession of Rezin king of Syria.

In reference to this navy, we are told (2 Chronicles 8:18) that Hiram sent Solomon the ships. Putting that passage side by side with this, it can only mean that the wood for ship-building was brought from Tyre along the coast as far as was necessary, and then at the nearest point carried over land to the Gulf of Akabah, where the ships were built. The only other interpretation of the statement in 2 Chronicles would be that Hiram sent ships from Tyre round Africa and then by the Indian Ocean into the Red Sea, which cannot for a moment be supposed.

27. that had knowledge of the sea] For which knowledge in ancient times the Phœnicians were the most famous people.

28. they came to Ophir] There is not sufficient evidence to decide where Ophir was. The most probable conjectures have been Africa, India and Arabia. But on account of the productions named in connexion with the place in chap. 1 Kings 10:11 Africa has been almost universally given up. And in the decision between India and Arabia, the latter seems the more likely, partly because it is nearer to reach from Ezion-geber, which is a consideration not without weight in questions connected with early navigation, and partly because the first mention of Ophir (Genesis 10:29) makes it refer to the descendants of Joktan, whose home was in Arabia. There is no necessity to conclude that the commodities brought from Ophir, gold, almug-trees and precious stones, were products of the land. Almug-wood has been supposed to be the same with sandal-wood, but the evidence on this point seems very inconclusive, and if it were proved, it might well be that the wood, produced in India, was brought to some mart on the Arabian coast for sale. The ports of Yemen and the Persian Gulf were great entrepots of commerce from the earliest times. With precious stones also this could easily be done, and with gold too. But the gold of Sheba (i.e. Arabia) is noted as famous in Psalm 72:15; Isaiah 60:6. There appears therefore to be more in favour of some place on the coast of Arabia than for any other suggested site of Ophir. Josephus however says it was in India (Ant. viii. 6. 4), and that a more modern name is Χρυσῆ γῆ.

four hundred and twenty talents] The sum seems enormous, £2,250,000. What could a country like Palestine furnish in exchange? Perhaps the sum represents the total of many expeditions. The parallel passage in 2 Chron. (1 Kings 8:18) says ‘four hundred and fifty talents,’ Josephus ‘about four hundred.’ The LXX. (Vat.) gives ‘one hundred and twenty talents.’ The expedition appears to have been all for Solomon’s benefit, as we hear nothing of any share of the adventure given to the Tyrian king.