Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadPulpit Commentary - 1 Kings 11:14 - 11:43
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Ki_11:14
And the Lord stirred up an adversary unto Solomon, Hadad [in 1Ki_11:17 written Adad, àÂãÇã . Apparently this, like Pharaoh, was a title rather than a name. And, like Pharaoh, it is said to mean the sun. It was borne by a king of Edom in very early times, Gen_25:15; Gen_36:35, Gen_36:39 (in the latter verse, as in Gen_25:15, Hadar is probably a clerical error for Hadad, as the name stands in 1Ch_1:30, 1Ch_1:50, and ø being so very much alike. Gesenius, however, contends that Hadar is the true reading), and was also a favourite name with the kings of Syria, especially in the forms Benhadad, Hadadezer] the Edomite: he was of the king's seed in Edom.
1Ki_11:15
For it came to pass, when David was in Edom [2Sa_8:14. But the text is peculiar. Instead of "in Edom" we have "with Edom," àúÎàãí , unless we take àú to be the mark of the accusative, which, however, there is no verb to govern. Keil interprets, "When David had to do with Edom." Bähr refers to 1Ch_20:5, and Gen_19:4, but they are not strictly parallel, and it is possible that the text is slightly corrupt, as the LXX; Syr; and Arab. must have had áäëåú instead of áäéåú before them "when David smote Edom." The LXX; e.g; reads ἐν τῷ ἐξολοθρεῦσαι κ . τ . λ . It was only vicariously, however, that David smote Edom, or was in Edom. According to 1Ch_18:12, Abishai slew 18,000 Edomites, while Psa_60:1-12. (title) represents Joab as having slain 12,000 at the same time and place. The two brothers were both in high command, or Abishal may have been detailed by Joab to this service], and Joab the captain of the host was gone up to bury the slain [The commentators generally are agreed that these are the Israelites slain by the Edomites during an invasion of Israel, and not either the Edomites or Israelites slain in the valley of Salt], after he had smitten [rather, that he smote. This is the apodosis] every male in Edom. [This is, of course, hyperbolical (cf. "all Israel" below). It is clear that the whole Edomite nation did not perish. The words point to a terrible slaughter (cf. 1Ch_18:13) among the men of war. Possibly the cruelties of the Edomites (compare Psa_137:7; Oba_1:10-14) had provoked this act of retribution, as to which see Deu_20:13.]
1Ki_11:16
For six months did Joab remain there with all Israel [i.e; the entire army, as in 1Ki_16:16, 1Ki_16:17], until he had cut off every male in Edom.
1Ki_11:17
That Hadad fled [This word excludes the idea that he was carried off in infancy by servants, something like Joash, 2Ki_11:2], he and certain Edomites of his father's servants with him, to go into Egypt [cf. Mat_2:13]; Hadad being yet a little child. [The words used of Solomon 1Ki_3:7.]
1Ki_11:18
And they arose out of Midian [a name of wide and somewhat varied significance. Midian embraces the eastern portion of the peninsula of Sinai (Exo_2:15, Exo_2:21; Exo_3:1), and stretches along the eastern border of Palestine. The term has been compared with our "Arabia." And the indefiniteness arises in both instances from the same cause, viz; that the country was almost entirely desert. Midian would thus extend along the back or east of Edom. There is no need, consequently (with Thenius), to read îÈòåÉï i.e; their dwelling. It is noticeable, however, that the LXX. reads ἐκ τῆς πόλεως Μαδμὶμ , and some of the geographers do mention a city of that name on the eastern shore of the Elanitic gulf], and came to Paran [Elsewhere Mount Paran, Hab_3:3; Deu_33:2; a desert and mountainous tract lying between Arabia Petraea, Palestine, and Idumaea (see Num_10:12; Num_13:3, Num_13:27; 1Sa_25:1; Deu_1:1), and comprehending the desert of Et Tih. It is difficult to identify it with greater precision, but it has been connected with the beautiful Wady Feiran, near Mount Serbal, in the Sinaitic range, which would agree fairly well with our narrative]: and they took men with them out of Pavan [as guides through the desert, and possibly as a protection also], and came to Egypt [The direct route from Edom to Egypt would be across the desert of Et Tih—practically the route of the caravan of pilgrims from Mecca. But this does not settle the position of Paran, as the text seems to hint that the fugitives did not proceed direct from Edom. They may have taken refuge in the first instance amongst the tribes of Midian; or they may have diverged from the straight course through fear], unto Pharaoh king of Egypt [This cannot have been the Pharaoh who was Solomon's father-in-law, for in the first place, the flight was in the time of David, and secondly, a prince who had aided and abetted these fugitives would hardly be likely to form an alliance with their great enemy. It may have been Psusennes II.]; which gave him an house, and appointed him victuals [i.e; certain cities or officers were charged with his maintenance, though, as his relations with the royal family were so extremely intimate (Deu_33:19-22), he may have been fed from the royal table], and gave him land.
1Ki_11:19
And Hadad found great favour in the sight of Pharaoh, so that he gave him to wife the sister of his own wife, the sister of Tahpenes [LXX. θεκεμίνα . "No name that has any near resemblance to either Tahpenes or Thekemina has yet been found among those of the period". Rawlinson adds that the monuments of that age are extremely scanty] the queen. [Heb. âÀÌáÄéøÈä the word generally used of the queen mother (as in 1Ki_15:13). Here, and in 2Ki_10:13, however, it is used of the queen consort.]
1Ki_11:20
And the sister of Tahpenes bare him Genubath his son [otherwise unknown], whom Tahpenes weaned in Pharaoh's house [A significant token of his adoption into the royal family. The weaning, which generally took place in the second, sometimes third, (2 Macc. 7:27) year,was clearly a much more marked occasion in the ancient East than it is among ourselves (Gen_21:8; 1Sa_1:24) ]: and Genubath was in Pharaoh's household among the sons of Pharaoh. [i.e. he was brought up in the Egyptian harem.]
1Ki_11:21
And when Hadad heard in Egypt that David slept with his fathers, and that Joab the captain of the host was dead [It comes out very significantly here what a name of terror Joab's had been in Edom and how deep was the impression which his bloody vengeance of a quarter of a century before had made] Hadad said to Pharaoh, Let me depart [Heb. send me away], that I may go to mine own country. [Rawlinson cites Herod. 3:132-137; 5:25, 35, 106, 107, to show that refugees at Oriental courts must obtain permission to leave them.]
1Ki_11:22
Then Pharaoh said unto him, But what hast thou lacked with me, that, behold, thou seekest to go to thine own country? [The natural inquiry of Eastern courtesy.] And he answered, Nothing: howbeit let me go in any wise. [Heb. thou shalt surely send me away. Rawlinson says, "There is a remarkable abruptness in this termination." But we must remember how unfinished, to our eyes, Scripture narratives constantly seem. There is no need, consequently, to suspect any accidental omission from the Hebrew text. The LXX; it is true, adds, "and Ader departed," etc; but this may be inferred from verses 14, 25. And Hadad's persistent desire to depart, for which he assigns no reason, is suggestive of the thoughts which were stirring in his soul. "The keen remembrance of his native land, his lost kingdom, and the slaughter of all his house, gathered strength within him; and all the ease and princely honour which he enjoyed in Egypt availed not against the claims of ambition, vengeance, and patriotism" (Kitto).]
1Ki_11:23
And God stirred him up another adversary [almost identical with 1Ki_11:14], Rezon the son of Eliadah [Often identified with the Hezion of 1Ki_15:18, but on insufficient grounds. Whether he was a usurper, who had dethroned Hadad (see Jos; Ant; 6.5. 2), or an officer of Hadadezer's, who escaped either before or after the battle of 2Sa_8:3-5, is uncertain. The following words agree equally well with either supposition], which fled from his lord Hadadezer king of Zobah.
1Ki_11:24
And he gathered men unto him and became captain over a band [either of rebels before or of fugitives after the defeat], when David slew them of Zobah [Of Zobah, not in Hebrews "Them" must mean the Syrian army]: and they went to Damascus, and dwelt therein [As David put garrisons in Syria of Damascus (2Sa_8:6), this must have been some time after the defeat of the Syrians. But Keil argues that it cannot have been in the middle or later part of Solomon's reign, inasmuch as Solomon must have been lord of Damascus, or he could not have built Palmyra. But it is not so incontrovertibly settled that Solomon did build Palmyra (see on 1Ki_9:18) as to make this argument of much weight. And even if it were, we might still fix the reign of Rezon at an earlier period of Solomon's sway. See below], and reigned. [i.e; the band or troop of Rezon, either in the confusion of the defeat, or in some subsequent time of anarchy, took possession of Damascus, and he, it would seem, usurped the crown. The word "reigned," however (plural), is somewhat remarkable. It may perhaps be accounted for by the plurals which precede it. The insertion of one "yod" ( åéîìéëå for åéîìëå ) gives the sense "they made him king," which would certainly be preferable, if the emendation were not purely conjectural.
1Ki_11:25
And he was an adversary to Israel all the days of Solomon [We are not compelled, however, to believe that his reign lasted "all the days of Solomon." This last expression is to be taken with considerable latitude. It is an Orientalism. At the time of 1Ki_5:4, neither Hadad nor Rezon was giving Solomon any trouble], beside the mischief which Hadad did [Heb. omits did. The construction of the Hebrew, 292b, note) is difficult. Literally, and with the evil which Hadad," etc. (comp. verse 1 of this chapter, "and with the daughter," etc; with Exo_1:14, Hebrews) The LXX. reconstructs the text, making the following words, "and he abhorred," etc; apply to Hadad; and altering Syria ( àøí ) into Eden ( àñí ) to suit. But it is far better to understand òùÈä (with our Authorized Version); i.e; beside the mischief which Hadad did (or, "beside the mischief of Hadad," Ewald). "And he (Rezon) abhorred," etc. Hadad's enmity has already been described (verses 17-22), and the historian has passed on to the case of Rezon. It is extremely unlikely that he should now suddenly recur exclusively to Hadad. It is very natural for him, on the other hand, in his account of Rezon, to remind us that all this was in addition to the mischief wrought by Hadad]: and he abhorred [Heb. loathed] Israel, and reigned over Syria.
1Ki_11:26
And Jeroboam [Viewed in the light of their history, the names Jeroboam and Rehoboam are both instructive. The first means, "Whose people are many;" the second, "Enlarger of the people." The latter might almost have been bestowed in irony, the former by way of parody] the son of Nebat [The case of Jeroboam is now related at much greater length, not so much because of the importance of the rebellion at the time, as because of its bearing on the later history of Israel. It led to the disruption of the kingdom and the schism in the Church. It was the first great symptom of the decadence of the power of Solomon; of his decline in piety we have had many indications. We see in it an indication that the Hebrew commonwealth has passed its zenith], an Ephrathite [i.e; Ephraimite; cf. Jdg_12:5; 1Sa_1:1. Ephraim was the ancient rival of Judah, and by reason of its numbers, position, etc; might well aspire to the headship of the tribes (Gen_49:26; Gen_48:19; Deu_33:17; Jos_17:17) ] of Zereda [Mentioned here only, unless it is identical with Zeredathah (2Ch_4:17) or Zarthan (Jos_3:16; 1Ki_4:12) in the Jordan valley. That this place was apparently situate in the tribe of Manasseh, is no argument against the identification (Bähr), for an Ephrathite might surely be born out of Ephraim. It is, however, observable that Zereda has the definite article (similarly ἡ Σαρείρα in the LXX; but this place is located in Mount Ephraim), which Zarthan, etc; have not. Hence it is probably the same as the Zererath of Jdg_7:22. In fact, some MSS. read öÀøÅãÈä there instead of öÀøÅøÈä and ø dna öÀ and ã are not only etymologically interchangeable, but are also extremely liable to be confused (see above on Jdg_7:14) ], Solomon's servant [i.e; officer; cf. verse 28], whose mother's name was Zeruah [i.e; leprous. His mother's name is recorded, probably because his father, having died early, was comparatively unknown. But it is not impossible that the similarity either with Zeruiah (cf. 1Ki_1:7) or Zererah had something to do with its preservation. The people would not readily forget that Solomon's other great adversary was the son of Zeruiah. And we have many proofs how much the Jews affected the jingle of similar words], even he lifted up his [Heb. a] hand [i.e; rebelled. Synonymous expression 2Sa_18:28; 2Sa_20:21. Observe, we have no history or account of this rebellion except in the LXX; but merely of the circumstances which led to it] against the king.
1Ki_11:27
And this was the cause [or, this is the account; this is how it came about. Same words Jos_5:4, and 1Ki_9:15. We have here a long parenthesis, explaining the origin, etc; of Jeroboam's disaffection] that he lifted up his hand [Heb. a hand] against the king. Solomon built Millo [see on 1Ki_9:15], and repaired the breaches [These words convey the impression that Solomon renewed the decayed or destroyed parts of the wall. But
(1) ñÈâÇø does not mean repair, except indirectly. It means he closed, shut. And
(2) ôÆÌøÆõ sing, refers to one breach or opening. Moreover
(3) it was not so long since the wall was built (2Sa_5:9). It could hardly, therefore, have decayed, and there had been no siege to cause a breach. We must understand the word, consequently, not of a part broken down, but of a portion unbuilt. We have elsewhere suggested that this was the breach in the line of circumvallation, caused by the Tyropsson valley, and that the Millo was the bank, or rampart which closed it. And to this view the words of the text lend some confirmation] of the city of David his father. [As Millo was built about the 25th year of Solomon's reign (1Ki_9:15), we are enabled to fix approximately the date of Jeroboam's rebellion. It was apparently about ten or twelve years before Solomon's death.
1Ki_11:28
And the man Jeroboam was a mighty man of valour [same expression Jdg_6:12; Jdg_11:1; 1Sa_9:1; 2Ki_15:20. In Ruth if. 1 it hardly seems to imply valour so much as wealth (as A.V.): and Solomon seeing the young man that he was industrious [Heb. doing fwork], he made him ruler over all the charge [Heb. appointed him to all the burden] of the house of Joseph. [The tribe of Ephraim, with its constant envy of Judah, must have been mortified to find themselves employed—though it was but in the modified service of Israelites—on the fortifications of Jerusalem. Their murmurings revealed to Jeroboam the unpopularity of Solomon, and perhaps suggested thoughts of overt rebellion to his mind.]
1Ki_11:29
And it came to pass at that time [a general expression = "when he was thus employed"] when [Heb. that] Jeroboam went out of Jerusalem that [Heb. and], the prophet Ahijah the Shilonite [i.e; of Shiloh, as is expressed 1Ki_14:2-4, where see notes. He too, therefore, was an Ephraimite (Jos_16:5). This portion of the history is probably derived from his writings (2Ch_9:29). We may be pretty sure that Nathan was now dead] found him in the way; and he [i.e; Ahijah. Ewald understands Jeroboam to be meant, and would see in the new garment his "splendid robe of office"] had clad himself with a new garment [ ùÇÒìÀîÈä same word as ùÀÒîÀìÈä such transpositions of letters being common. The simlah was the outer garment (Gen_9:23; 1Sa_21:10, etc.), which served at night as a covering (Deu_22:17). It was probably identical in shape, etc; with the camel's-hair burnous, or abba, worn by the Arabs at the present day, and being almost a square would lend itself well to division into twelve parts]; and they two were alone in the field [i.e; open country.]
1Ki_11:30
And Ahijah caught [This English word almost implies that it was Jeroboam's garment (cf. Gen_39:12); but the original simply means "laid hold of."] the new garment that was on him, and rent [same word as in 1Ki_11:11, 1Ki_11:12, 1Ki_11:13] it in twelve pieces. [The first instance of an "acted parable" (Rawlinson).]
1Ki_11:31
And he said to Jeroboam, Take thee ten pieces: for thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel, Behold, I will rend the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and will give ten tribes [Keil insists that "ten" is here mentioned merely as the number of completeness; that, in fact, it is to be understood symbolically and not arithmetically. He further states that in point of fact the kingdom of Jeroboam only consisted of nine tribes, that of Simeon being practically surrounded by the territory of Judah, and so becoming incorporated in the southern kingdom. But surely, if that had been the idea in the prophet's mind, it would have been better expressed had he torn off one piece from the garment and given the rest, undivided, to Jeroboam (Bähr). And the reference to the number of the tribes is unmistakable. As to Simeon, we have no means of knowing what part that tribe, if it still existed, took at the division of the kingdom. See on 1Ki_19:3. Its members had long been scattered (Gen_49:7), and it gradually dwindled away, and has already disappeared from the history. But even if it had a corporate existence and did follow the lead of Judah, still that is not con. clusive on the question, for we know not only that the historian uses round numbers, but also that we are not to look for exact statements, as the next verse proves] to thee.
1Ki_11:32
But he shall have one tribe [LXX. δύο σκῆπτρα . Some would understand "one tribe, in addition to Judah," but compare 1Ki_12:20, "tribe of Judah only," and see note on 1Ki_12:13. Possibly neither Judah nor Benjamin is here to be thought of separately. In 1Ki_12:21, and 2Ch_11:3, 2Ch_11:23, they are both reckoned to Rehoboam. They might be regarded as in some sense one, inasmuch as they enclosed the Holy City (Seb. Schmidt), the line of division passing right through the temple platform. But it is perhaps safer, in view of 1Ki_12:20, to understand the term of Judah, compared with which large and influential tribe "little Benjamin" was hardly deserving of separate mention) for my servant David's sake, and for Jerusalem's sake [see on 1Ki_12:12, 1Ki_12:13], the city which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel.
1Ki_11:33
Because that they [The LXX. has the singular throughout, and so have all the translations, except the Chaldee. But the plural is to be retained, the import being that Solomon was not alone in his idolatrous leanings; or it may turn our thoughts to the actual idolaters—his wives—whose guilt he shared. The singular looks as if an alteration had been made to bring the words into harmony with the context, and especially with the concluding words of this verse, "David his father."] have forsaken me, and have worshipped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians [ öãðéï a Chaldee form. But many MSS. read öãðéí ], Chemosh the god of the Moabites, and Milcom [the LXX. has "their king the abomination," etc; καὶ τῷ βασιλεῖ αὐτῶν . See note on 1Ki_11:5], the god of the children of Ammon, and have not walked in my ways, to do that which is right in mine eyes, and to keep my statutes and my Judgments, as did David his father.
1Ki_11:34
Howbeit I will not take the whole kingdom [Rawlinson says the context requires "aught of the kingdom," and affirms that the Hebrew will bear this rendering. But he surely forgets that the Hebrew has the def. art. àÆúÎëÈìÎçÇîÇÌîÀìÈëÈä can only represent "all the kingdom, τὴν , βασιλείαν ὅλην (LXX.) See Gesen; Thesau. s.v. ëÉì d. It would certainly seem as if this verse should speak of Solomon's retaining the sceptre during his lifetime, and not of his retaining a part of the empire. But we may not go against the grammar] out of his hand: but I will make him prince all the days of his life for David my servant's sake, whom I chose, because he kept my commandments and my statutes. ["If Solomon break his covenant with God, God will not break his covenant with the father of Solomon" (Hall).]
1Ki_11:35
But I will take the kingdom out of his son's hand, and will give it unto thee, even ten tribes.
1Ki_11:36
And unto his son will I give one tribe [cf. 1Ki_11:32, note], that David my servant may have a light alway before me [The same expression is found in 1Ki_15:4; 2Ki_8:19; 2Ch_21:7; and compare Psa_132:17. Keil would explain it by 2Sa_21:17; but 2Sa_14:7, "my coal which is left," appears to be a closer parallel. The idea is not that of a home (Rawlinson), but family, issue. We speak of the extinction of a family (Bähr) ] in Jerusalem, the city which I have chosen me to put my name there.
1Ki_11:37
And I will take thee, and thou shalt reign according to all that thy soul desireth [We are not justified in concluding from these words that Jeroboam then had ambitious designs upon the throne (Keil). They rather mean, "as king, all thy desires shall be gratified" (cf. Deu_12:20; Deu_14:26; 1Sa_2:16; 2Sa_3:21). Bähr paraphrases "thou shalt have the dominion thou now strivest for," but we have absolutely no proof that Jeroboam at that time had ever meditated rebellion. It is quite possible that the idea was inspired by this interview], and shalt be king over Israel.
1Ki_11:38
And it shall be, if thou writ hearken unto all that I command thee [cf. 1Ki_3:14; 1Ki_6:12; 1Ki_9:4], and wilt walk in my ways, and do that is right in my sight, to keep my statutes and my commandments, as David my servant did; that I will be with thee [cf. 1Ki_1:37, note], and build thee a sure house [cf. 2Sa_7:11, 2Sa_7:16; i.e; a family, perhaps dynasty. Observe, however, there was no promise to Jeroboam, as there was to David, of an enduring kingdom. It was not God's design to take away the kingdom from David in perpetuity (verse 39) ], as I built for David, and will give Israel unto thee.
1Ki_11:39
And I will for this [i.e; the defection just described] afflict the seed of David, but not forever [Heb. all the days. Cf. Psa_89:28, Psa_89:33, Psa_89:36. This limitation, "not forever." would seem to apply to the kingdom, for it was through the loss of their kingdom that the seed of David was afflicted. And if so, it promises, if not a restoration of the kingdom to the house of David, at any rate a renewal or continuance of God's favour. We may perhaps regard the promise as fulfilled in the subsequent history of the kings of Judah. Not only did the kingdom last for nearly 500 years, but the royal house of David maintained its position to the time of Zerubbabel. Nor is it to be overlooked that He "of whose kingdom there shall be no end" (Luk_1:33) was the son of David].
1Ki_11:40
Solomon sought the efore to kill Jeroboam. [It is often assumed that Solomon's attempt on Jeroboam's life was the result of the prophecy of Ahijah. And our translation with its "therefore" favours this view. The Hebrews, however, has simply "and Solomon sought," etc. And these words connect themselves with 1Ki_11:26, "even he lifted up his hand," etc. With 1Ki_11:27 a parenthesis begins, explaining how it came about that Jeroboam rebelled. It is implied distinctly that it was because of Ahijah's prophecy. That prophecy, however, was in no sense a justification of treason or attack on Jeroboam's part. The fact that God had revealed His purposes was no reason why Jeroboam should forestall them. David knew and others knew that he was destined to be king, but he piously left it for God, in His own time and way, to place him on the throne. And Jeroboam's rebellion is the more inexcusable, because Ahijah had expressly stated that Solomon was to retain the kingdom during his lifetime. However "he lifted up his hand;" there was some overt act of rebellion, and Solomon, because of this, and not because of the prophecy, sought to slay him. Nor was the king without justification in so doing. Treason must be promptly suppressed, and treason against a benefactor (see 1Ki_11:28) is doubly hateful.] And Jeroboam arose, and fled into Egypt [cf. 1Ki_11:17, and Mat_2:13. It was the natural place of refuge], unto Shishak, king of Egypt [Shishak is beyond doubt the Sheshonk I. of the monuments, and is the first of the Pharaohs who can be identified with certainty. The date of his accession appears to be somewhere between 988 and 980 B.C. As to his invasion of Palestine, see on 1Ki_14:25. His reception of Jeroboam almost proves that there has been a change of dynasty, and that the new Pharaoh was no friend to Solomon], and was in Egypt until the death of Solomon. [Compare again Mat_2:15.]
1Ki_11:41
And the rest of the acts of Solomon, and all that he did, and his wisdom, are they not written in the book of the Acts of Solomon? [The sources of this history are mentioned more specifically in 2Ch_9:29.]
1Ki_11:42
And the time [Heb. days] that Solomon reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel was forty years. [Josephus, here as elsewhere, doubles the figure, making his reign to have lasted eighty years. It is somewhat remarkable, but affords no just ground for suspicion, that each of the first three kings of Israel should have reigned just forty years. "Such numerical coincidences occur in exact history. Saosduchinus, Chiniladanus, and Nabopolassar, three consecutive kings of Babylon, reigned each twenty-one years" (Rawlinson).]
1Ki_11:43
¯ And Solomon slept with his fathers [see note on 1Ki_2:10. For the later and often mythical accounts of Solomon, see Ewald, 3. pp. 318, 319. The question of his repentance is discussed by Keble, "Occasional Papers," pp. 416-434], and was hurled in the city of David his father; and Rehoboam his son [So far as appears his only son. "Solomon hath but one son, and he no miracle of wisdom." "Many a poor man hath a houseful of children by one wife, whilst this great king hath but one son by any housefuls of wives" (Bp. Hall). It is worth remembering in this connection that Psa_127:1-5; which speaks of children as God's reward (Psa_127:3), is with good reason ascribed to Solomon] reigned in his stead.
But in considering the recompenses of his sin, it is essential to remember—
1. That we can only speak, because we only know, of the temporal punishment which attended him. It may be that was all. Possibly the flesh was destroyed that the spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord (1Co_6:5). It may be that, foully as he fell, he did not fail finally, but of this no man can be certain. There is every reason to think that the question has been "left in designed obscurity", that no one might presume. It may be, therefore, that he still awaits the just recompense of wrath in the day of wrath (Rom_2:5).
2. That if this temporal punishment does not strike us as severe—considering the enormity of his sin and the greatness of the gifts and privileges he had abused—it is partly because the temporal punishment was mitigated for his father's sake. The avenging hand could not smite Solomon without at the same time hurting David. We are expressly told that Solomon was maintained on the throne all his life, and that one tribe was given—the word implies that the gift was unmerited—to his son, for David's sake (1Ki_11:34-36). If, therefore, we are tempted to think that the punishment was not exemplary, let us see in it an instance of God's "showing mercy unto thousands" (sc; of generations, Exo_20:6)—a proof of the Infinite Love which "remembered David and all his afflictions" (Psa_132:1). But such as it was, it was sufficient to teach us these two lessons at least.
1. "Be sure your sin will find you out" (Num_32:23).
2. "Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap" (Gal_6:7).
For this retribution was of two kinds. There was—
I. THAT WHICH SOLOMON SUFFERED IN HIS OWN PERSON; and,
II. THAT WHICH HE SUFFERED IN HIS FAMILY AND KINGDOM. Under the first of these categories the following penalties are to be ranked:
1. His life was shortened. Probably by the operation of natural laws. It is not suggested that he was directly smitten of God; it is quite possible that his rank voluptuousness destroyed his energies and induced premature decay. But all the same his days were cut short. Not only was long life the principal sanction of the dispensation under which he lived, but it had been expressly promised him as the reward of piety (1Ki_3:14). But his sun went down while it was yet noon. He was not sixty when the mandate went forth, "Remove the diadem, and take off the crown" (Eze_21:26). And if it be true, what Dr. Johnson said to David Garrick when the latter showed him his elegant house at Richmond, that great and rare earthly possessions "make deathbeds miserable," it must have cost Solomon a sharp pang to leave so soon his cedar palace and his chryselephantine throne.
2. His life was embittered. If, as is most probable, we have in the book of Ecclesiastes a chapter of his autobiography, it is clear that his glory brought him little satisfaction (Ecc_3:1-22. passim; Ecc_5:13; Ecc_6:12; Ecc_7:26); there was a worm at the root of all his pleasures. Of what avail were his houses, his gardens, his pools of water, etc; so long as he had not the heart to enjoy them?
"It is the mind that maketh good or ill,
That maketh wretch'd or happy, rich or poor,
For some, that hath abundance at his will,
Hath not enough, but seeks a greater store."
He knew nothing of "the royalty of inward happiness." How different St. Paul, "Having nothing, yet possessing all things," etc. (2Co_6:10). What a commentary on the "confessions" of Solomon, as they have been called, with their everlasting refrain, their vanitas vanitatum, is that confession of a man who suffered one long martyrdom of pain—the Baptist minister, Robert Hall—"I enjoy everything."
3. He was tortured by remorse. This is not expressly stated, but surely it may with good reason be inferred. For the wisest of men could not be so insensate, when he heard the message of doom (1Ki_12:2), as not to reflect how different his end was to be from his beginning; how fair the flower, and how bitter the fruit. Surely the cry he has put into others' lips would often rise from his own, "How have I hated instruction," etc. (Pro_5:12).
4. He was haunted by forebodings. "This great Babylon" which he had builded, how soon should it be destroyed. The empire which he had consolidated should barely last his life. "One tribe"—how those words would ring in his ears! Then he had good reason, too, to fear that his son was one of the class he had himself described (Pro_10:1; Pro_15:20; Pro_17:25; Pro_19:18. Cf. Ecc_2:19), and no match for Jeroboam, of whose designs upon the throne he cannot have been ignorant (1Ki_11:26, 1Ki_11:27). He had the mortification of knowing that his "servant" would enter into his labours. And to the prospect of dissensions within, was added the certainty of disaffection without. Hadad and Rezon were already on his border, and were only biding their time. The political horizon was indeed black and lowering.
5. He was harassed by adversaries. For it is clear from verses 14, 28, 26, that Solomon's enemies were not content to wait for his death. Damascus was a thorn in his side. Egypt was a hotbed of intrigues. The profound peace which he once enjoyed he had lost. The clouds of war were not only gathering, but some of them had burst. His throne of ivory and gold can have been but an insecure and uncomfortable seat for some time before he vacated it.
II. But men like Solomon think of posterity and of posthumous fame as much as of themselves. If every father has "given hostages to fortune," how much more vulnerable is a king in the person of his successor. Let us now trace the calamities which betel Solomon's house and kingdom.
1. In the infatuation of his son. Was there ever a political crisis so wofully mismanaged as that which marked Rehoboam's accession? A few pacific words, a graceful concession, and all would have gone well. But his brutal non possumus precipitated his downfall. It was enough to make Solomon turn in his grave. But it is for us to remember that "his mother's name was Naamah, an Ammonitess" (1Ki_14:21, 1Ki_14:31). And this is the result of multiplying wives.
2. In the dismemberment of his kingdom. The vast empire which Solomon had founded with so much care and pains, how short a time sufficed to tear it asunder. What a contrast between the "one tribe" with its barren territory, and the description of 1Ki_4:20, 1Ki_4:21. How had he spent his strength for naught, or rather for his slave Jeroboam, who inherited all the fairest and wealthiest portions of the realm. And this was the end of his land hunger—that he was left with the desert of Judah.
3. In the invasion of Shishak. For he had not long slept with his fathers when the vast treasures which he had lavished on the palace of the Lord and his own palaces were carried away to Egypt. All the precious metals which David had accumulated, all the acquisitions of Solomon's fleets, all the royal offerings of the queen of Sheba and of tributary kings—gone to the sons of the stranger, to the swart children of Ham. He had amassed prodigious wealth, but it was for aliens and enemies. Not only the shields and drinking vessels, but the candlesticks, bowls, and the very laminae which had glorified the sanctuary, all fell to the invader. What a case of Sic vos non vobis! What would Solomon have said could he have foreseen Rehoboam's "Brummagem" shields, and the punctilious ceremony with which they were paraded and preserved? And this was the end of multiplying silver and gold to himself. He had put it all into a bag with holes (Hag_1:6).
4. In the demoralization of his people. For the idolatries of Judah, the images, the groves, the Sodomites (1Ki_14:23), were but the continuation and development of the idolatries which Solomon had inaugurated. His son did but reap the crop which himself had sown. Nay, so exact is the lex talionis that we presently find a queen of Judah erecting a "horror" for the most shameful of rites (see note on 1Ki_15:13). And this was the result of building altars for his queens and princesses "on the hill that is before Jerusalem," that within a few years the Lord's people, whose was the law and the temple, etc; built them high places, etc; "on every high hill and under every green tree" (1Ki_14:23).
5. In the captivity of the nation. For the dispersion and enslavement of the Jewish people, though only consummated some four centuries later, and though it was the retribution of a long series of sins, was nevertheless, in a sense, the result of Solomon's sin. That is to say, his sin was (as 1Ki_9:1-28. 1Ki_9:6, 1Ki_9:7 show) the first beginning of that ever deepening apostasy from the Lord, of which the captivity was, from the first, denounced as the punishment. Other princes no doubt followed in his steps and filled up the measure of iniquity, but the Grand Monarque of their race had first showed them the way. And so the people who had held sway even to the Euphrates were carried beyond the Euphrates, and those who had seen subject kings in their land became subjects in a foreign land (cf. Jer_5:19). How full of instruction and warning is it that the captivity which Solomon foretold (1Ki_8:46) he should have done so much to precipitate. He predicted, i.e; both his own and his nation's downfall.
6. But the multiplication of horses, that too, like the other sins, seems to have brought its own peculiar Nemesis. For whence, let us ask, came the army that pillaged Jerusalem, and carried off the treasures of the temple? It came in the footprints of the horses. First, the invasion of Solomon, and then the invasion of Shishak, "with twelve hundred chariots and threescore thousand horsemen" (2Ch_12:8). And what came of the horses supplied to the Tyrians and Hittites? See 1Ki_20:1 ("horses and chariots;" cf. 1Ki_20:25); 1Ki_22:31; 2Ki_6:15; 2Ki_7:6, etc. It is extremely probable that the cavalry he supplied to foreign kings became an instrument in their hands to scourge his own people. Nor is it wholly unworthy of notice that the murderer Zimri was "captain of half the chariots" (1Ki_16:9). Assuredly, that unhallowed trade did not go unpunished.
Such, then, is the principal moral of this history: "Their sorrows shall be multiplied that hasten after another god" (Psa_16:4). And among the additional lessons which this subject teaches are these:
(1) That where much is given, much will be required;
(2) That judgment begins at the house of God;
(3) "He that knew his lord's will and did it not shall be beaten with many stripes;"
(4) "Every transgression and disobedience shall receive its just recompense of reward;"
(5) "If God spared not the natural branches," etc.
I. GOD STIRRED UP ADVERSARIES AGAINST HIM.
1. In themselves these were inconsiderable.
(1) Hadad the Edomite! What can he do? He is indeed of the seed royal of Edom, but then Edom is tributary to Solomon, and Hadad in an exile in Egypt.
(2) Rezon the Syrian! What can he do? He was only a captain under Hadadezer, king of Zobah, whom David defeated, and who fled with his men, over whom he seems to have acted as a chief of banditti.
2. But they have been quietly acquiring influence.
(1) Hadad, who was a lad when he fled from David, has now attained to man's estate; is in high favour with Pharaoh, and has become brother-in-law to the monarch of the Nile.
(2) Rezon also, taking advantage of the apathy of Solomon, who is too much engaged in the seraglio to pay close attention to the affairs of his distant provinces, is already in Damascus and on the throne of Syria.
3. With God behind them they are now formidable.
(1) The fly is a feeble creature, but let God send it forth as a plague, and Egypt is in agony. So Hadad, again amongst his Edomites, is by a competent Providence enabled to work "mischief" even to Solomon!
(2) Rezon also is in a position to gratify his abhorrence of Israel "all the days of Solomon," or to the end of those days.
(3) Let us see the hand of God in all the events of life. Let the discernment of symptoms of His displeasure lead us to repentance and reformation. Let us never despise the day of small things, for the great hand of God may be in it. It is difficult to distinguish the trifling from the momentous.
II. HE STIRRED UP THOSE ADVERSARIES BY MEANS.
1. They were reminded of the sufferings of their people.
(1) When David conquered Edom there was a fearful carnage. For six months Joab was engaged in cutting off all the males, until, no natives surviving, Israel had to bury the slain (1Ki_11:15, 1Ki_11:16). This slaughter was sufficiently dreadful, though it may only have extended to those old enough to bear arms. Hadad was not an infant then, but ( ðòø ÷èï ) a little boy—of sufficient age to see what was going on and make his escape with the servants. Rezon was of an age and in a position to estimate the miseries which the Syrians suffered when "David slew" them, which sufficiently accounts for the manner in which he "abhorred Israel." Wars are the cradles of resentments.
(2) These terrible massacres have their justification in the sins of the people who suffered them. In executing the wrath of God upon Edom, David fulfilled the famous prophecy of Balaam (see Num_24:17-19). But in this David was the type of Christ, the true Star of Jacob and Prince of Israel, whose anger will sweep His enemies to extermination.
2. They were persuaded that the opportunity was ripe for revenge.
(1) They heard that the warriors were dead (1Ki_11:21). They were no longer paralyzed by the sound of the once terrible names of David and Joab.
(2) As for Solomon, he never was a warrior. And now he is stupefied by idolatry, and enervated in the harem.
(3) Consequently they put on a bold front, and from different points harassed and distracted Solomon, apparently with impunity. For the king of Israel knew that God was angry, and "conscience makes cowards of us all."
Who can afford to have God for his enemy? Solomon could not afford it. Can we? Who would not make peace with such an antagonist? He proposes His own terms. Why do we not repent and believe the gospel?—M.
1Ki_11:26-28
I. THE OBSCURITY OF HIS ORIGIN.
1. He was an Ephrathite of Zereda.
(1) The tribe of Ephraim was not obscure; on the contrary, it was next in importance to Judah. But that importance was collective—arose from the multitude of its people. An individual Ephrathite would rather be lost in the multitude.
(2) As to Zereda, so little was this place among the thousands of Ephraim that it is mentioned only here, and would have been forgotten but for Jeroboam. Note: Places derive notoriety from men. Men are greater than places.
2. He was the son of Nebat and Zeruah.
(1) Of these persons we should not have heard bat for the part their son played in history. How much of our reputation is adventitious! Unenviable is the notoriety gained through relationship with the devil. How truly glorious is that man who rejoices in the imputed righteousness of Christ!
(2) Yet Nebat and Zeruah founded the reputation of Jeroboam. They had the moulding of the child which became the father of the man. This is the true reason for the association of their names with his.
(3) In this view there is something judicial in this association of the names of parents and child. Their influence, though obscure, was sure, and now finds expression. What an expression will there be of obscure influences when the momentous resultants come out in the disclosures of the great judgment!
3. He was the son of a widow.
(1) Why is this noted, but to suggest that through the death of Nebat the responsibilities of the home at Zereda early devolved upon Jeroboam? Thus, those executive powers which brought him under the notice of Solomon had early scope. How little we know of the purposes of Providence in the bereavements and afflictions of famine.
(2) Private afflictions are suffered for public uses. In suffering, let us not murmur but listen to the voice of God, and pray that the dispensation may be sanctified.
II. HIS ADVANCEMENT TO POWER.
1. He became a mighty man of valour.
(1) This fact is recorded, but not the stages by which he became so known. Many a struggle occurred which had no other record than in this resultant. The value of circumstances is expressed in resultants. Let us attempt to weave all the circumstances of our lives into a character of goodness that will endure forever.
(2) Jeroboam had an energetic spirit and probably a robust physique. These he inherited. Neither for genius nor good constitutions are we indebted to ourselves. We owe much to our ancestors.
(3) But he cultivated his natural parts. Many are richly endowed by nature, but waste their endowments as an idle spendthrift wastes an inheritance. Our very faculties may become obliterated by disuse (Mat_25:28).
2. His abilities were discerned by Solomon.
(1) This is noted to have occurred in connection with the building of Mille, and the closing of, or to close, the breaches in the city of David (1Ki_11:27). Possibly Jeroboam distinguished himself against Jebusites, or some other malcontents, or in closing those breaches in the face of the enemy.
(2) Possibly the industry that attracted the notice of Solomon may have been simply in superintendence of improvements in the buildings at Millo and the fortifications. Providence finds opportunities for those who are ready to enter the opening door (Pro_22:29).
3. He was promoted to the charge over the house of Joseph.
(1) From an individual once lost in the multitude of this great house, he is now conspicuous before the multitude. His being an Ephrathite is now of importance to him. Let us never quarrel with circumstances, for we never know what may prove of service.
(2) Being found diligent in a minor charge he is promoted to a major responsibility. So does God deal with His people (Mat_13:12; Mat_25:29). What is worth doing is worth doing well.
4. Now he lifts his hang against his patron.
(1) Prosperity brings out the character. He is moved by ambition. Much would have more. He aspires to a throne. His success had encouraged this desire before he met Ahijah (see 1Ki_11:37).
(2) He rebels against the author of his prosperity. Ambition smothers gratitude. How human! Is not this the case with all rebels against God?
(3) How plainly we can see baseness when manifested by man toward his fellow; but how slow we are to see this when ingratitude is toward God! The obscurity of our origin is no bar to our advancement in the religious service of God. "Not many noble are called."—M.
1Ki_11:29-39
I. A PROPHECY.
1. This was expressed in sign.
(1) The Shilonite provided himself with a new garment. This was intended to symbolize the kingdom. The same sign had been similarly used before (see 1Sa_15:27; 1Sa_24:5). Note: His people are the honourable clothing of a prince (see Pro_14:28).
(2) The garment was new. The kingdom of Israel was as yet young. Solomon was but the third monarch in succession. The garment was whole. So was the kingdom, as yet, unbroken. Note: The robe of Christ was seamless and woven throughout, which suggests the perfect unity which will appear in the subjects of His heavenly kingdom. Note further: That in His transfiguration, which symbolized His kingdom (see Mat_16:28; Mat_17:1), His raiment shined "as no fuller on earth could white it," suggesting the purity and glory in which the subjects of that kingdom are to shine (Mat_13:43).
(3) But the robe in the hands of the prophet, the messenger and representative of God, is now rent into twelve pieces, according to the number of tribes composing the kingdom, ten of which were given into the hand of Jeroboam. Note: God disposes. In its militant state the kingdom of Christ is subject to revolutions, but not so in its triumphant and heavenly state.
2. The prophecy also is expressed in words (1Ki_11:31-39).
(1) Thus the testimony is twofold. It appeals to the eye, also to the ear.
(2) History verified the predictions to the letter. What a testimony to the truth of God is the harmony and correspondence of prophecy and history!
II. ITS REASONS. These are expressed and implied.
1. The sin of Solomon is specified (1Ki_11:31, 1Ki_11:33).
(1) Solomon forsook the Lord. God never forsakes us unless we first forsake Him. Let us be admonished.
(2) He worshipped idols. Ashtoreth, the impure Venus of the Zidonians; Chemosh, the abomination of the Moabites; and Milcom, or Molech, the devil of the Ammonites,are put into competition with the God of Israel! Whoever is so foolish as to forsake God will surely become the dupe of devils.
(3) We notice the plural pronoun, "they have forsaken Me," etc. Not Solomon and his wives, for these heathen women had never known God but Solomon and the Israelites drawn away by his influence and example. Men seldom sin alone. Accomplices are involved with their leaders in a common retribution.
(4) He forgat the good example of his father David. This is mentioned to his discredit. We are accountable to God for our advantages. For godly parents, godly ministers, opportunities.
2. The piety of David is remembered.
(1) It is remembered in the mind of God. Let sincere Christians who are apt to be discouraged at their failures take comfort from the fact that God is more willing to remember our good endeavours than our failures. David in glory would know the blessedness of this.
(2) It is remembered to the advantage of his offspring on the earth. The temporal judgments upon Solomon's sins were mitigated in consequence of David's piety. Would not David, in glory, have satisfaction in this?
3. The Scriptures must be fulfilled.
(1) David was to have a light always before God in Jerusalem (Psa_132:16, Psa_132:17). The family of David mast be preserved until Messiah comes to be the Light of the Gentiles.
(2) As David was a type of Christ, so was Jerusalem, with its temple and shekinah, a type of His Church. Of this Church, Christ is the everlasting Light (see Isa_24:23; Isa_60:19, Isa_60:20; Rev_21:23).
4. No mention is made of any goodness in Jeroboam.
(1) This omission is significant. It suggests that the Ephrathite was used only as the instrument of Providence for the punishment of sinners; and for this service had the reward of his ambition. Therefore the success of our desires in this world is no certain proof either of our goodness or of God's favour.
(2) But in respect to his service God gave Jeroboam a glorious opportunity by goodness to make himself great like David (see 1Ki_11:38). What opportunities does God graciously vouchsafe to us! Let us utilize them to the best possible account.—M.
1Ki_11:40-43
I. HE SANK UNDER A DENSE CLOUD.
1. His morning was very bright.
(1) From his youth he was beloved of God. In token of this he received from God the name Jedidiah (2Sa_12:24, 2Sa_12:25). Could any distinction be more glorious? Let the young among us aspire to this distinction.
(2) When he came to the throne this name was changed to Solomon, the Peaceable. The wars of his father David were everywhere so triumphant, that no adversary now appeared (1Ki_5:4). The love of God brings peace.
(3) He was zealous and faithful in building the temple of the Lord, which he devoted to God in a noble dedicatory prayer, and had an answer in the descent of the holy fire upon the sacrifices, and in the Shekinah taking possession of the house. Those who are beloved of God and rejoice in His peace are fit agents for the building of the spiritual temple of the Lord.
(4) He was blessed by God with extraordinary wisdom, not only in the arts of government, but also in various walks of learning (1Ki_3:8-10; 1Ki_4:33). The profoundest philosophers have been godly men. The boast of sceptics to the contrary is not sustained by fact.
(5) He was inspired by God to contribute books to the sacred Scriptures. The Chaldaisms which occur in the Ecclesiastes are not sufficient to wrest the authorship of that book from Solomon, to whom the Jews have ever ascribed it; for these it may have acquired in passing through the hands of Ezra.
2. But his evening was very black.
(1) His reign extended over forty years, and a considerable portion of that period he was under bad influences. Pharaoh's daughter is though[ to have been a proselyte to Judaism, but of this there is no proof.
(2) This foreign marriage was followed by about seven hundred more. These were distinguished as princesses (verse 3). Not that they were daughters of kings, but wives of Solomon, of the second order, Pharaoh's daughter being queen. Beside these were the three hundred concubines. Such a harem, in its number alone, was a plain violation of the law (Deu_17:17). But he was still further guilty in making alliances with heathen women (Exo_34:16; Deu_7:3, Deu_7:4).
(3) The very evils predicted happened to Solomon; through these he was drawn into the grossest idolatry (verses 5-8).
(4) The last act recorded of him was that of seeking to kill Jeroboam, who to avoid his resentment took refuge with Shishak, king of Egypt. Shishak was brother-in-law to Hadad, the Edomite adv