Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Kings 11:14

And the LORD stirred up an adversary unto Solomon, Hadad the Edomite: he [was] of the king’s seed in Edom.

14 22. Hadad the Edomite raised up as an adversary to Solomon (Not in Chronicles)

14. And the Lord stirred up an adversary unto Solomon ] In David’s time Edom had been reduced, but in the later days of Solomon, when his heart was turned away, an opportunity is offered for the representative of Edom to seek to recover his kingdom. This was not unnatural, for the conduct of Solomon may be presumed to have estranged some of his own subjects. The writer, regarding Jehovah as ruler of the world, speaks of this occurrence as brought about by Him. He raised up the adversary. The Hebrew word for ‘adversary’ is here ‘Satan,’ which the LXX. merely transliterates .

Hadad the Edomite ] Hadad was apparently a common name among the Edomite royal family. We find it (Gen 36:36) among the list of early Edomite kings, and three verses later, Hadar, is probably (cf. 1Ch 1:50) a mistake of the scribe for Hadad.

he was of the king’s seed ] And, from his action, apparently the heir to the throne. This perhaps accounts for the friendly reception which he found in Egypt. His father had most likely been slain when David attacked Edom.

The LXX. ( Vat.) inserts in this verse a notice of Rezon, spoken of in 1Ki 11:23-25 below. The name is given as , and the notice is more brief than in the Hebrew text, and 1Ki 11:23-25 are omitted from the LXX. in consequence.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

The writer has reserved for this place the various troubles of Solomons reign, not allowing them to interrupt his previous narrative. He has, consequently, not followed chronological order. Hadads 1Ki 11:23 and Rezons opposition belong to the early years of Solomons reign.

Hadad was a royal title (perhaps, the Syriac name for the Sun) both in Syria and in Idumaea (compare Gen 36:35; 1Ch 1:51).

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

1Ki 11:14-22

And the Lord stirred up an adversary unto Solomon.

Divine impulses

Is this an old story that has in it no modern pith or music, or is it our own life anticipated and set in strange lights? Does it not throw some light upon the unexplained restlessness which now and again comes over the spirit of perhaps the quietest man? What is it that tugs at the heart and that says, Come this way? We are not sitting upon barren rocks, nor are we ploughing inhospitable and unresponding sand: we are in paradise: we have but to touch the ground and it blooms with flowers or teems with luscious fruit. And yet that same invisible hand keeps tugging at the heart, that same weird voice sustains its appeal in the reluctant, wonder-struck and unwilling ear. Leave the gilded roof, leave the marble floor, leave the loaded table, leave the streams of ruddy or foaming wine; come away, come away. What is it that will not let us alone? I said, I will die in my nest, and lo, it was torn to pieces. You cannot escape the religious element in life; you may shut your eyes, you may close your ears, you may learn the language of earth and the worse language of the pit, and you may exclude all outward religious ministries and appeals, but now and again there is a shaking in the life, a whisper in the ear, a strange quiver in the air, a face at the window, a quantity you cannot name. Then again, this incident shows us how impossible it is, sometimes, to give reasons for our action. Persons say to the Hadads who come round them, Why do you leave Egypt? and Hadad says, I do not know. O foolish man, are you going back to Edom, the memory of cruelty, shame and agony, without knowing why you are going back? And poor Hadad can only answer, Yes. And to the men who can give a reason for everything, Hadads answer is a reply of insanity. Oh, happy is the man who has never to leave the paved pathway, who knows nothing of the pains of inspiration, the pangs of a high calling, the surprises of a Divine election! Yet not so happy, measured by the higher and larger scale; if he misses much pain, he misses much high delight; if he is commonplace on the one side, he is commonplace all through. Is it not better sometimes to be mad with inspiration, though afterwards there be collapse and suffering, than never to feel the Divine afflatus, and never to respond to the call of God? In the fourteenth verse of the chapter in which the narrative is recorded the whole secret is given. The Lord had stirred up the heart of Hadad against wicked Solomon. It was a Divine stirring, it was an impulse from heaven, it was the sound of a rushing mighty wind from the skies, a song without words, a ministry without articulation, a movement of the soul. Have you ever been in that case in any degree? I have, and persons have said to me, Surely you can give us some reasons for going? I have said, Really, I cannot help, but a sensible man always bases his conduct upon reason. Think of it and tell us what your reasons are, and they will relieve our minds, for our anxiety is very painful, and I have only had to say, I cannot tell you anything more about it, but I must go. This narrative suggests the inquiry, How am I to know when I am stirred by Divine impulses? When the impulse moves you in the direction of loss, pain, and sacrifice, the probability is that the impulse is Divine. Now where is your stirring? Gone. I thought it would go. I have frightened many birds in the same way, and they have flown from the trees on which they had alighted, in chaffering crowds. Moses is called–to what? To hardship and difficulty, and much pain, and long provocation in the wilderness. Before him Abraham is called–to what? To a pilgrimage that has a beginning only that he can ascertain: what the explanation and conclusion of it will be he knoweth not: the impulse was Divine. Then I hear a dear old father-friend: now, what says he? Listen. Howbeit, let me go, in any wise. Where to, dear father? To the other country. What other country? I have a desire to depart. What, to leave the old house at home, with all your children and grandchildren, ,and the garden, and the library, and the church–you have not a desire to depart, have you? Yes. O that I had wings like a dove, for then I would flee away.and be at rest. My Lord calls me, I must meet Him in the promised land. Ay, God sends that homesickness over the heart when He wants to take us up. We begin to say, I am much obliged to you for all your kindness; you have bestowed favours and honours upon me. God bless you, but–I want to go, to go home, to be at rest; I want to see Gods heaven–let me go.

Hark! they whisper: angels say–

Sister spirit, come away.

I want to go now. Lord, now lettest thou Thy servant depart in peace: I am ready; put in the sickle, cut me down and garner me in heaven. It is a Divine stirring: it is the beginning of immortality. (J. Parker, D. D.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 14. The Lord stirred up an adversary] A satan, . When he sent to Hiram to assist him in building the temple of the Lord, he could say, There was no satan, see 1Kg 5:4; and all his kingdom was in peace and security, – every than dwelt under his vine, and under his fig tree, 1Kg 4:25: but now that he had turned away from God, three satans rise up against him at once, Hadad, Rezon, and Jeroboam.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

14-25. the Lord stirred up anadversarythat is, permitted him, through the impulse of hisown ambition, or revenge, to attack Israel. During the war ofextermination, which Joab carried on in Edom (2Sa8:13), this Hadad, of the royal family, a mere boy when rescuedfrom the sword of the ruthless conqueror, was carried into Egypt,hospitably entertained, and became allied with the house of theEgyptian king. In after years, the thought of his native land and hislost kingdom taking possession of his mind, he, on learning the deathof David and Joab, renounced the ease, possessions, and glory of hisEgyptian residence, to return to Edom and attempt the recovery of hisancestral throne. The movements of this prince seem to have givenmuch annoyance to the Hebrew government; but as he was defeated bythe numerous and strong garrisons planted throughout the Edomiteterritory, Hadad seems to have offered his services to Rezon, anotherof Solomon’s adversaries (1Ki11:23-25). This man, who had been general of Hadadezer and, onthe defeat of that great king, had successfully withdrawn a largeforce, went into the wilderness, led a predatory life, like Jephthah,David, and others, on the borders of the Syrian and Arabian deserts.Then, having acquired great power, he at length became king inDamascus, threw off the yoke, and was “the adversary of Israelall the days of Solomon.” He was succeeded by Hadad, whosesuccessors took the official title of Ben-hadad from him, theillustrious founder of the powerful kingdom of Damascene-Syria. Thesehostile neighbors, who had been long kept in check by the traditionalfame of David’s victories, took courage; and breaking out towards thelatter end of Solomon’s reign, they must have not only disturbed hiskingdom by their inroads, but greatly crippled his revenue bystopping his lucrative traffic with Tadmor and the Euphrates.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

And the Lord stirred up an adversary unto Solomon, Hadad the Edomite,…. Though he did not take his kingdom from him for his sin, he chastised him with the rod of men, as he said he would; suffering one, and then another, to rise up and disturb his peace in his old age, see 2Sa 7:14

he was of the king’s seed in Edom; of the blood royal.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Solomon’s Opponents. – Although the punishment with which Solomon was threatened for his apostasy was not to be inflicted till after his death, the Lord raised up several adversaries even during his lifetime, who endangered the peace of his kingdom, and were to serve as constant reminders that he owed his throne and his peaceable rule over the whole of the kingdom inherited from his father solely to the mercy, the fidelity, and the long-suffering of God. – The rising up of Hadad and Rezon took place even before the commencement of Solomon’s idolatry, but it is brought by (1Ki 11:14) into logical connection with the punishment with which he is threatened in consequence of that idolatry, because it was not till a later period that it produced any perceptible effect upon his government, yet it ought from the very first to have preserved him from self-security.

1Ki 11:14-22

The first adversary was Hadad the Edomite, a man of royal birth. The name ( in 1Ki 11:17, according to an interchange of and which is by no means rare) was also borne by a prae-Mosaic king of Edom (Gen 36:35), from which we may see that it was not an uncommon name in the royal family of the Edomites. But the conjecture of Ewald and Thenius, that our Hadad was a grandson of Hadar, the last of the kings mentioned there, is quite a groundless one, since it rests upon the false assumption that Hadar (called Hadad in the Chronicles by mistake) reigned in the time of David (see the Comm. on Gen 36:31.). before stands in the place of the relative : “of royal seed he = who was of the royal seed in Edom” (cf. Ewald, 332, a.).

1Ki 11:15-17

When David had to do with the Edomites, … Hadad fled. is analogous to , to have to do with any one, though in a hostile sense, as in the phrase to go to war with ( ) a person, whereas generally means to be upon the side of any one. The correctness of the reading is confirmed by all the ancient versions, which have simply paraphrased the meaning in different ways. For Bttcher has already shown that the lxx did not read , as Thenius supposes. The words from to the end of 1Ki 11:16 form explanatory circumstantial clauses. On the circumstance itself, compare 2Sa 8:13-14, with the explanation given there. “The slain,” whom Joab went to bury, were probably not the Israelites who had fallen in the battle in the Salt valley (2Sa 8:13), but those who had been slain on the invasion of the land by the Edomites, and still remained unburied. After their burial Joab defeated the Edomites in the valley of Salt, and remained six months in Edom till he had cut off every male. “All Israel” is the whole of the Israelitish army. “Every male” is of course only the men capable of bearing arms, who fell into the hands of the Israelites; for “Hadad and others fled, and the whole of the Idumaean race was not extinct” (Clericus). Then Hadad fled, while yet a little boy, with some of his father’s Edomitish servants, to go to Egypt, going first of all to Midian and thence to Paran. The country of Midian cannot be more precisely defined, inasmuch as we meet with Midianites sometimes in the peninsula of Sinai on the eastern side of the Elanitic Gulf, where Edrisi and Abulfeda mention a city of Madian (see at Exo 2:15), and sometimes on the east of the Moabitish territory (see at Num 22:4 and Jdg 6:1). Here, at any rate, we must think of the neighbourhood of the Elanitic Gulf, though not necessarily of the city of Madian, five days’ journey to the south of Aela; and probably of the country to which Moses fled from Egypt. Paran is the desert of that name between the mountains of Sinai and the south of Canaan (see at Num 10:12), through which the Haj route from Egypt by Elath to Mecca still runs. Hadad would be obliged to take the road by Elath in order to go to Egypt, even if he had taken refuge with the Midianites on the east of Moab and Edom.

1Ki 11:18-20

From Paran they took men with them as guides through the desert. Thus Hadad came to Egypt, where Pharaoh received him hospitably, and gave them a house and maintenance ( ), and also assigned him land ( ) to cultivate for the support of the fugitives who had come with him, and eventually, as he found great favour in his eyes, gave him for a wife the sister of his own wife, queen Tachpenes, who bare him a son, Genubath. This son was weaned by Tachpenes in the royal palace, and then brought up among (with) the children of Pharaoh, the royal princes. According to Rosellini and Wilkinson (Ges. Thes. p. 1500), Tachpenes was also the name of a female deity of Egypt. The wife of Pharaoh is called , i.e., the mistress among the king’s wives, as being the principal consort. In the case of the kings of Judah this title is given to the king’s mother, probably as the president in the harem, whose place was taken by the reigning queen after her death. The weaning, probably a family festival as among the Hebrews (Gen 21:8) and other ancient nations (vid., Dougtaei Analecta ss. i. 22f.), was carried out by the queen in the palace, because the boy was to be thereby adopted among the royal children, to be brought up with them.

1Ki 11:21-22

When Hadad heard in Egypt of the death of David and Joab, he asked permission of Pharaoh to return to his own country. Pharaoh replied, “What is there lacking to thee with me?” This answer was a pure expression of love and attachment to Hadad, and involved the request that he would remain. But Hadad answered, “No, but let me go.” We are not told that Pharaoh then let him go, but this must be supplied; just as in Num 10:32 we are not told what Hobab eventually did in consequence of Moses’ request, but it has to be supplied from the context. The return of Hadad to his native land is clearly to be inferred from the fact that, according to 1Ki 11:14, 1Ki 11:25, he rose up as an adversary of Solomon.

(Note: The lxx have supplied what is missing e conjectura: (i.e., Hadad) , . Thenius proposes to alter the Hebrew text accordingly, and draws this conclusion, that “ shortly after the accession of Solomon, Hadad, having returned from Egypt, wrested from the power of the Israelites the greatest part of Edom, probably the true mountain-land of Edom, so that certain places situated in the plain, particularly Ezion-geber, remained in the hands of the Israelites, and intercourse could be maintained with that port through the Arabah, even though not quite without disturbance. ” This conclusion, which is described as “ historical, ” is indeed at variance with 1Ki 22:48, according to which Edom had no king even in the time of Jehoshaphat, but only a vicegerent, and also with 2Ki 8:20, according to which it was not till the reign of Jehoshaphat ‘ s son Joram that Edom fell away from Judah. But this discrepancy Thenius sets aside by the remark at 1Ki 22:48, that in Jehoshaphat ‘ s time the family of Hadad had probably died out, and Jehoshaphat prudently availed himself of the disputes which arose concerning the succession to enforce Judah ‘ s right of supremacy over Edom, and to appoint first a vicegerent and then a new king, though perhaps one not absolutely dependent upon him. But this conjecture as to the relation in which Jehoshaphat stood to Edom is proved to be an imaginary fiction by the fact that, although this history does indeed mention a revolt of the Edomites from Judah (2 Chron 20; see at 1Ki 22:48), it not only says nothing whatever about the dying out of the royal family of Hadad or about disputes concerning the succession, but it does not even hint at them. – But with regard to the additions made to this passage by the lxx, to which even Ewald ( Gesch. iii. p. 276) attributes historical worth, though without building upon them such confident historical combinations as Thenius, we may easily convince ourselves of their critical worthlessness, if we only pass our eye over the whole section (1Ki 11:14-25), instead of merely singling out those readings of the lxx which support our preconceived opinions, and overlooking all the rest, after the thoroughly unscientific mode of criticism adopted by a Thenius or Bttcher. For example, the lxx have connected together the two accounts respecting the adversaries Hadad and Rezon who rose up against Solomon (1Ki 11:14 and 1Ki 11:23), which are separated in the Hebrew text, and have interpolated what is sated concerning Rezon in 1Ki 11:23 and 1Ki 11:24 after in 1Ki 11:14, and consequently have been obliged to alter in 1Ki 11:25 into , because they had previously cited Hadad and Rezon as adversaries, whereas in the Hebrew text these words apply to Rezon alone. But the rest of 1Ki 11:25, namely the words from onwards, they have not given till the close of 1Ki 11:22 (lxx); and in order to connect this with what precedes, they have interpolated the words . The Alexandrians were induced to resort to this intertwining of the accounts concerning Hadad and Rezon, which are kept separate in the Hebrew text, partly by the fact that Hadad and Rezon are introduced as adversaries of Solomon with the very same words (1Ki 11:14 and 1Ki 11:23), but more especially by the fact that in 1Ki 11:25 of the Hebrew text the injury done to Solomon by Hadad is merely referred to in a supplementary manner in connection with Rezon ‘ s enterprise, and indeed is inserted parenthetically within the account of the latter. The Alexandrian translators did not know what to make of this, because they did not understand and took for , . With this reading which follows was necessarily understood as referring to Hadad; and as Hadad was an Edomite, had to be altered into . Consequently all the alterations of the lxx in this section are simply the result of an arbitrary treatment of the Hebrew text, which they did not really understand, and consist of a collocation of all that is homogeneous, as every reader of this translation who is acquainted with the original text must see so clearly even at the very beginning of the chapter, where the number of Solomon ‘ s wives is taken from 1Ki 11:3 of the Hebrew text and interpolated into 1Ki 11:1, that, as Thenius observes, “ the true state of the case can only be overlooked from superficiality of observation or from preconceived opinion. ” )

1Ki 11:23-25

A second adversary of Solomon was Rezon, the son of Eliadah (for the name see at 1Ki 15:18), who had fled from his lord Hadadezer, king of Zobah, and who became the captain of a warlike troop ( ), when David smote them ( ), i.e., the troops of his lord (2Sa 8:3-4). Rezon probably fled from his lord for some reason which is not assigned, when the latter was engaged in war with David, before his complete overthrow, and collected together a company from the fugitives, with which he afterwards marched to Damascus, and having taken possession of that city, made himself king over it. This probably did not take place till towards the close of David’s reign, or even after his death, though it was at the very beginning of Solomon’s reign; for “he became an adversary to Israel all the days of Solomon (i.e., during the whole of his reign), and that with (beside) the mischief which Hadad did, and he abhorred Israel (i.e., became disgusted with the Israelitish rule), and became king over Aram.” is an abbreviated expression, to which may easily be supplied, as it has been by the lxx (vid., Ewald, 292, b., Anm.). It is impossible to gather from these few words in what the mischief done by Hadad to Solomon consisted.

(Note: What Josephus ( Ant. viii. 7, 6) relates concerning an alliance between Hadad and Rezon for the purpose of making hostile attacks upon Israel, is merely an inference drawn from the text of the lxx, and utterly worthless.)

Rezon, on the other hand, really obtained possession of the rule over Damascus. Whether at the beginning or not till the end of Solomon’s reign cannot be determined, since all that is clearly stated is that he was Solomon’s adversary during the whole of his reign, and attempted to revolt from him from the very beginning. If, however, he made himself king of Damascus in the earliest years of his reign, he cannot have maintained his sway very long, since Solomon afterwards built or fortified Tadmor in the desert, which he could not have done if he had not been lord over Damascus, as the caravan road from Gilead to Tadmor (Palmyra) went past Damascus.

(Note: Compare Ewald, Gesch. iii. p. 276. It is true that more could be inferred from 2Ch 8:3, if the conquest of the city of Hamath by Solomon were really recorded in that passage, as Bertheau supposes. But although is used to signify the conquest of tribes or countries, we cannot infer the conquest of the city of Hamath from the words, “ Solomon went to Hamath Zobah and built Tadmor, ” etc., since all that distinctly expresses is the establishment of his power over the land of Hamath Zobah. And this Solomon could have done by placing fortifications in that province, because he was afraid of rebellion, even if Hamath Zobah had not actually fallen away from his power.)

1Ki 11:26-28

Attempted rebellion of Jeroboam the Ephraimite. – Hadad and Rezon are simply described as adversaries ( ) of Solomon; but in the case of Jeroboam it is stated that “he lifted up his hand against the king,” i.e., he stirred up a tumult or rebellion. is synonymous with in 2Sa 18:28; 2Sa 20:21. It is not on account of this rebellion, which was quickly suppressed by Solomon, but on account of the later enterprise of Jeroboam, that his personal history is so minutely detailed. Jeroboam was an Ephraimite ( , as in 1Sa 1:1; Jdg 12:5) of Zereda, i.e., Zarthan, in the Jordan valley (see 1Ki 7:46), son of a widow, and , i.e., not a subject (Then.), but an officer, of Solomon. All that is related of his rebellion against the king is the circumstances under which it took place. , this is how it stands with, as in Jos 5:4. Solomon built Millo (1Ki 9:15), and closed the rent (the defile?) in the city of David. , ruptura , cannot be a rent or breach in the wall of the city of David, inasmuch as is not added, and since the fortification of the city by David (2Sa 5:9) no hostile attack had ever been made upon Jerusalem; but in all probability it denotes the ravine which separated Zion from Moriah and Ophel, the future Tyropoeon, through the closing of which the temple mountain was brought within the city wall, and the fortification of the city of David was completed (Thenius, Ewald, Gesch. iii. p. 330). Compare , a gap in the coast, a bay. On the occasion of this building, Jeroboam proved himself a , i.e., a very able and energetic man; so that when Solomon saw the young man, that he was doing work, i.e., urging it forward, he committed to him the oversight over all the heavy work of the house of Joseph. It must have been while occupying this post that he attempted a rebellion against Solomon. This is indicated by in v. 27. According to 1Ki 12:4, the reason for the rebellion is to be sought for in the appointment of the Ephraimites to heavy works. This awakened afresh the old antipathy of that tribe to Judah, and Jeroboam availed himself of this to instigate a rebellion.

1Ki 11:29-36

At that time the prophet Ahijah met him in the field and disclosed to him the word of the Lord, that he should become king over Israel. : at that time, viz., the time when Jeroboam had become overseer over the heavy works, and not after he had already stirred up the rebellion. For the whole of the account in 1Ki 11:29-39 forms part of the explanation of which commences with 1Ki 11:27, so that is closely connected with in 1Ki 11:28, and there is no such gap in the history as is supposed by Thenius, who builds upon this opinion most untenable conjectures as to the intertwining of different sources. At that time, as Jeroboam was one day going out of Jerusalem, the prophet Ahijah of Shilo (Seilun) met him by the way ( ), with a new upper garment wrapped around him; and when they were alone, he rent the new garment, that is to say, his own, not Jeroboam’s, as Ewald ( Gesch. iii. p. 388) erroneously supposes, into twelve pieces, and said to Jeroboam, “Take thee ten pieces, for Jehovah saith, I will rend the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and give thee ten tribes; and one tribe shall remain to him (Solomon) for David’s sake,” etc. The new wen ehT . was probably only a large four-cornered cloth, which was thrown over the shoulders like the Heik of the Arabs, and enveloped the whole of the upper portion of the body (see my bibl. Archol. ii. pp. 36, 37). By the tearing of the new garment into twelve pieces, of which Jeroboam was to take ten for himself, the prophetic announcement was symbolized in a very emphatic manner. This symbolical action made the promise a completed fact. “As the garment as torn in pieces and lay before the eyes of Jeroboam, so had the division of the kingdom already taken place in the counsel of God” (O. v. Gerlach). There was something significant also in the circumstance that it was a new garment, which is stated twice, and indicates the newness, i.e., the still young and vigorous condition, of the kingdom (Thenius).

In the word of God explaining the action it is striking that Jeroboam was to receive ten tribes, and the one tribe was to remain to Solomon (1Ki 11:31, 1Ki 11:32, 1Ki 11:35, 1Ki 11:36, as in 1Ki 11:13). The nation consisted of twelve tribes, and Ahijah had torn his garment into twelve pieces, of which Jeroboam was to take ten; so that there were two remaining. It is evident at once from this, that the numbers are intended to be understood symbolically and not arithmetically. Ten as the number of completeness and totality is placed in contrast with one, to indicate that all Israel was to be torn away from the house of David, as is stated in 1Ki 12:20, “they made Jeroboam king over all Israel,” and only one single fragment was to be left to the house of Solomon out of divine compassion. This one tribe, however, is not Benjamin, the one tribe beside Judah, as Hupfeld (on Ps 80), C. a Lap., Mich., and others suppose, but, according to the distinct statement in 1Ki 12:20, “the tribe of Judah only.” Nevertheless Benjamin belonged to Judah; for, according to 1Ki 12:21, Rehoboam gathered together the whole house of Judah and the tribe of Benjamin to fight against the house of Israel (which had fallen away), and to bring the kingdom again to himself. And so also in 2Ch 11:3 and 2Ch 11:23 Judah and Benjamin are reckoned as belonging to the kingdom of Rehoboam. This distinct prominence given to Benjamin by the side of Judah overthrows the explanation suggested by Seb. Schmidt and others, namely, that the description of the portion left to Rehoboam as one tribe is to be explained from the fact that Judah and Benjamin, on the border of which Jerusalem was situated, were regarded in a certain sense as one, and that the little Benjamin was hardly taken into consideration at all by the side of the great Judah. For if Ahijah had regarded Benjamin as one with Judah, he would not have torn his garment into twelve pieces, inasmuch as if Benjamin was to be merged in Judah, or was not to be counted along with it as a distinct tribe, the whole nation could only be reckoned as eleven tribes. Moreover the twelve tribes did not so divide themselves, that Jeroboam really received ten tribes and Rehoboam only one or only two. In reality there were three tribes that fell to the kingdom of Judah, and only nine to the kingdom of Israel, Ephraim and Manasseh being reckoned as two tribes, since the tribe of Levi was not counted in the political classification. The kingdom of Judah included, beside the tribe of Judah, both the tribe of Benjamin and also the tribe of Simeon, the territory of which, according to Jos 19:1-9, was within the tribe-territory of Judah and completely surrounded by it, so that the Simeonites would have been obliged to emigrate and give up their tribe-land altogether, if they desired to attach themselves to the kingdom of Israel. But it cannot be inferred from 2Ch 15:9 and 2Ch 34:6 that an emigration of the whole tribe had taken place (see also at 1Ki 12:17). On the other hand, whilst the northern border of the tribe of Benjamin, with the cities of Bethel, Ramah, and Jericho, fell to the kingdom of Jeroboam (1Ki 12:29; 1Ki 15:17, 1Ki 15:21; 1Ki 16:34), several of the cities of the tribe of Dan were included in the kingdom of Judah, namely, Ziklag, which Achish had presented to David, and also Zorea and Ajalon (2Ch 11:10; 2Ch 28:18), in which Judah obtained compensation for the cities of Benjamin of which it had been deprived.

(Note: On the other hand, the fact that in Psa 80:2 Benjamin is placed between Ephraim and Manasseh is no proof that it belonged to the kingdom of Israel; for can this be inferred from the fact that Benjamin, as the tribe to which Saul belonged, at the earlier split among the tribes took the side of those which were opposed to David, and that at a still later period a rebellion originated with Benjamin. For in Psa 80:2 the exposition is disputed, and the jealousy of Benjamin towards Judah appears to have become extinct with the dying out of the royal house of Saul. Again, the explanation suggested by Oehler (Herzog ‘ s Cycl.) of the repeated statement that the house of David was to receive only one tribe, namely, that there was not a single whole tribe belonging to the southern kingdom beside Judah, is by no means satisfactory. For it cannot be proved that any portion of the tribe of Simeon ever belonged to the kingdom of Israel, although the number ten was not complete without it. And it cannot be inferred from 2Ch 15:9 that Simeonites had settled outside their tribe-territory. And, as a rule, single families or households that may have emigrated cannot be taken into consideration as having any bearing upon the question before us, since, according to the very same passage of the Chronicles, many members of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh had emigrated to the kingdom of Judah.)

Consequently there only remained nine tribes for the northern kingdom. For see at 1Ki 11:13. For 1Ki 11:33 compare 1Ki 11:4-8. The plurals , , and are not open to critical objection, but are used in accordance with the fact, since Solomon did not practise idolatry alone, but many in the nation forsook the Lord along with him. , with a Chaldaic ending (see Ges. 87, 1, a.). In 1Ki 11:34-36 there follows a more precise explanation: Solomon himself is not to lose the kingdom, but to remain prince all his life, and his son is to retain one tribe; both out of regard to David (vid., 1Ki 11:12, 1Ki 11:13). , “but I will set him for prince,” inasmuch as leaving him upon the throne was not merely a divine permission, but a divine act. “That there may be a light to my servant David always before me in Jerusalem.” This phrase, which is repeated in 1Ki 15:4; 2Ki 8:19; 2Ch 21:7, is to be explained from 2Sa 21:17, where David’s regal rule is called the light which God’s grace had kindled for Israel, and affirms that David was never to want a successor upon the throne.

1Ki 11:37-39

The condition on which the kingdom of Jeroboam was to last was the same as that on which Solomon had also been promised the continuance of his throne in 1Ki 3:14; 1Ki 6:12; 1Ki 9:4, namely, faithful observance of the commandments of God. The expression, “be king over all that thy soul desireth,” is explained in what follows by “all Israel.” It is evident from this that Jeroboam had aspired after the throne. On the condition named, the Lord would build him a lasting house, as He had done for David (see at 2Sa 7:16). In the case of Jeroboam, however, there is no allusion to a lasting duration of the (kingdom) such as had been ensured to David; for the division of the kingdom was not to last for ever, but the seed of David was simply to be chastised. , for this, i.e., because of the apostasy already mentioned; “only not all the days,” i.e., not for ever. is explanatory so far as the sense is concerned: “for I will humble.” Jeroboam did not fulfil this condition, and therefore his house was extirpated at the death of his son (1Ki 15:28.).

1Ki 11:40

1Ki 11:40 is a continuation of in 1Ki 11:26; for 1Ki 11:27-39 contain simply an explanation of Jeroboam’s lifting up his hand against Solomon. It is obvious from this that Jeroboam had organized a rebellion against Solomon; and also, as 1Ki 11:29 is closely connected with 1Ki 11:28, that this did not take place till after the prophet had foretold his reigning over ten tribes after Solomon’s death. But this did not justify Jeroboam’s attempt; nor was Ahijah’s announcement an inducement or authority to rebel. Ahijah’s conduct as perfectly analogous to that of Samuel in the case of Saul, and is no more to be attributed to selfish motives than his was, as though the prophetic order desired to exalt itself above the human sovereign (Ewald; see, on the other hand, Oehler’s article in Herzog’s Cycl.). For Ahijah expressly declared to Jeroboam that Jehovah would let Solomon remain prince over Israel during the remainder of his life. This deprived Jeroboam of every pretext for rebellion. Moreover the prophet’s announcement, even without this restriction, gave him no right to seize with his own hand and by means of rebellion upon that throne which God intended to give to him. Jeroboam might have learned how he ought to act under these circumstances from the example of David, who had far more ground, according to human opinion, for rebelling against Saul, his persecutor and mortal foe, and who nevertheless, even when God had delivered his enemy into his hand, so that he might have slain him, did not venture to lay his hand upon the anointed of the Lord, but waited in pious submission to the leadings of his God, till the Lord opened the way to the throne through the death of Saul. By the side of David’s behaviour towards Saul the attempt of Jeroboam has all the appearance of a criminal rebellion, so that Solomon would have been perfectly justified in putting him to death, if Jeroboam had not escaped from his hands by a flight into Egypt. – On Shishak see at 1Ki 14:25.

Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament

Solomon’s Adversaries.

B. C. 980.

      14 And the LORD stirred up an adversary unto Solomon, Hadad the Edomite: he was of the king’s seed in Edom.   15 For it came to pass, when David was in Edom, and Joab the captain of the host was gone up to bury the slain, after he had smitten every male in Edom;   16 (For six months did Joab remain there with all Israel, until he had cut off every male in Edom:)   17 That Hadad fled, he and certain Edomites of his father’s servants with him, to go into Egypt; Hadad being yet a little child.   18 And they arose out of Midian, and came to Paran: and they took men with them out of Paran, and they came to Egypt, unto Pharaoh king of Egypt; which gave him a house, and appointed him victuals, and gave him land.   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 the queen.   20 And the sister of Tahpenes bare him Genubath his son, whom Tahpenes weaned in Pharaoh’s house: and Genubath was in Pharaoh’s household among the sons of Pharaoh.   21 And when Hadad heard in Egypt that David slept with his fathers, and that Joab the captain of the host was dead, Hadad said to Pharaoh, Let me depart, that I may go to mine own country.   22 Then Pharaoh said unto him, But what hast thou lacked with me, that, behold, thou seekest to go to thine own country? And he answered, Nothing: howbeit let me go in any wise.   23 And God stirred him up another adversary, Rezon the son of Eliadah, which fled from his lord Hadadezer king of Zobah:   24 And he gathered men unto him, and became captain over a band, when David slew them of Zobah: and they went to Damascus, and dwelt therein, and reigned in Damascus.   25 And he was an adversary to Israel all the days of Solomon, beside the mischief that Hadad did: and he abhorred Israel, and reigned over Syria.

      While Solomon kept closely to God and to his duty there was no adversary nor evil occurrent (ch. v. 4), nothing to create him any disturbance or uneasiness in the least; but here we have an account of two adversaries that appeared against him, inconsiderable, and that could not have done any thing worth taking notice of if Solomon had not first made God his enemy. What hurt could Hadad or Rezon have done to so great and powerful a king as Solomon was if he had not, by sin, made himself mean and weak? And then those little people menace and insult him. If God be on our side, we need not fear the greatest adversary; but, if he be against us, he can made us fear the least, and the very grasshopper shall be a burden. Observe,

      I. Both these adversaries God stirred up, 1Ki 11:14; 1Ki 11:23. Though they themselves were moved by principles of ambition or revenge, God made use of them to serve his design of correcting Solomon. The principal judgment threatened was deferred, namely, the rending of the kingdom from him, but he himself was made to fee the smart of the rod, for his greater humiliation. Note, Whoever are, in any way, adversaries to us, we must take notice of the hand of God stirring them up to be so, as he bade Shimei curse David; we must look through the instruments of our trouble to the author of it and hear the Lord’s controversy in it.

      II. Both these adversaries had the origin of their enmity to Solomon and Israel laid in David’s time, and in his conquests of their respective countries, 1Ki 11:15; 1Ki 11:24. Solomon had the benefit and advantage of his father’s successes both in the enlargement of his dominion and the increase of his treasure, and would never have known any thing but the benefit of them if he had kept closely to God; but now he finds evils to balance the advantages, and that David had made himself enemies, who were thorns in his sides. Those that are too free in giving provocation ought to consider that perhaps it may be remembered in time to come and returned with interest to theirs after them; having so few friends in this world, it is our wisdom not to make ourselves more enemies than we needs must.

      1. Hadad, an Edomite, was an adversary to Solomon. We are not told what he did against him, nor which way he gave him disturbance, only, in general, that he was an adversary to him: but we are told, (1.) What induced him to bear Solomon a grudge. David had conquered Edom, 2 Sam. viii. 14. Joab put all the males to the sword, 1Ki 11:15; 1Ki 11:16. A terrible execution he made, avenging on Edom their old enmity to Israel, yet perhaps with too great a severity. From this general slaughter, while Joab was burying the slain (for he left not any alive of their own people to bury them, and buried they must be, or they would be an annoyance to the country, Ezek. xxxix. 12), Hadad, a branch of the royal family, then a little child, was taken and preserved by some of the king’s servants, and conveyed to Egypt, v. 17. They halted by the way, in Midian first, and then in Paran, where they furnished themselves with men, not to fight for them or force their passage, but to attend them, that their young master might go into Egypt with an equipage agreeable to his quality. There he was kindly sheltered and entertained by Pharaoh, as a distressed prince, as well provided for, and so recommended himself that, in process of time, he married the queen’s sister (v. 19), and by her had a child, which the queen herself conceived such a kindness for that she brought him up in Pharaoh’s house, among the king’s children. (2.) What enabled him to do Solomon a mischief. Upon the death of David and Joab, he returned to his own country, in which, it should seem, he settled and remained quiet while Solomon continued wise and watchful for the public good, but from which he had opportunity of making inroads upon Israel when Solomon, having sinned away his wisdom as Samson did his strength (and in the same way), grew careless of public affairs, was off his guard himself, and had forfeited the divine protection. What vexation Hadad gave to Solomon we are not here told, but only how loth Pharaoh was to part with him and how earnestly he solicited his stay (v. 22): What hast thou lacked with me? “Nothing,” says Hadad; “but let me go to my own country, my native air, my native soil.” Peter Martyr has a pious reflection upon this: “Heaven is our home, and we ought to keep up a holy affection to that, and desire towards it, even when the world, the place of our banishment, smiles most upon us.” Does it ask, What have you lacked, that you are so willing to be gone? We may answer, “Nothing that the world can do for us; but still let us go thither, where our hope, and honour, and treasure are.”

      2. Rezon, a Syrian, was another adversary to Solomon. When David conquered the Syrians, he headed the remains, lived at large by spoil and rapine, till Solomon grew careless, and then he got possession of Damascus, reigned there (v. 24) and over the country about (v. 25), and he created troubles to Israel, probably in conjunction with Hadad, all the days of Solomon (namely, after his apostasy), or he was an enemy to Israel during all Solomon’s reign, and upon all occasions vented his then impotent malice against them, but till Solomon’s revolt, when his defence had departed from him, he could not do them any mischief. It is said of him that he abhorred Israel. Other princes loved and admired Israel and Solomon, and courted their friendship, but here was one that abhorred them. The greatest and best of princes and people, however much they may in general be respected, will yet perhaps be hated and abhorred by some.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

Troubles for Solomon, Verses 14-25

Because of his apostasy from the Lord, God allowed Solomon to have troubles from adversaries. Both of the most outstanding went back to events in the reign of David, when God allowed David to conquer the Edomites and Syrians, as well as other surrounding nations. Perhaps David was acting cruelly and like the world in the merciless slaughter of the Edomites and others. This aroused rightful animosity against Israel on the part of those so treated. Now God allowed this feeling to express itself in a kind of guerrilla uprising against Solomon, to chastise him.

A number of verses are used to recount the affair and subsequent life of the young Edomite prince who escaped, Hadad. It stemmed from the wars of David and Joab against the Edomites recounted in 1Ch 18:12-13. Joab had remained there for six months killing all the males he lay hands on. This cruel practice was often followed in ancient times in order to destroy the potential of a troublesome nation to make war. At that time Hadad was a little boy. Some of the king’s servants had rescued him and carried him to Midian. From there it appears they had left to join with other Edomite escapees in the wilderness of Paran in the Sinai peninsula. From here they eventually came to Egypt where Pharaoh took him in and seems to have trained him. Pharaoh gave him the sister of the queen, Tahpenes, to be his wife. The princeling born of this marriage was Genubath, who was brought up in the Egyptian palace.

Hadad had reached adulthood at the time of David’s death and the execution of Joab. With his enemies now dead Hadad desired to return to his own country to try to restore it. Reluctantly Pharaoh gave his permission. It appears that Hadad gathered to him men who harassed the kingdom of Solomon throughout his reign.

God allowed another adversary for Solomon to arise from the northern area of the Syrians. This man’s name was Rezon, and he had been a servant of the king of Zobah, who was defeated in David’s wars against the Syrians. Rezon found a secure place from which to strike the Israelites in the city of Damascus. It is unclear why Solomon did not have Damascus under his subjection to such an extent as to prevent such depredations against him. He must have allowed freedom of the city to Damascus, though under tribute to him. Rezon seems to have risen to the rank of king in Damascus, and was a constant source of trouble to Solomon during his reign.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

HOMILETICS OF 1Ki. 11:14-40

THE AGENTS OF DIVINE RETRIBUTION

I. Are secretly preparing when least suspected. Hadad and Rezon on the frontier, and Jeroboam under the shadow of the throne, were plotting mischief for the empire. In a time of unexampled peace and security, the seeds of rebellion were being sown. Things are not always what they seem. The loveliest flower may hide within its cup the deadliest poison. The mountain draped with richest verdure, and musical with forest songs, may simmer with internal fires which shall burst their prison, and spread devastation and woe in their burning pathway. The most promising productions of earth may be blasted in a single night. But the agents of destruction are not always in haste: they can afford to wait. Not at once does Divine retribution overtake the offender; but after much long-suffering and many opportunities for repentance.

II. Often accomplish their mission by gratifying personal revenge and ambition (1Ki. 11:14-17; 1Ki. 11:25-26). The Edomite prince, who escaped when a child, the desolating slaughter of David (2 Samuel 8), dreamed of recovering the lost throne of his father. He dreamed of vengeance for the blood of his countrymen; and dreams grow realities to earnest men. Rezon was influenced in all his plottings against Israel by a spirit of bitter and ungovernable hatred (1Ki. 11:25), and lost no opportunity of inflicting injury on Solomon. Jeroboam, endowed with unquestioned ability, and evidently conscious of it, was eagerly ambitious of place and power. While these men pursued their several selfish ends, Jehovah used them as agents for the punishing of wrong-doing. History is full of examples of this Divine procedure. The Lord can make the wrath of men His servant, and to minister to His praise (Psa. 76:10). His hand is on all the springs of being. All the forces of the universe are His obedient instruments in scattering blessings, or in accomplishing the sterner missions of justice.

III. Embitter the close of a career which had a brilliant and promising beginning. How few can foresee the contrast which the end of life will present with its opening! How sad, how heart-rending would be the picture if we could see, as God sees, the horrid process by which the innocence of youth gives place to the hardened effrontery and guilt of old age! Nothing but love and peace sounded in the name of Solomon; nothing else was found in his reign while he held in good terms with his God; but when once he fell foul with his Maker, all things began to be troubled. There are whips laid up against the time of Solomons foreseen offence which are now brought forth for his correction. God would have us make account that our peace ends with our innocence. The same sin that sets debate betwixt God and us, arms the creatures against us. It were a pity we should be at any quiet, while we are fallen out with the God of peace. Solomons reign of peace closes amid the threatenings of war, the firmness of his government is supplanted by the tremors of rebellion, his enormous supplies are failing him, his greatness is dwarfed to littleness, his wisdom is transformed into folly. Many a bitter pang smote the monarchs heart as he beheld the wreck and failure of his life. The grave holds many a human heart that has been wounded and broken by disappointed hopes, baffled endeavours, or dethroned pride.

IV. Are limited and restrained by the Divine will (1Ki. 11:34; 1Ki. 11:39). The Power which has directed the migrations and limited the wars of nations, fixed the boundaries of the ocean, and adjusted the force of gravitation, also interferes in moderating and defining the degree of punishment for sin. I will for this afflict the seed of David; but not for ever (1Ki. 11:39). Here breaks in another ray of promise to the House of David, whose sons, though chastened and smitten with the rod of men (2Sa. 7:14), were to be the human line of fathers to that Great Son who shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of whose kingdom there shall be no end. The very anger of God is more constructive than destructive. The worst enemies can do the church no damage beyond what the will of God permits.

V. Cannot be defeated in their purpose by human malice (1Ki. 11:40). Solomon thought therefore to kill Jeroboam. Murder has ever been the ghastly policy of the tyrant, the idolized weapon of the coward, the sport of the brutal, the sanguinary carnival of monsters. Solomons relations to Jeroboam were strikingly similar to those of Saul to David. Solomon, like Saul, drew down upon himself by disobedience the anger of heaven; and to him, as to Saul, the words of the Lord announced judgments that darkened all his future. Like Saul, he knew and sought to kill his rival. The beginning of his reign, like that of Sauls, was popular and auspicious, but its end was sad and dark. The rage of man is impotent to frustrate the ultimate designs of God.

LESSONS:

1. The prosperous have always many enemies.

2. The fall of a great man involves many in his ruin.

3. The instruments by which a man climbs to greatness will, when abused, be his most inveterate adversaries.

4. Gilded sins entail dismal retributions.

GERM NOTES ON THE VERSES

1Ki. 11:14. The certainty of punishment for sin.

1. Is here directly attributed to Jehovah.
2. May be effected by human agencies.
3. Is a warning to evil doers.
4. Vindicates the righteousness of the Divine law.

God is said to have stirred up Solomons adversaries, not by infusing this malice into them, but as using it to punish his wickedness by them, even as a workman worketh by tools that another made, and by crooked tools oft maketh straight and smooth work.Trapp.

1Ki. 11:14-40. Solomons enemies.

1. They are roused against him by God, so that he may know and confess what heart-suffering it brings to forsake the fear of the Lord his God (Jer. 2:19). So marvellously does God bring it about, that he who will not fear Him must needs fear his fellow-men. Once the man of rest and the prince of peace, now he is pressed sore by enemies from the north, from the south, and from his midst. They are the scourges with which the Lord chastises him. When foes and opponents rise against thee and cause thee care and anguish, then think, the Lord has summoned them on account of thy sins and unfaithfulness. The hostility of man is a sermon of repentance from thy God to thee.

2. They were in Gods hands, and could do not more than He permits. They rebelled, but they were powerless to take from Solomon the throne and kingdom during his lifetime. The Lord commands our foes, So far shalt thou go, and no further.Cramer.

1Ki. 11:14-25. The power of the little to annoy the great. Solomons last years were not suffered to pass without heavy troubles, which must have brought down his kingly pride very low. Enemies, one after another, appeared, who had in his early years been kept down by the memory of Davids victories, and by the show of substantial strength which his own government presented. At length, however, they ventured to try its texture, and finding it more vulnerable than even they had suspected, that there was nothing very terrible to resolute men in its showy greatness; and having found that the king had really no power to make any effectual opposition to their assaults, far less to put them down, they were emboldened to take further measures, until some established their independence, while others offered the passive resistance of withholding their tributesso that his power became shorn at the borders, and eventually shaken at home, where the discontinuance of many outer supplies of revenue, and probably the interruption of his various lines of trade, no longer in his undisputed possession, urged him, not to economy and retrenchment, but to make good the deficiency by the taxation of his native subjects.Kitto.

Formerly, all kings did homage to Solomon, and brought him gifts, and journeyed from all countries to see and hear him; his power was as great as his kingdom. But now his power and might are abased before those who hitherto ranked far below him, whom he had regarded as the least of his slaves and vassals. Humiliation coming through weak and inferior means is much more bitter than the same humiliation through strong and powerful means. The latter we can ascribe to man, but in the former we must recognize the will and power of God.Gerhardt.

1Ki. 11:14-22. The fate of Hadad is recounted to us not so much on his own account as on our own, in order that we may learn to regard the ways of God with man, and order our ways by Him who is ever mercy and wisdom (Psa. 25:10). If God brought back the heathen Hadad by mysterious ways to his native land, how much more will he lead those who keep his covenant and testimony to the true native land, and to the eternal rest, how dark and inscrutable soever may be the ways by which He leads them.Lange.

1Ki. 11:21-22. The love of fatherland.

1. Is deeply implanted in humanity.
2. Creates irrepressible yearnings in the heart of the exile.
3. Becomes intensified under a sense of oppression and wrong.
4. Fires the soul with bravery in its defence.
5. Is a faint image of the love we should feel for the heavenly fatherlandto go to heaven is to go home again.

1Ki. 11:22. The secresy of revenge.

1. The fierceness of revenge is fanned by the rehearsal of past injuries.
2. Is cherished in the midst of peace and plenty.
3. Is hidden from the dearest friend and benefactor.
4. Is intensified by its secresy.

O that the slave had forty thousand lives;
One is too poor, too weak for my revenge!
Arise, black vengeance, from thy hollow cell!
Yield up, O love, thy crown and hearted throne,
To tyrannous hate! Swell, bosom, with thy freight,
For tis of aspics tongues!Othello.

1Ki. 11:23-25. Though vanquished and east down, tyranny and ambition do not forget. They think perpetually of vengeance, and seek to satisfy it, now by rough means, now by subtle ones, whenever an opportunity offers. Therefore warns the apostle so earnestly against those secret and mighty motives in the natural heart of man (Rom. 12:19).

1Ki. 11:26. Solomons servant, but unthankful and disloyal, such as was Ahithophel to David, Brutus to Csar, Phocas to Mauritius, Frederick III.s courtiers and creatures to him, Biron to Henry IV. of France. That king had made him of a common soldier a captain, of a captain a knight, of a knight Duke of Biron, Marshal of France, Governor of Burgundy, &c. Yet all this and more could not keep him from conspiring the death of his king, queen, and prince, that the kingdom might be transferred to others, and the Huguenots rooted out.

1Ki. 11:26-40. The dangerous glitter of a crown.

1. Infatuates the ambitions.
2. Has allured many to their ruin.
3. Hides the misery and care of the unhappy wearer.

4. Should be guarded and fenced by a strict moral obedience to the law of God (1Ki. 11:38).

The disruption of the kingdom was not the work of a day, but the growth of centuries. To the house of Josephthat is, to Ephraim, with its adjacent tribes of Benjamin and Manassehhad belonged, down to the time of David, all the chief rulers of Israel: Joshua, the conqueror; Deborah, the one prophetic, Gideon, the one regal, spirit of the judges; Abimelech and Saul, the first kings; Samuel, the restorer of the state after the fall of Shiloh. It was natural that, with such an inheritance of glory, Ephraim always chafed under any rival supremacy. Even against the impartial sway of its own Joshua, or of its kindred heroes, Gideon or Jephthah, its proud spirit was always in revolt, how much more when the blessing of Joseph seemed to be altogether merged in the blessing of the rival and obscure Judah; when the Lord refused the tabernacle of Joseph, and chose not the tribe of Ephraim, but chose the tribe of Judah, Mount Zion which he had loved (Psa. 78:67). All these embers of dissatisfaction, which had well nigh burst into a general conflagration in the revolt of Sheba, were still glowing; it needed but a breath to blow it into a flame. There was one man who, by his office and character, had long ago been indicated as the natural successor of Joshua. This was Jeroboam.Stanley.

Hitherto the chief restraint upon the people had lain in the notion that the Lord had guaranteed the throne over all Israel to the house of David, and the most turbulent spirits had been kept under restraint by the fear of resisting the purposes of God. The intimation of the nomination of Jeroboam under Divine authority fell like a spark upon fuel. The important principle involvedfreedom from a restriction which had become intolerableat once raised the agent, in whose person it had been set forth, to the height of popularity among the tribes under the influence of the house of Joseph; and although he had been warned that no change was to take place until after the death of Solomon, he found himself driven, by the force of circumstances, if not by the promptings of his own ambition, into some immediate demonstrations. The movement was not attended with the result he expected, and, finding that he had become a marked man to Solomon, he deemed it prudent to evade the storm he had raised by retiring into Egypt, and there awaiting the progress of events.Kitto.

1Ki. 11:26-28. God is wont to chastise the rebellion of princes against His will by means of the rebellion of their own subjects; as Solomon raised his hand against Jehovah, so did his servant Jeroboam against him. Destruction from above unites with ruin from below. Whatever Solomon undertook after his fall was deprived of Gods blessing. By the building of Millo he intended still further to strengthen his dominion over all his enemies, and to render impregnable his dwelling-place; but this very building was the cause why his throne began to totter, and why he lost the greater part of his kingdom. Here applies Psa. 127:1. It was by Divine decree that Solomon himself, without his own will or knowledge, should raise from the dust to high places the very man appointed by God to abase him and to dismember his kingdom. Conspiracies and rebellions are chiefly led by those who have to complain least of injustice or oppression, but have been pampered and favoured until ambition incites them to suppress every feeling of gratitude (Joh. 13:18).Lange.

1Ki. 11:28. The man of industry.

1. Improves the powers he already possesses.
2. Attracts the notice of the great.
3. Is intrusted with important undertakings.
4. Acquires a position of honour and influence.

1Ki. 11:29. Here we meet with another representative of that interesting order of menDivine messengerswho appear so often and so prominently during the time of the Hebrew monarchy. Ahijah seems to have been to Jeroboam very much what Samuel was to Saul, and Nathan was to David. He, too, probably, announced to Solomon the word of the Lord as recorded in 1Ki. 11:11-13. His two genuine and authentic prophecies, each of great importance to the kingdom of Israel, are recorded here, 1Ki. 11:29-39, and chap. 1Ki. 14:6-16. Ahijahs oracles seem like a voice from that olden, sacred pastthe voice of the God of Joshua and of Elistill proclaiming blessings on the obedient, and penal woes on them that forget His name.Whedon.

1Ki. 11:30. Here we find the first instance of that mode of delivering a Divine message which became so common in later times, and which has been called acted parable. Generally the mode was adopted upon express Divine command (see Jer. 13:1-11; Jer. 19:1-10; Jer. 27:2-11; Eze. 3:1-3; Eze. 4:1; Eze. 5:1). In this instance we may trace a connection between the type selected and the words of the announcement to Solomon, in 1Ki. 11:11-13I will surely rend the kingdom from theewhere the kingdom is likened unto a glorious mantle upon the kings shoulders, as in 1Sa. 15:28.

1Ki. 11:31. All the world must confess, upon beholding the abasement of the house of David and the elevation of Jeroboam, that the Most High has power over the kingdoms of men, and bestows them on whom He will (Dan. 4:29; 1Sa. 2:7-8; Luk. 1:52).

1Ki. 11:36. Even in the midst of His just anger the Lord is merciful, and the inconstancy of man can never shake His fidelity. The fulfilment of 2Sa. 7:14-15, is seen in Solomons history. The house of David remained a light for ever, until that Son of David came who is the Light of the world, which lighteth all men who come into the world (Joh. 1:9; Rom. 15:12).Lange.

1Ki. 11:39. The severity and tenderness of God.

1. God will punish the evil-doer.
2. God will punish with awful severity.
3. God will temper justice with mercy.

4. The severity of God does not destroy His tenderness (Rom. 11:22).

But not for ever. for some kings of Judahas Asa, Hezekiah, Josiahgrew very great. But especially is this to be understood of Christ, in whom the glory was restored to Davids house, such as never any mortal king had.Trapp.

In no casenot even if Jeroboam and his seed continued faithful, serving God as David had served Himwas the seed of David to be afflicted for ever. David had been distinctly promised that God should never fail his seed, whatever their short-comings (Psa. 89:28-37). The fulfilment of these promises was seen, partly in the providence which maintained Davids family in a royal position till Zerubbabel, but mainly in the preservation of his seed to the time fixed for the coming of Christ and the birth of Christthe Eternal Kingfrom one of Davids descendants.Speakers comm.

Verse.

40. Fickle humanity.

1. Solomon at one time promotes Jeroboam to honour, at another seeks to murder him.
2. Jeroboam at one time is the faithful and diligent servant of Solomon, at another his vexatious and rebellious foe.
3. Unhappy subject whose sovereign is so fickle, unhappy sovereign whose subject is so faithless.

From the time when they furnished to their nation the great conquering leader who settled Israel in the possession of Palestine (Num. 13:8), the tribe of Ephraim, already encouraged to hope for high things by the blessing of Jacob (Gen. 48:17-22; Gen. 49:22-26), had claimed, and, in the main, enjoyed, a preeminence above their brethren. But the transfer of power to the rival tribe of Judah involved in the elevation of David, and the loss of prestige both by Shiloh and Shechem through the concentration at Jerusalem of both the temporal and the ecclesiastical, must have been bitterly felt by the Ephraimites. When David boasted that God refused the tabernacle of Joseph, and chose not the tribe of Ephraim, but chose the tribe of Judah, he touched a sore place in the hearts of his Ephraimite subjects. They felt themselves the strength of Israel, while Judah was the lawgiver (Psa. 60:7; Psa. 108:8). The military glory of Davids reign, and the splendour of his sons in its earlier portion, had prevented the discontent of the Ephraimites from gathering to a head. But as Solomons lustre faded, as his oppression became greater and its object more selfish, and as a prospect of deliverance arose from the personal qualities of Jeroboam, the tribe, it is possible, again aspired after its old position. Jeroboam, active, energetic, and ambitious, placed himself at their head, and, encouraged by the prophets words, commenced a rebellion (1Ki. 11:26). The step proved premature. The power of Solomon was too firmly fixed to be shaken; and the hopes of the Ephraimites had to be deferred till a fitter season. Speakers Comm.

Rebellion.

1. Is easily fomented where conscious wrong exists.
2. Is the opportunity of the ambitious.
3. Is often ill-timed in its movements.
4. Is always attended with great risks.
5. Is powerless in frustrating Divine arrangements.
6. Is vigilant and impatient to accomplish its purpose.

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

II. SOLOMONS TROUBLES 11:1440

While reading the preceding chapters, one has the impression that Solomon enjoyed a reign of uninterrupted peace and splendor. But here at the close of the account of this king the author has gathered all the significant information concerning Solomons adversaries. Owing to the fact that these accounts stand at the end of his history, many students have jumped to the conclusion that all Solomons troubles arose at the end of his reign. This conclusion is, however, not justified. The hated opposition of Hadad began at an early period of Solomons reign. So also, it would seem did the opposition of Rezon. These accounts are placed here because (1) it is the habit of the author to collect into one passage material related to a particular facet of Solomons reign;[303] (2) it was only in his later life that these adversaries materially affected Solomons position and rule; and (3) because these troubles are regarded as a chastisement for Solomons sin which has just been described. The accounts of Solomons adversaries recall to mind the words of Nathan to David: . . . if he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men (2Sa. 7:14). Solomons ultimate punishment for his sins was the rending of the kingdom from his descendants. However before that, God sent adversaries against him to chasten him and stir him to repentance. In this section the author discusses the rebellions led by (1) Hadad the Edomite (1Ki. 11:14-22); (2) Rezon and Damascus (1Ki. 11:23-25); and (3) Jeroboam of Ephraim (1Ki. 11:26-40).

[303] Information respecting the Temple is gathered in chapters 68 and scattered notices respecting Solomons power and greatness are grouped in chapters 910.

A. THE REBELLION OF HADAD 11:1422

(14) And the LORD raised up an adversary to Solomon, Hadad the Edomite; he was of the royal seed in Edom. (15) For it had happened when David was in Edom,[304] and Joab the captain of the host had gone up to bury the slam, and he had smitten every male in Edom. (16) (For six months Joab remained there along with all Israel until he had cut off every male in Edom.), (17) that Hadad fled, he and certain men, Edomites from the servants of his father with him, to go to Egypt while Hadad was yet a young lad. (18) And they arose out of Midian and came to Paran; and they took men with them from Paran and came to Egypt, unto Pharaoh king of Egypt; and he gave to him a house, and ordered food for him and gave land to him. (19) And Hadad found great favor in the eyes of Pharaoh, so that he gave to him as a wife the sister of his wife, the sister of Tahpenes the queen. (20) And the sister of Tahpenes bare for him Genubath his son, whom Tahpenes weaned in the midst of the house of Pharaoh; and Genubath was in the house of Pharaoh among the sons of Pharaoh. (21) When Hadad heard in Egypt that David slept with his fathers, and that Joab the captain of the host was dead, then Hadad said unto Pharaoh, Dismiss me that I may go unto my land. (22) And Pharaoh said to him, But what have you been lacking with me that behold you are seeking to go unto your land? And he said, Nothing, but you must surely dismiss me!

[304] Literally, with Edom. Keil interprets: When David had to do with Edom. The Septuagint and Syriac read, when David smote Edom.

COMMENTS

The first adversary[305] raised up by God was Hadad (also spelled Adad) the Edomite. Edom, to the south of Israel, had been a vassal state from the time it had been subdued by Joab under David (2Sa. 8:13-14). Apparently Hadad was the title by which the kings of Edom were designated rather than the personal name of this particular king[306] (1Ki. 11:14). This Hadad had become the implacable foe of Israel from the time when the armies of David had entered Edom and had slain a goodly portion of the male population. According to Chronicles, Abishai slew eighteen thousand (1Ch. 18:12), while the title of Psalms 60 represents Joab as having slain twelve thousand at the same time and place. Both of these brothers were commanders in the army of David, and it is uncertain whether the two figures should be combined or whether the smaller figure is included within the larger. In any case, this fierce Israelite attack against Edom apparently was brought on by a merciless Edomite invasion of Israel in which many Israelites were slain. It was after Joab had buried these dead Israelites that he led the armies of David into Edom in retaliation (1Ki. 11:15). It had taken Joab six months to complete this ruthless campaign even though he had at his disposal all Israel, i.e., the entire army of Israel. Every male (1Ki. 11:16) refers to men capable of bearing arms, who fell into the hands of the Israelites.

[305] Adversary is the English translation of the Hebrew word satan. In early Biblical literature satan is frequently used of human adversaries; in later Old Testament books it is a proper name of a superhuman adversary.

[306] Two kings of Edom before the time of the Hebrew monarchy bear this name (Gen. 36:31-39). Hadad was the proper name of the Canaanite god of thunder and rain who more frequently was simply called Baal, lord. The name Hadad was also a favorite among the kings of Aram as can be seen in the names Benhadad and Hadadezer.

Because of this Israelite invasion, the young crown prince and some of the royal servants fled toward Egypt (1Ki. 11:17). The party followed a somewhat unnatural route so as to escape the vigilant eyes of Joabs men. For a while they seem to have taken refuge in the trackless waste of Midian south of Edom. They may have spent several years there before passing on to Egypt. Eventually Hadad and his company pressed on toward Egypt stopping in Paran to secure guides who would lead them across the Sinaitic peninsula to the kingdom of the Pharaohs.

In Egypt Hadad and his party were graciously received, the Pharaoh giving to the young prince a house and land and provision for his table (1Ki. 11:18). In due time Pharaoh gave Hadad the hand of his sister-in-law, the sister of Tahpenes the queen consort (1Ki. 11:19). This action reflects the political hopes which the Egyptians pinned on the Edomite heir. The fact that the Biblical historiographer was familiar with the name (or title) of the queen of Egypt accords with the high position and political influence wielded by the wives of the Pharaohs of the twenty-first dynasty. The name Tahpenes has not been identified in the few existing contemporary Egyptian sources. However, some Egyptologists are inclined to relate it to a name of a princess appearing on a statue attributed to the twenty-first dynasty.[307]

[307] Malamat, BAR, II, 9091. It has also been asserted that Tahpenes is not a proper name at all, but an Egyptian title for kings wife.

Hadads Egyptian wife gave birth to a son who was named Genubath. The queen herself took charge of the great festivities which accompanied the weaning of this child (cf. Gen. 21:8). Furthermore, Genubath was reared in Pharaohs palace and had all the privileges of the sons of Pharaoh (1Ki. 11:20).

When Hadad heard of the deaths of David and Joab, he requested that his Egyptian benefactor dismiss him in order that he might return to his own land (1Ki. 11:21). Pharaoh was reluctant to see Hadad, who had now been in Egypt for at least twenty-five years, leave his court. Nonetheless, Hadad insisted that he be allowed to return to Edom (1Ki. 11:22). Here the story abruptly ends; but 1Ki. 11:25 makes it clear that Hadad did return to his native land. At some point subsequent to his return Hadad led a rebellion against Solomon. Whether he succeeded in wresting any territory from Solomons control or merely acted as a constant menace to the Israelite merchant caravans is unclear.

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(14) Hadad the Edomite.The name (or rather, title) Hadad (with the kindred names Hadar, Hadadezer or Hadarezer, and Benhadad) is most frequently found as a designation of the kings of Syria. Here, however, as also in Gen. 36:35, 1Ch. 1:46; 1Ch. 1:50, it is given to members of the royal family of Edom. According to ancient authorities, it is a Syriac title of the sunin this respect like the more celebrated title Pharaohassumed by the king, either as indicating descent from the sun-god, or simply as an appellation of splendour and majesty. The Hadad here mentioned seems to have been the last scion of the royal house, escaping alone, as a child, from the slaughter of his kindred and people.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

(14-25) The events recorded in this section belong, at least in part, to the early years of the reign of Solomon. when the deaths of the warlike David and Joab, and the accession of a mere youth of avowedly peaceful character, may have naturally encouraged insurrection against the dominion of Israel. They are, no doubt, referred to in this place in connection with the prophecy just recorded, and the notice of Jeroboams earlier career which it suggests. But it is implied in the case of Hadad, as it is expressly declared in the case of Rezon, that their resistance continued through all Solomons reign. They were not, therefore, crushed, even in the days of his greatness, although then probably reduced to practical insignificance; they seem to have become formidable again during his declining years.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

SOLOMON’S ADVERSARIES, 1Ki 11:14-40.

Although Jehovah’s love and promise to David secured to Solomon for life the unity of his vast realm, yet would he not permit the idolatrous king, who turned so vilely from the God of his father, to hold an undisturbed career till the end of life, but inflicted penal judgment upon him by raising up three adversaries, Hadad, Rezon, and Jeroboam, who during his later years gave him great trouble by disturbing the peace of his kingdom, and giving him sad premonition of the misfortunes that must befall his descendants.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

14. Hadad the Edomite Probably a grandson, or at least not a remote descendant, of the Hadad (or Hadar) of 1Ch 1:50. The name seems to have been common among the kings of Edom. Compare Gen 36:35.

Of the king’s seed A member of the royal family.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Hadad The Edomite ( 1Ki 11:14-22 ).

The first adversary was Hadad, the Edomite. He was of the royal family of Edom and had escaped the retaliatory massacre that necessarily followed an Edomite raid on Israel that had produced many dead. Joab had, in retaliation, carried out an extermination campaign in which he had attempted to kill every male capable of fighting in Edom. To be fair to him it was the only way of preventing further raids from the mountains of Edom, and making southernmost ‘Israel’ safe.

Hadad, a young teenager of the royal family, was smuggled out of the country into the land of Midian, with the aim, once it was feasible, of fleeing for refuge to Egypt. From Midian they eventually moved on to Paran in the Sinai wilderness, and then, with the assistance of the men of Paran, escaped into Egypt, where Hadad was received by the Pharaoh as royalty, and given a house, food fit for royalty and land. Indeed he gained such favour with the Pharaoh that he was allowed to marry the Pharaoh’s wife’s sister. This marriage resulted in the birth of a son named Genubath who was weaned and grew up in the Pharaoh’s household among his own sons. Solomon’s enemies were also gaining favour with Egypt.

Once, however, news reached Egypt that David and Joab were dead, Hadad presumably saw an opportunity of gaining back his throne (he was not aware of Solomon’s calibre) and asked to be allowed to return to Edom. The Pharaoh tried to dissuade him, but in the end gave him permission to go. Once safely hidden in the mountains of Edom he rallied the men who remained (some would have escaped the massacre either by hiding in remote places, or fleeing to surrounding countries), and began to cause Solomon a great deal of ‘mischief’ (1Ki 11:25). In other words, from his mountain hide-out he was a constant thorn in Solomon’s side. Such ‘brigand’ or ‘patriotic’ (depending on your viewpoint) bands are difficult to search out in mountainous country which is well known to the ‘brigands’, and were of course a nuisance rather than dangerous to the empire, for Solomon was still able to work the mines in Edom and trade through the port of Ezion-geber. But it was unquestionably a blot on the peaceful empire of Solomon, especially as Hadad’s claims had some validity. The whole account was possibly extracted at some stage from Edomite annals.

Analysis.

a And YHWH raised up an adversary to Solomon, Hadad the Edomite. He was of the king’s seed in Edom (1Ki 11:14).

b For it came about, when David was in Edom, and Joab the captain of the host was gone up to bury the slain, and had smitten every male in Edom, (for Joab and all Israel remained there six months, until he had cut off every male in Edom), that ’Adad fled, he and certain Edomites of his father’s servants with him, to go into Egypt, Hadad being yet a young teenager (1Ki 11:15-17).’

c And they arose out of Midian, and came to Paran, and they took men with them out of Paran, and they came to Egypt, to Pharaoh king of Egypt, who gave him a house, and appointed him victuals, and gave him land (1Ki 11:18).

d 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 the queen (1Ki 11:19).

c And the sister of Tahpenes bore him Genubath his son, whom Tahpenes weaned in Pharaoh’s house, and Genubath was in Pharaoh’s house among the sons of Pharaoh (1Ki 11:20).

b And when Hadad heard in Egypt that David slept with his fathers, and that Joab the captain of the host was dead, Hadad said to Pharaoh, Let me depart, that I may go to my own country (1Ki 11:21).

a Then Pharaoh said to him, “But what have you lacked with me, that, behold, you seek to go to your own country?” And he answered, “Nothing. However that may be only let me depart” (1Ki 11:22).

Note that in ‘a’ YHWH raises up an adversary to Solomon, and in the parallel he insists on returning to his own country in order to be an adversary. In ‘b’ David and Joab had carried out the slaughter of the Edomites, and in the parallel it is because of the deaths of David and Joab that Hadad returns to Edom. In ‘c’ Hadad is well looked after by the Pharaoh, and in the parallel his son is well looked after in Pharaoh’s household. Centrally in ‘d’ Hadad finds favour with the Pharaoh and marries the sister of Pharaoh’s wife.

1Ki 11:14

‘ And YHWH raised up an adversary to Solomon, Hadad the Edomite. He was of the king’s seed in Edom.’

The first adversary raised up by YHWH against Solomon was Hadad the Edomite, who was descended from the royal house of Edom. The author has no doubt that YHWH had all history in His hands, and knew and shaped what was to come. Thus the ‘raising up’ began as early as the time of David when the young prince of Edom escaped the massacre of his countrymen, and was finally able to make his way to Egypt where he was treated with honour.

1Ki 11:15-17

‘ For it came about, when David was in Edom, and Joab the captain of the host was gone up to bury the slain, and had smitten every male in Edom, (for Joab and all Israel remained there six months, until he had cut off every male in Edom, that ’Adad fled, he and certain Edomites of his father’s servants with him, to go into Egypt, Hadad being yet a young teenager.’

The background to his story is given, It looked back to a time when the Edomites had raided David’s kingdom and had viciously slaughtered a good number of ‘Israelites’. Joab had then been despatched by David ‘to bury the Israelite dead,’ which would include the necessity for obtaining vengeance on their behalf and ensuring that such Edomite raids never took place again. In those days there was only one way in which to ensure that, and that was by totally destroying the enemy’s fighting capability. The women of Edom would not do any raiding on their own. Thus Joab set out to slaughter every male capable of fighting in Edom, a task over which he took six months.

But however savage the onslaught, clearly there would always be some who escaped into remote places or into other lands, and among them were a group of his father’s ‘servants’ who smuggled him away into the land of Midian (the ‘servants’ may have been some of his father’s courtiers and chieftains, or they may have been loyal household servants). This ‘land of Midian’ may have been the perilous and mountainous land to the south of Edom often seen as being ‘the land of Midian’, or it may even refer to that part of the Sinai peninsula which in Exo 2:15 was also spoken of as ‘the land of Midian’. The Midianites roamed over wide areas, and therefore ‘the land of Midian’ was not easy to define. In their view it was wherever they roamed. So it depended on the perspective of the user.

It will be noted that Hadad is only this once in the narrative called ’Adad. This may have been his more popular name as a youngster, and therefore be the sign of a personal reminiscence by someone who had known the young prince well by that name, Hadad being his ‘royal name’. The dropping of an ‘aitch’ was by no means uncommon with names (compare Adoram (1Ki 12:18) and Hadoram (2Ch 10:18) for the same man).

Hadad (‘the Thunderer’) was the Aramaean god of storm, the equivalent of Baal, and this may indicate that the Edomites worshipped the Aramaean pantheon, for Hadad had long been a popular name for Edomite rulers (see e.g. Gen 36:35-36 ; 1Ch 1:46; 1Ch 1:50). Interestingly we are never otherwise given any indication as to which gods the Edomites worshipped.

1Ki 11:18

‘ And they arose out of Midian, and came to Paran, and they took men with them out of Paran, and they came to Egypt, to Pharaoh king of Egypt, who gave him a house, and appointed him victuals, and gave him land.’

We do not know how long they remained in hiding in Midian, which would not normally have been very friendly towards them, (although the Midianites did sometime harbour refugees, as they did Moses), but eventually they determined to make an attempt to reach Egypt, and made their way into the Sinai peninsula into the land of Paran. There they were seemingly befriended by peoples who assisted them on their way to Egypt. David was probably not very popular with any of these peoples, and they were probably delighted to be able to ‘get their own back’ on him, even if only in so small a way.

On arrival in Egypt Hadad’s identity was disclosed, and he was welcomed by the Pharaoh who provided him with a house and some land, and ensured that he was properly and royally fed.

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 the queen.’

Indeed Hadad grew to such favour with Pharaoh that he was given for a wife the sister of the Pharaoh’s own chief wife. She was thus not of Pharaoh’s own seed, but nevertheless it was a great honour. Tahpenes was probably not the name of the queen, but a title signifying ‘wife of the king’ (Egyptian t.hmt.nsw). Hadad now counted for something in Egypt.

1Ki 11:20

‘ And the sister of Tahpenes bore him Genubath his son, whom Tahpenes weaned in Pharaoh’s house, and Genubath was in Pharaoh’s house among the sons of Pharaoh.’

His marriage prospered and Hadad’s wife bore him a son, whom they named Genubath. This son was honoured by being weaned in Pharaoh’s own household, and brought up among his sons.

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, Hadad said to Pharaoh, Let me depart, that I may go to my own country.’

But when Hadad learned that David and the dreaded Joab were both dead, and that the young Solomon had come to the throne, he saw an opportunity, and began to hanker for his own country. The period after the death of a king was often one of unrest, and here was surely the opportunity for him to establish himself on the throne of Edom and obtain independence for Edom from Israel. So he went to the Pharaoh and begged permission to return to his own country. He was, of course, aware, as Pharaoh was, that he was thereby forfeiting a life of ease and comfort for a life of hardship, but it seemed to his patriotic spirit that it was worthwhile. Indeed, he probably felt that he must do it.

1Ki 11:22

‘ Then Pharaoh said to him, “But what have you lacked with me, that, behold, you seek to go to your own country?” And he answered, “Nothing. However that may be only let me depart.”

Pharaoh tried to persuade him not to leave, and pointed out the luxurious lifestyle that he enjoyed. But Hadad was determined, and while admitting how good the Pharaoh had been to him, nevertheless begged permission to depart. This permission was clearly granted for we already know that he had been raised up by YHWH to be an ‘adversary’ to Solomon, and we learn in 1Ki 11:25 that he caused ‘mischief’ to Solomon. We are given no details, but this suggests that he returned to Edom, along with his retainers, where he was accepted by the remnants of the men who had escaped the Edom massacre, and the younger Edomites who were now growing to manhood, as their king and chieftain.

His rule was probably that of a chieftain of a band of patriots who had to remain hidden in the mountains like bandits, But he clearly caused Solomon some irritation, although being a thorn in his flesh rather than a danger to his kingdom. The cities of Edom probably still had to pay their tribute to Solomon, and Solomon was still able to work the mines and trade through Ezion Geber. But Hadad no doubt raided the supply trains and merchant caravans as they made their way to and from Israel. It is doubtful whether Solomon ever gave him any recognition.

The deliberate omission here of any mention of Hadad’s ‘mischief-making’ and its being coupled with the mischief-making of Rezon of Damascus in 1Ki 11:25 is with the deliberate intention of linking the two incidents as part of YHWH’s one overall attempt to curb Solomon’s growing arrogance.

This crack in the peace of his realm should have given Solomon pause for thought. But when men are set on the downward path they rarely stop to think.

Rezon of Damascus.

The next ‘adversary’ that God raised up against Solomon was Rezon of Damascus. He was an office in the army of Hadadezer, king of Zobah, at the time when David retaliated against Hadadezer for aiding the Ammonites, and brought him into subjection, slaying many men of Zobah. Rezon deserted Hadadezer, and gathered a band of marauders (as David had done before him), and eventually, probably after a considerable period of time, established himself in Damascus. From there he was a constant adversary to Solomon, seeking to cause mischief, hating Israel, and reigning over Aram (Syria). In other words he was a constant trouble-maker and thorn in the flesh.

We do not know the full details. It may well be that Damascus still paid tribute to Solomon on and off, and that it was at least nominally tributary, but that Rezon, with his men, having virtual control of Damascus, constantly caused trouble. (It is difficult to see how it could totally have resisted the power of Solomon and remained fully independent, and it is noticeable that Rezon is not said to have been king of Damascus, which had once been garrisoned by David). Again it was seen to be a thorn in the flesh rather than a major threat, and it does not appear to have greatly affected Solomon’s trading arrangements. In the future, however, Damascus would grow into a greater threat to Israel than Edom could ever be. But that yet lay ahead. Rezon’s ruling over Aram may well have been after Solomon’s death, the account here being a brief summary of Rezon’s whole life.

Analysis.

a And God raised up another adversary to him, Rezon the son of Eliada, who had fled from his lord Hadadezer king of Zobah (1Ki 11:23).

b And he gathered men to him, and became captain over a roving band, when David slew those of Zobah, and they went to Damascus, and dwelt in it, and ruled in Damascus (1Ki 11:24).

a And he was an adversary to Israel all the days of Solomon, besides the mischief that Hadad did, and he abhorred Israel, and ruled over Aram (Syria) (1Ki 11:25).

Note that in ‘a’ he was an adversary to Solomon and the same in the parallel. Central in ‘b’ is his control of Damascus.

1Ki 11:23

‘ And God raised up another adversary to him, Rezon the son of Eliada, who had fled from his lord Hadadezer king of Zobah.’

Once more God is seen to be active in causing trouble for Solomon through historic events. This time it was a man called Rezon (which means ‘chieftain’, probably the name he took when he became leader of his band. His real name was probably Hezion – see below), the son of Eliada. E(h)li-Ada is a typically Aramaean name. This man was an officer in the army of Hadadezer of Zobah, and when David invaded Zobah in retaliation for Zobah’s assistance to Ammon (2Sa 10:1-19), Rezon at some stage deserted or fled and, taking advantage of the chaos, got together a band of marauders.

1Ki 11:24

‘ And he gathered men to him, and became captain over a roving band when David slew those of Zobah, and they went to Damascus, and dwelt in it, and ruled in Damascus.’

As his band of marauders grew they were able over a considerable period of time to grow strong enough to enter Damascus, which initially had been subdued and garrisoned by David (2Sa 8:3-6), and take control of it. How far he was totally able to resist the influence of Solomon we do not know. It may well be that for a time they paid tribute unwillingly (he is not called king), but with belligerent reluctance, being allowed to remain because he was not seen as too great a threat.

1Ki 11:25

‘ And he was an adversary to Israel all the days of Solomon, besides the mischief that Hadad did, and he abhorred Israel, and ruled over Aram (Syria).’

He was never reconciled to Solomon, and like Hadad constantly sought to act against him, hating Israel with loathing and eventually taking over the rule of the whole of Aram (which may have been immediately after Solomon’s death). He may well have been identical with Hezion, grandfather of Benhadad I who would later make an alliance with Asa of Judah (1Ki 15:18).

Had Solomon taken notice of this chastising of YHWH it might have faced him up with his waning obedience, but he was far too busy on his pet projects and with his wives and their false worship to bother too much about such things. And the result was that it passed him by. His failure would have devastating consequences for his descendants.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

YHWH Raises Up Three Adversaries to Solomon ( 1Ki 11:14-40 ).

At the commencement of his reign Solomon had had to deal with three rebels against the throne, Adonijah, Abiathar and Joab and Shimei (1Ki 2:13-46). Now we learn of three adversaries whom, during the course of his reign, YHWH ‘raised up’ to be a thorn in Solomon’s side, Hadad the Edomite (1Ki 11:14-22), Rezon of Damascus (1Ki 11:23-26), and Jeroboam, the son of Nebat (1Ki 11:27-40). The narratives are not in chronological order (chronologically the first two mainly occurred before YHWH’s judgment on Solomon) but in topical order. They are gathered together at the end of the narrative so as to demonstrate the opposition that had been growing continually towards Solomon because of his ways, and what it would eventually lead to. Thus even while Solomon had been moving on to greater and greater arrogance, YHWH had been giving him warnings about his vulnerability.

It is significant that two of these adversaries were sheltered by Egypt. Solomon had courted Egypt by marrying Pharaoh’s daughter, and now Egypt was ready to stab him in the back. His compromise with Egypt had thus had limited benefits. It may well be that Siamun, the father of Solomon’s wife, had died, and that the Pharaoh who sheltered Hadad was his successor Psusennes II. It will, however, be noted that the Pharaoh had no belligerent intentions against Solomon, and in fact did not want Hadad to return to Edom. He was simply sheltering a royal refugee with whom he had established good relations. Shishak, the Pharaoh who would later take in Jeroboam, was from a new and more enterprising dynasty whose aim was to destabilise Israel. It is noticeable, however, that even he did not dare to threaten Israel while Solomon was still alive, only foment trouble for him with the hope of destabilising Israel, something which was later achieved for him satisfactorily by Rehoboam’s folly. He then walked in and said ‘thank you very much’. But Solomon, instead of taking warning, went heedlessly on.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The Lord Stirs Up Adversaries Against Solomon After Solomon turns his heart towards idolatry (1Ki 11:1-13), the Lord begins to raise up adversaries against the king. Solomon had reigned during a period of peace, when there was no need to fight wars and subdue nations. In the midst of this prosperity Solomon’s heart became lifted up with pride and he backslid. Therefore, it became necessary for the Lord to judge him in order to turn his heart back to Him. It is in such difficult times that we tend to seek the Lord with passion.

1. Hadad the Edomite 1Ki 11:14-25

2. Jerobam 1Ki 11:26-40

1Ki 11:14-25 The Lord Stirs up Hadad the Edomite as Solomon’s Adversary 1Ki 11:14-25 records the account of the Lord stirring up Hadad the Edomite as an adversary of King Solomon.

1Ki 11:26-40 The Lord Stirs up Jeroboam as Solomon’s Adversary 1Ki 11:26-40 records the account of the Lord stirring up Jeroboam as an adversary of King Solomon.

1Ki 11:41-43 Epilogue to Solomon’s Reign 1Ki 11:41-43 provides an epilogue to the greatest king that the Lord raised up over Israel.

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Solomon’s Adversaries and Death

v. 14. And the Lord stirred up an adversary unto Solomon, one of those who imperiled the peace of the kingdom and reminded Solomon of the fact that he owed the peace of his reign entirely to the grace of God, Hadad the Edomite; he was of the king’s seed in Edom, of royal descent.

v. 15. For it came to pass, when David was in Edom, 2Sa 8:14, and Joab, the captain of the host, was gone up to bury the slain, those that were killed when the Edomites invaded the country, after he had smitten every male in Edom, all those who bore arms, all this taking place during a period of six months,

v. 16. (for six months did Joab remain there with all Israel, until he had cut off every male in Edom,)

v. 17. that Hadad fled, he and certain Edomites of his father’s servants with him, to go in to Egypt, at a time when the predecessor of Solomon’s father-in-law reigned there, Hadad being yet a little child.

v. 18. And they arose out of Midian, on the west side of the Elanitic Gulf, in the southern part of Edom, and came to Paran, the desert between Sinai and the southern boundary of Canaan; and they took men with them out of Paran, and they came to Egypt, unto Pharaoh, king of Egypt, seeking refuge with him; which gave him an house and appointed him victuals, the necessary food for himself and his companions, and gave him land, showing true hospitality to his visitors.

v. 19. And Hadad found great favor in the sight of Pharaoh, so that he gave him to wife the sister of his own wife, the sister of Tahpenes, the queen, the chief of the king’s wives and the mistress of the harem.

v. 20. And the sister of Tahpenes bare him Genubath, his son, whom Tahpenes, probably at a special family feast, Gen 21:8, weaned in Pharaoh’s house; and Genubath was in Pharaoh’s household among the sons of Pharaoh, being educated with the princes of Egypt and ranking with them.

v. 21. And when Hadad heard in Egypt that David slept with his fathers, and that Joab, the captain of the host, was dead, his two most dangerous enemies thus being removed, Hadad said to Pharaoh, Let me depart that I may go to mine own country. He sought his dismissal, since the return to his own country now seemed safe.

v. 22. Then Pharaoh said unto him, But what hast thou lacked with me that, behold, thou seekest to go to thine own country? He was sure that no breach of hospitality had occurred. And he answered, Nothing, he had nothing to complain of on that score; howbeit, let me go in any wise, a request which Pharaoh undoubtedly did not refuse. So Hadad, as a kind of Bedouin chieftain, was able to stir up a good deal of trouble on the boundary.

v. 23. And God stirred him (Solomon) up another adversary, Rezon, the son of Eliadah, which fled from his lord Hadadezer, king of Zobah, at the time of David’s campaign in the north, 2Sa 8:3;

v. 24. and he gathered men unto him, and became captain over a band when David slew them of Zobah. And they went to Damascus, and dwelt therein, and reigned in Damascus, usurping the power in that part of Syria.

v. 25. And he was an adversary to Israel all the days of Solomon, beside the mischief that Hadad did; and he abhorred Israel, and reigned over Syria. As the power and fame of Solomon were declining, these men became bolder in their enmity and probably organized border raids, which were very unpleasant to the king.

v. 26. And Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, an Ephrathite of Zereda, in the mountains of Ephraim, Solomon’s servant, whose mother’s name was Zeruah, a widow woman, even he lifted up his hand against the king; it was an actual, open rebellion of a subject against the constituted authority.

v. 27. And this was the cause that he lifted up his hand against the king: Solomon built Millo, the citadel or fortress of Jerusalem, particularly of the upper city, and repaired the breaches of the city of David, his father, by walling up a ravine which might have afforded enemies access to the city.

v. 28. And the man Jeroboam was a mighty man of valor, an energetic, capable man; and Solomon seeing the young man that he was industrious, he did his work well, he accomplished what he set out to do, he made him ruler over all the charge of the house of Joseph, the overseer of the levy of men out of the tribe of Ephraim, It is probable that the use of men of Ephraim for this work nourished the spirit of rebellion which Jeroboam afterwards used for his benefit.

v. 29. And it, came to pass at that time when Jeroboam went out of Jerusalem, when he had entered upon his work as superintendent, that the prophet Ahijah the Shilonite found him in the way; and he, Ahijah, had clad himself with a new garment, a large square piece of cloth, thrown over the shoulders and almost covering the entire body in the daytime and used at night for a coverlet; and they two were alone in the field.

v. 30. And Ahijah caught the new garment that was on him, he took hold of it with a firm grasp, and rent it in twelve pieces.

v. 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 to thee, the northern tribes being known as the Ten Tribes or Israel, more in a symbolic than in a literal way of speaking,

v. 32. (but he shall have one tribe for My servant David’s sake, Benjamin and the cities of Simeon being counted with Judah, and for Jerusalem’s sake, the city which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel,)

v. 33. because that they have forsaken me, the people having taken their cue from the king and indulged in the idol worship which he permitted the members of his harem, and have worshiped Ashtoreth, the goddess of the Zidonians, Chemosh, the god of the Moabites, and Milcom, 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.

v. 34. Howbeit, I will not take the whole kingdom out of his hand, but I will make him prince, ruler, all the days of his life for David, my servant’s sake, whom I chose because he kept My commandments and My statutes;

v. 35. but I will take the kingdom out of his son’s hand, and will give it unto thee, even ten tribes.

v. 36. And unto his son will I give one tribe, that David, my servant, for whose sake all these merciful concessions were made, may have a light alway before Me in Jerusalem, for the upholding of his family, for the continuance of his race, the city which I have chosen Me to put My name there.

v. 37. And I will take thee, and thou shalt reign according to all that thy soul desireth, and shalt be king over Israel, the position which he was seeking even at that time.

v. 38. And it shall be, if thou wilt hearken unto all that I command thee, 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, and build thee a sure house, the dynasty founded by him would be well established, as I built for David, and will give Israel unto thee, giving him the dominion for which he was striving.

v. 39. And I will for this, on account of the defection practiced by Solomon, afflict the seed of David, but not forever. The descendants of David were to suffer humiliation, but only until such a time as the Lord considered best.

v. 40. Solomon sought therefore, having heard of this prediction, to kill Jeroboam, who probably proceeded to incite actual rebellion at once, 1Ki 11:26-27. And Jeroboam arose and fled into Egypt, unto Shishak, king of Egypt, a ruler hostile to the kingdom of Judah, and was in Egypt until the death of Solomon.

v. 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? This was a secular book containing a history of the reign of Solomon, similar to that referred to 2Ch 9:29, from which the inspired writers took no more material.

v. 42. And the time that Solomon reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel was forty years, his entire age therefore not exceeding sixty by many years.

v. 43. And Solomon slept with his fathers, having evidently turned back to the Lord in true repentance, and was buried in the city of David, his father. And Rehoboam, his son, whose mother was Naamah the Ammonitess, 1Ki 14:21-31, reigned in his stead. Like Solomon, many a brand was snatched from the burning by God’s grace and again made a partaker of all His blessings.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

EXPOSITION

SOLOMON‘S ADVERSARIES.As the historian has collected together in 1Ki 6:1-38; 1Ki 7:1-51; 1Ki 8:1-66, all the information he can convey respecting the temple, and in 1Ki 9:1-28; 1Ki 10:1-29. all the scattered notices respecting Solomon’s power and greatness, so here he arranges in one section the history of Solomon’s adversaries. It must not be supposed that the following records stand in due chronological order. The enmities here mentioned did not date from the delivery of the message of which we have just heard; on the contrary, the hatred and opposition of Hadad and Rezon began at an early period, though not the earliest (1Ki 5:4), of Solomon’s reign. It was only in his later life, however, that they materially affected his position and rule; hence it is that they are brought before us at this stage of the history, and also because they are manifestly regarded as chastisements for Solomon’s sin.

1Ki 11:14

And the Lord stirred up an adversary unto Solomon, Hadad [in 1Ki 11:17 written Adad, . 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 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,” , unless we take to be the mark of the accusative, which, however, there is no verb to govern. Keil interprets, “When David had to do with Edom.” Bhr 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 instead of before them “when David smote Edom.” The LXX; e.g; reads … 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 i.e; their dwelling. It is noticeable, however, that the LXX. reads , 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 Tihpractically 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. . “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. 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” ( for ) 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 () into Eden () to suit. But it is far better to understand (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 (Bhr), for an Ephrathite might surely be born out of Ephraim. It is, however, observable that Zereda has the definite article (similarly 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 there instead of and dna and 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) does not mean repair, except indirectly. It means he closed, shut. And

(2) 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 employedthough it was but in the modified service of Israeliteson 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 [ same word as 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 (Bhr). 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. . 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 idolatershis wiveswhose 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 [ a Chaldee form. But many MSS. read ], Chemosh the god of the Moabites, and Milcom [the LXX. has “their king the abomination,” etc; . 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. can only represent “all the kingdom, , (LXX.) See Gesen; Thesau. s.v. 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 (Bhr) ] 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). Bhr 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.

HOMILETICS

1Ki 11:31-35

The Punishment of Solomon’s Sin.

We have lately traced the gradual declension in piety of this most puissant prince; we have seen him steadily sowing to the wind. The next thing Scripture records concerning him is the retribution which befel him. It is now for us to see him reaping to the whirlwind.
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 severeconsidering the enormity of his sin and the greatness of the gifts and privileges he had abusedit 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 giventhe word implies that the gift was unmeritedto 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 painthe 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 hungerthat 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 kingsgone 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.

HOMILIES BY J.A. MACDONALD

1Ki 11:14-25

Premonitions of Wrath.

Though the full weight of the judgment of God upon the sin of Solomon was not to come upon him in his lifetime, yet did he not, in this world, go altogether without punishment. The foreknowledge of the evils to come upon his family and people was in itself a heavy affliction. But in addition to this, the evening of his days was doomed to be disturbed. To this end

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 ( ) a little boyof 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

Jeroboam.

The words before us are interesting as the earliest notice of a character who made a considerable figure in Hebrew history. They bring before us

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 collectivearose 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

The Message of Ahijah.

As Jeroboam went out of Jerusalem with his commission from Solomon to rule as his lieutenant over the house of Joseph, meditating how he might use his fortune to construct a throne, he was met by Ahijah the Shilonite, who accosted him in a manner agreeable to his ambition. In the message of Ahijah we have

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

Solomon’s End.

There is peculiar interest attaching to the earlier and later days of men who have made a figure in history. Here we have the brief record of the end of a character famed for wisdom above all mere men, upon which we have sadly to meditate that

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 adversary of Solomon, but not the father of Solomon’s wife, as some have supposed. If, as the narrative suggests, this design upon the life of Jeroboam was in consequence of his knowledge of the prophecy of Ahijah, it was an evidence of extreme wickedness, for it was fighting against God. It was the very sin of Saul against his father David. And in this purpose he seems to have persisted to his death; for Jeroboam remained in Egypt until that event. How fearful are the evils of apostasy! How admonitory!

II. BUT IS THERE NO SUNSHINE IN THE CLOUD? Some think they see it

1. In the promise of God to David.

(1) The promise referred to is recorded 2Sa 7:12-17. But was not Solomon, who was chastened with the rod of men by Hadad, Rezon, and Jeroboam, the subject of the mercy of God, in that his family was continued in the throne of Judah? In this he was distinguished from Saul, whose succession was cut off.

(2) Unless this answer can be shown to be insufficient, the Calvinistic argument based upon this text for the infallible final perseverance of the saints is simply a begging of the question.

2. In the Divine approval of the reign of Solomon.

(1) The passage relied upon in this statement is 2Ch 11:17. But when the commencement of the rule of Rehoboam in Judah, for three years, is commended as according to the example of David and Solomon, the allusion, as far as Solomon is concerned at least, was to the manner in which he commenced his reign.

(2) This is sufficient for the consistency of the text. To make it prove more would make it prove too much by committing God to the approval of what He has elsewhere explicitly condemned.

(3) Rehoboam, who as king of Judah, like his father Solomon, began his reign well, fell into the snare of Solomon in multiplying wives (see 2Ch 11:21).

3. In his authorship of the Ecclesiastes.

(1) The argument is that upon the message of God, by Ahijah, as is supposed (verses 9-13), Solomon repented, and afterwards wrote this book, in which he confesses the vanity of his past life.

(2) But the theory of his repentance upon that occasion ill consorts with the history of his seeking the life of Jeroboam, because he was destined to give effect to the burden of that message. True repentance will bear meet fruit (Mat 3:8).

(3) The Ecclesiastes was more probably written before than after the apostasy of Solomon. The allusions to his experiences as “king over Israel in Jerusalem” may have been prophetic anticipations, which may explain the past tense, “was king,” which is agreeable to the prophetic style. When all has been said that can be alleged to encourage hope in Solomon’s end, the doubt is grave enough to instruct us that we must not presume upon God’s mercy, and sin. Let us rather hope in His mercy, repent, and sin no more. Praise God for the Great Atonement!M.

HOMILIES BY J. URQUHART

1Ki 11:14-25

The Divine Chastisements.

I. CHASTISEMENT IS MERCY. Though the judgment was kept back, Solomon was meanwhile made to feel the rod of correction. We may be forgiven and yet chastisedyea, chastised because we are forgiven. “Whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth, and scourgeth,” etc. This, too, was mercy, for

1. It was fitted to lead him to seek God in truth. It is easier to feel and confess our folly and sin in adversity than when all is well with us,

2. It revealed to him the kind of harvest he had prepared for his child. He was now reaping the fruits of his father’s fierce vengeance (see 1Ki 11:15). The story recorded on the page of Scripture was then on Israel’s lips and in Solomon’s thoughts. When God visits for sin, the iniquity of the past is remembered. Sins are seeds that produce harvests of trouble for those who come after us; and Solomon’s reaping the fruit of his father’s deeds must have set before him the legacy of judgment he was bequeathing to his own son. And yet Solomon does not seem to have been benefited. Are we reading the lessons of our chastisements?

II. OUR ENEMIES ARE GOD‘S INSTRUMENTS.

1. When they assail us it is of Him. The Lord stirred them up. They had been adversaries before, but they had hitherto been powerless to harm Israel (see 1Ki 11:4). But now in Solomon’s fall the day of their opportunity came. Our foes are held as in a leash by God. Without His permission they can attempt nothing: when they are loosed it is of Him. They serve Him and in the truest sense serve us. In the midst of evil deeds and evil speech let us look past all to Him.

2. God’s restraining hand is still upon them. Though Hadad and Rezon attempted more, they were not permitted to succeed. So far as they may serve us they are allowed to go, but no further.U.

1Ki 11:26-43

The call to Jeroboam.

I. THE UNWEARIED EFFORTS OF GOD TO WIN MEN FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS. This is the beginning of the story of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin.

1. He is met by mercy. The widow’s son is made king of Israel.

2. By counsel and promise (1Ki 11:38). The seed is east upon the stony ground and among the thorns, as well as upon the good soil. Learn

1. That, like the great husbandman, we should sow the seed of the kingdom everywhere; though men may not hear, God is served and glorified in that offered mercy.

2. It is no proof that all is well with us, that we have been the recipients of God’s goodness, or that His Word has touched and searched our heart: is there any fruit?

II. THE SPIRIT REQUIRED IN ORDER TO REAP LASTING BENEFIT FROM OTHERS‘ DISASTERS.

1. Sympathy with them in their suffering. The judgment which is to fall upon Solomon and Israel is laid upon Jeroboam’s heart. He went out clothed with a new garment, he returned with a handful of fragments, the symbol of the new kingdom and the effect of God’s judgment. We cannot rightly enter into blessing springing from another’s loss if we pass in with a light heart.

2. Recognition of them as still objects of Divine mercy (1Ki 11:34, 1Ki 11:36). The house of David was not to be utterly cast out. The love that smiles on us is still round them.

3. Recognition that the gift we receive is from the hand of the same Master. Blessing and judgment hang for him upon the same issues (1Ki 11:33, 1Ki 11:38). Only in lowliness and brotherliness can we rightly receive the gifts God sends us.

III. THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF THWARTING THE DIVINE PURPOSE (1Ki 11:40).

1. Solomon’s attempt to remove the danger by slaying Jeroboam is defeated. His life is guarded till his work is done.

2. It only serves the Divine purpose. Jeroboam’s enmity is secured. He is sent down to Egypt and strengthened by alliance with a power unfriendly to Israel. Fighting against God, we only bind our cords the more firmly, we kick against the pricks. To humble ourselves under the mighty hand of God will bring us into the light of mercy: to contend with Him is destruction.U.

HOMILIES BY A. ROWLAND

1Ki 11:28

The Successful Man.

Among the “adversaries” of Solomon, Jeroboam was the most active. He raised sedition, or, in the words of Scripture, “lifted up his hand,” against the king. He was of humble birth, but belonged to the most powerful tribe – Ephraim. His rise is described here. The fortifications of Millo underneath the citadel of Zion were being erected. Amongst those employed Jeroboam was noticed by the king as strong, skilful, and industrious. Ever on the outlook for talent, and with wisdom to discern it, Solomon made him superintendent of the tribute required in money and service of the tribe of Ephraim; a place of trust and profit. Jeroboam is a good example of WORLDLY SUCCESS, the subject for our consideration.

I. THE ELEMENTS OF WORLDLY SUCCESS.

1. Natural ability. This belonged to the son of Nebat in large measure, as his subsequent history shows. Shrewdness, courage, self-reliance were his. These, and similar gifts, are unevenly distributed amongst men. Children at school are by no means equal in powers of attainment. In business, one man will make a fortune where another would not suspect a chance. Amongst the advantages of such inequality are these: that the higher and lower grades of work required by the world are alike done; and that room is given for the exercise of generosity, self-conquest, etc; in our social relations.

2. Personal diligence. With all Jeroboam’s faults he was not idle. He did thoroughly and well what came to hand. This is the secret of success, both in student and business life. It rectifies the balance sometimes between men of unequal ability. The tortoise wins the race against the hare. The student conquers the genius. Where it is added to ability, success in life is certain. “Seest thou a man diligent in his business? he shall stand before kings: he shall not stand before mean men” (Pro 22:29). “The hand of the diligent shall bear rule” (Pro 12:24). Examples: Abraham’s servant; Joseph in Egypt, etc. Show how this is true in the higher sphere of the Christian life. “To him that hath to him shall be given,” etc. He that is faithful with few things will become ruler over many.

3. Kindly interest. “Solomon saw the young man.” This added an element of uncertainty to his prospects. It seemed a chance, but was under the rule of God, as the history shows. Diligence and fidelity should be ours, whether or no we have the notice of the earthly master, for the unseen King is ever watching us. We are to work with singleness of heart, as unto the Lord; to serve others “not with eye service as men pleasers,” etc. Show the responsibility which rests on employers to develop, and encourage, and put to the best use the gifts of their employes. Promotion should follow merit.

II. THE POSSIBILITIES OF WORLDLY SUCCESS.

1. It is possible to defend others. Jeroboam was known in future times of danger as the man who “enclosed the city of David.” Higher possibilities than that belong to successful men. How they can guard those employed by them from disease, from moral contamination, from ignorance, etc. The responsibilities of landowners, manufacturers, etc.

2. It is possible to lighten the burdens of others. As ruler over the tribute, Jeroboam could alleviate or aggravate the burdens of the tribe. Point out what could be done by far-seeing, right-hearted statesmen to lessen the troubles of the poor, the miseries of subject races, the burdens of taxation, etc.

3. It is possible to become ready for loftier rule. He who was the overseer of one tribe became the king of Israel. The discharge of the duties of the former office made those of the latter less arduous. Apply this to the preparation of men for the nobler rule of heaven, by the exercise of powers for God in the earthly sphere.

III. THE PERILS OF WORLDLY SUCCESS.

1. Ingratitude. Jeroboam fostered ill feeling against Solomon in Ephraim till he was expelled the kingdom. Men often kick away the ladder by which they rose to fortune. Give examples. The wish to forget the past in which they wanted help, and to attribute to their own skill what came from the kindness of others, tempts to this. Even poor parents have been left uncared for by prosperous children.

2. Impatience. Jeroboam was to have the kingdom, as Ahijah told him, but he could not wait for Solomon’s death. His first exaltation and the words of the prophet aroused greed and ambition which would not be stayed. A man who has known nothing but success is more impatient than are others at a disappointment or difficulty. It is harder for him than for one trained in the school of adversity to say, “Not my will, but Thine be done.” His is seldom the “meek and quiet spirit” which is, in the sight of God, of great price.

3. Rebellion against God. He heard from Ahijah’s lips these words of God about Solomon”I will make him prince all the days of his life;” yet during his life Jeroboam tried to dethrone him. Compare this conduct with that of David towards Saul. The contrast is the more remarkable because of the provocation David received, and because the son of Jesse, unlike the son of Nebat, had been actually anointed king. He had no right to seize what God had promised to give. Jacob learnt this lesson in the house of Laban. In this disregard, or defiance, of God was the germ of Jeroboam’s ruin. His rule was (like Solomon’s) conditional on obedience to the Divine will (compare 1Ki 11:38 with 1Ki 9:4-6). Stability depends on God; the seen on the unseen. No cleverness, no diligence, no human help can bring lasting prosperity to a soul, or to a nation, which forsakes righteousness and forgets God.A.R.

HOMILIES BY E. DE PRESSENSE

1Ki 11:29-36; 1Ki 14:21 -81; 1Ki 16:1, 1Ki 16:2, 1Ki 16:25, 1Ki 16:26

The judgments of God on Judah and Israel from the death of Solomon to the time of Ahab.

The separation of the people of God into two kingdoms was a punishment for the idolatry of Solomon; but from this punishment God brought forth good, for it was well that the pride of the Jews should not be fostered by unmixed prosperity. It would have formed a far stronger barrier to the gospel in after times if it had not been thus early broken.

After the separation of the two kingdoms, idolatry more or less gross prevailed in both, with brief intervals of return to the worship of the true God. This fearful moral declension is traceable to a great extent to the fall of Solomon. Sin is thus always the parent of after evil. He who rebels against God leaves behind him the influence of his example, and gives fresh force to the current of evil. God made both kingdoms feel, during this period, repeated strokes of His chastising hand. Their history is a history of tears and blood. Every fresh sin, the bitter outgrowth of former transgressions, becomes a source of new calamities. The hard Asiatic tyranny of Rehoboam leads to the rending of the kingdom. The erection of a half-pagan sanctuary entails upon Jeroboam and his race the catastrophes which issue in their ruin.

The history of the Jews during this period, therefore, presents the aspect of one long judgment of God, in which sin brings forth death and thus becomes its own punishment (Jas 1:15). This is true also in the history of individuals; and we have in this fact one of the strongest evidences that we are under the government of a holy God. Let us never forget that His holiness is at the same time love, and that through all the dark and sorrowful vicissitudes of our life He is carrying out His plan of mercy. In spite of all its falls, its wanderings, and its woes, Israel did fulfil its preparatory mission. If in the end the theocracy tottered to its fall, this failure also entered into the conditions of the Divine plan. Israel was never treated by God, however, as a mere passive instrument. God gave it repeated warnings, as, for example, by the mouth of the unknown prophet who was sent to Jeroboam to declare to him the judgments of God (1Ki 13:1-34.)E. de P.

Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary

1Ki 11:14. Hadad the Edomite Hadad was a young prince of the royal family of Idumea, who fled into Egypt when David conquered that country: for David, having obtained a signal victory under the conduct of Abishai, who, at that time commanded in chief, sent Joab afterwards with an order to kill all the males who should be found in the land. But Hadad had escaped into Egypt, where, finding favour with the king, he married his wife’s sister, and there settled.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Solomons Adversaries and Death

B. 1Ki 11:14-43

14And the Lord [Jehovah] stirred up an adversary unto Solomon, Hadad6 the Edomite: he was of the kings seed in Edom. 15For it came to pass, when David was7 in [with, i. e., at war with] Edam, and Joab the captain of the host was gone up to bury the slain, after he had smitten every male in Edom; 16(for six months did Joab remain there with all Israel [i. e., the host], until he had cut off every male in Edom:) 17that Hadad fled, he and certain8 Edomites of his fathers servants with him, to go into Egypt: Hadad being yet a little child. 18And they arose out of Midian, and came to Paran: and they took men with them out of Paran, and they came to Egypt, unto Pharaoh king of Egypt; which gave him a house, and appointed him victuals, and gave him land. 19And Hadad found great favor in the sight of Pharaoh, so that he gave him to wife the sister of his own wife, the sister of Tahpenes the queen. 20And the sister of Tahpenes bare him Genubath his son, whom Tahpenes weaned in Pharaohs house: and Genubath was in Pharaohs household among the sons of Pharaoh. 21And when Hadad heard in Egypt that David slept with his fathers, and that Joab the captain of the host was dead, Hadad said to Pharaoh, Let me depart, that I may go to mine own country. 22Then Pharaoh said unto him, But what hast thou lacked with me, that, behold, thou seekest to go to thine own country? And he answered, Nothing: howbeit, let me go in any wise.

23And God stirred him up another adversary, Rezon the son of Eliadah, which fled from his lord Hadadezer king of Zobah: 24and he gathered men unto him, and became captain over a band, when David slew them of Zobah: and they went to Damascus, and dwelt therein, and reigned in Damascus. 25And he was an adversary to Israel all the days of Solomon,9 beside the mischief that Hadad did: and he abhorred Israel, and reigned over Syria.

26And Jeroboam the son of Nebat, an Ephrathite of Zereda, Solomons servant, whose mothers name was Zeruah, a widow woman, even he lifted up his hand 27against the king. And this was the cause that he lifted up his hand against the king: Solomon built Millo, and repaired the breaches of the city of David his father. 28And the man Jeroboam was a mighty man of valor: and Solomon seeing the young man that he was industrious, he made him ruler over all the charge of the house of Joseph. 29And it came to pass at that time when Jeroboam went out of Jerusalem, that the prophet Ahijah the Shilonite found him in the way; and he had clad himself with a new garment; and they two were alone in the field10: 30and Ahijah caught the new garment that was on him, and rent it in twelve pieces: 31and he said to Jeroboam, Take thee ten pieces: for thus saith the Lord [Jehovah], the God of Israel, Behold, I will rend the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and will give ten tribes to thee: 32(but he shall have one11 tribe for my servant Davids sake, and for Jerusalems sake, the city which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel:) 33because that they have forsaken me, and have worshipped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians,12 Chemosh the god of the Moabites, and Milcom13 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 34and my judgments, as did David his father. Howbeit, I will not take the whole kingdom out of his hand: but I will make him prince all the days of his life for David my servants sake, whom I chose, because he kept my commandments and my statutes: 35but I will take the kingdom out of his sons hand, and will give it unto thee, even ten tribes. 36And unto his son will I give one tribe, that David my servant may have a light alway before me in Jerusalem, the city which I have chosen me to put my name there. 37And I will take thee, and thou shalt reign according to all that thy soul desireth, and shalt be king over Israel. 38And it shall be, if thou wilt hearken unto all that I command thee, 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, and build 39thee a sure house, as I built for David,14 and will give Israel unto thee. And I will for this afflict the seed of David, but not fore1 Kings 1Ki 11:40 Solomon sought therefore15 to kill Jeroboam. And Jeroboam arose, and fled into Egypt, unto Shi-shak king of Egypt, and was in Egypt until the death of Solomon. 41And 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? 42And the time that Solomon reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel was forty years. 43And Solomon slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David his father: and Rehoboam his son reigned in his stead.

Exegetical and Critical

1Ki 11:14. And the Lord stirred up an adversary unto Solomon, &c. It is clear and beyond dispute that the whole section, from 1Ki 11:14-40, which treats of the different adversaries that God raised up against Solomon, is intimately connected with the immediately preceding account of his fall, and of the impending and threatened division of the kingdom. The latter was not to occur till after Solomons death; but the presages of it were already appearing. The peace of the kingdom hitherto undisturbed was endangered from that time on, both by internal and by external adversaries. The two external ones, Hadad and Rezon, had, indeed, always been foes to Israel and Solomon, but they had never ventured to show their animosity in open deed, inasmuch as the kingdom had become powerful and respected under Solomon. But Solomon, in permitting the idolatrous worship, gave great dissatisfaction to all the faithful servants of Jehovah, and with his own hands he shook the foundations of the kingdom. Other measures also, more or less connected with the former, caused him to lose, more and more, the esteem and confidence of his subjects; and then the long pent-up hatred of his old foes began to show itself more; their courage grew, and though they did not proceed to formal attack or to open rebellion (of which our narrative says nothing) Solomon had occasion to fear them more than ever before; the tranquillity and peace of his kingdom was endangered, and the time of prosperity past. Every one will admit that this is what the author meant to convey. But recent criticism reckons him a later worker-up of Deuteronomy, and accuses him of a shifting of the historical facts. According to Ewald (Gesch. Isr. III. s. 274281), uproar and rebellion did not first break out towards the end of Solomons reign, but immediately after the death of David and of his formidable army-chief, Joab, in the beginning of the reign of the young and inexperienced king, both in the south (Edom) and in the north (Syria), as depicted by Solomon himself in the second Psalm With the divine courage and the admonition supported by prophetic assurance, which this Psalm expresses, together with wonderful firmness of spirit, Solomon met the storm of rebellion, and deprived his foes of their chief weapon of attack by his alliance with Egypt. Against the northern insurgents he himself marched, and stormed Hamath. Thus were the ragings of the people stilled, and in a brief space he became master of the situation. This view has been reiterated in several books (cf. for instance Eisenlohr, das Volk Isr. II. s. 47 and 57; Duncker, Gesch. des Alt. I. s. 387), and has been accepted as a matter of course; although there are the strongest reasons for rejecting it. (a) Our historical book says repeatedly how, and that the kingdom of Solomon became established (1Ki 2:12; 1Ki 2:46), without making the remotest allusion to rebellion having broken out in the lands David had conquered, and being put down by Solomon; yet this would especially have tended to establish his throne and increase the esteem in which he was held. Even in the chapter we are considering, no mention is made of actual rebellion, but only of adversaries; therefore to say there were certainly such, is not writing history, but making history. (b) The rebellion of whole nations which, like Edom, lived far off, could have been put down only by force of arms, and not by reproof or strength of mind; but the history says nothing of Solomons marching into Edom. He went indeed to Hamath, but not to conquer it, only to fortify it ( cf. 2Ch 11:11-12; 2Ch 26:9), as the short notice stands in 2Ch 8:3, in the middle of the details of the different city-buildings. In fact we do not hear of a single warlike enterprise of Solomons; he was, as his name denotes, the king of peace, the man of rest, in distinction from David, the man of war (1Ch 22:9); and his reign was distinguished by works of peace (building, commerce, intellectual culture), above that of all other kings. (c) The 2d Psalm does not contain a history, and our narrative cannot be completed, much less contradicted or corrected by it. It is a mere unproven hypothesis that this psalm was composed by Solomon, and that the rebellion alluded to in it took place during his reign, not in the last years of it, but in the first. What is here said of Hadad and Rezon certainly occurred at an earlier period, but is repeated, because its influence only began to be felt in the latter part of Solomons reign, and should have guarded him from over-security from the beginning (Keil).

1Ki 11:14-22. Hadad, the Edomite. He is called Ahad [the English version does not distinguish] in 1Ki 11:17. A Hadad is mentioned among the Edomite kings as early as Gen 36:35; who evidently belonged to an earlier period. It is quite uncertain whether our Hadad was the grandson of the last king of Edom, whom 1Ch 1:50 wrongly calls Hadad instead of Hadar (Gen 36:39) (Ewald, Thenius). Details of his former fortunes are no doubt designed to show how firmly he clung to his native land, and therefore how much more he was to be dreaded. For Davids war with the Edomites cf.Sam. 1Ki 8:13 sq. The slain, whom Joab came out to bury, cannot be the Israelites who fell in the battle of the valley of salt, but those killed on the invasion of the country by the Edomites, and who lay yet unburied. After performing this act Joab defeated the Edomites in the valley of salt, and dwelt six months in Edom, till he had extirpated all the males (i. e., all those capable of bearing arms that fell into his hands, and especially those of royal blood) (Keil). Midian, 1Ki 11:18, cannot certainly be the town Madian mentioned by Arabian geographers, but a district; it is not very well defined, but it must have been between Edom and the desert, south-west of Palestine, Paran (Num 13:3; Num 13:27; Num 10:12); the road from Egypt still leads across the latter, through Aila to Mecca. The people whom the followers of Hadad took from Paran with them, were to lead the way across the desert. The Pharaoh who entertained the fugitives with such friendliness, and not only supported Hadad himself, but gave land to those with him, could scarcely be Solomons father-in-law, but his predecessor. His consort is here named , the Queen-mothers usual appellation (1Ki 15:13; 2Ch 15:16); but it does not always necessarily mean that; and consequently we are not obliged to accept Hitzigs and Thenius reading of , i. e., the elder. The weaning of a child (1Ki 11:20) usually took place the second or third year (2Ma 7:27), and was observed as a family feast (Gen 21:8). Genubath was thus adopted among the royal children, and brought up with them (Winer, R.-W.-B., I. s. 657). Hadads petition (1Ki 11:21) was not so much because he had now no longer any fear for his life, but because he, as a royal prince, hoped to ascend the throne, and free his land from the Israelitish yoke; this was the only reason why he is named an adversary. Pharaohs question, 1Ki 11:22, contains the counsel to remain where he was, where he was well off, rather than undertake a dangerous and uncertain enterprise. This advice of his near relative was well meant, and did not spring from the policy of seeking to acquire or keep Solomons friendship. Hadad, however, remained firm in his resolve; we are not told of his actual departure, but it is to be understood; so that the Sept. addition, , considered as original by Thenius, is unnecessary. It appears from 1Ki 9:26 sq.;1Ki 10:11, that Hadad was not able to carry out his plans at once, but, the fire smouldered under the ashes, and threatened to break out as soon as Solomon began to be less respected. Ewald continues Hadads history further. He says the Egyptian king received him in so friendly a manner, evidently intending to make use of him in the future against the growing power of Israel. Genubath must have acted an important part in Asia, later, or he would otherwise not have been named at all. When the feeling of the Egyptian court changed towards Israels kings, an evasive answer was returned to the Iduman prince; he would not be detained, however, but fled secretly to his ancestral mountains, was there acknowledged by many of his people as king, and caused Solomon much perplexity, though he was never completely victorious. Every one who can read may see that there is not a single word of all this in the text, and yet Eisenlohr has blindly followed the writer l. c., s. 58). Cf. also on 1Ki 22:48.

1Ki 11:23-25. And God stirred him up. Rezon the son of Eliadah, &c. 1Ki 11:23. 2Sa 8:3 sq. mentions that David smote Hadadezer, king of Zobah, in Syria, whereupon Rezon forsook his master, gathered together an army from the remains of the Syrian host, and proceeded later to Damascus, settled there, and usurped the chief power. This may have occurred in Davids time, or in the beginning of Solomons reign. It is nowhere said that he rebelled on Solomons accession, and was conquered by him, and there is nothing to show that he was at least twenty or thirty years older than Solomon (Ewald). It is not impossible that he survived Solomon, for had he died sooner it could not be, as in 1Ki 11:25, that he was an adversary to Israel all the days of Solomon. He did not undertake any enterprise against the powerful king, but is he had always entertained hostile feelings to him, he now became a more dangerous and open enemy, as the power and fame of Solomon were declining. The words are difficult, but can be translated only as many old translators give them, and among the recent ones, De Wette, Gesenius, Keil, Philippson; and beside the mischief that Hadad (did). is as in 1Ki 11:1 and Exo 1:14. We are not told what the mischief that Hadad did really was; the writer only means that Rezons enmity was added to that of Hadad. This view, which suits the context, relieves the following sentence of all difficulty: and he (Rezon) abhorred Israel, and reigned over Syria. Whilst Hadad agitated the south, Rezon rebelled from Solomon in the north, and took the supreme power. The Sept. translates as if it read instead of and instead of : . . . . , i. e., this is the mischief which Hadad did; he abhorred Israel and was king in Edom. Thenius asserts that this was the original text. But in this case the whole sentence could not be here, where the question is about the second adversary, Rezon, but should have followed 1Ki 11:22. It is incomparably less probable that it was there passed over by the oversight of a copyist (Thenius), and inserted here, than that the Sept. misunderstood the , &c., and translated wrongly as it so often does, and was then obliged to change to because it did not suit Hadad. The Sept. has arbitrarily mixed the two accounts of the adversaries together (it puts 1Ki 11:23-24 into 1Ki 11:14), so that we should be very foolish to follow it in this case. Ewald translates, as for the mischief which Hadad did, he was hostile to Israel and reigned over Edom; but then the sentence should be back of 1Ki 11:22 and not here. It is not right to change into , because the two foregoing verses absolutely require that Rezon should be considered as subject to . Cf. Keil on the place.

1Ki 11:26-27. Jeroboam the son of Nebat. Hadad and Rezon were dangerous adversaries to Solomon, but Jeroboam, though a subject and servant of Solomon, lifted up his hand against the king, i. e., he actually rebelled. His personal circumstances are given more at length because of his vastly greater importance. Zereda is not Zarthan, as Keil thinks (1Ki 7:46); the latter is not in Ephraim; but Zereda is Zerira in the mountains of Ephraim (cf. Thenius on 1Ki 12:2). The second half of 1Ki 11:27 says, like 1Ki 9:15 : to build Millo and the walls of Jerusalem; there is, therefore, no question here of stopping a gap in the city of David (Luther), but of the closing up of a ravine (Vulgate, vorago) in the city, which was done by walls. By is meant the once very deep ravine of what was subsequently the Tyropon, which separated Zion from Moriah and Ophel. This ravine became part of the interior of the city through these walls, and was made inaccessible to enemies (Thenius). The words, he made him ruler over all the charge of the house of Joseph, are not in contradiction with 1Ki 9:22; for slave-levy is not spoken of here (), but that of the Israelites ( ) 1Ki 5:13, who worked alternately. It is not, therefore, necessary to suppose that the house of Joseph, i. e., the Ephraimites (Jos 17:17) were obliged to work at Millo, as a punishment for their rebellion under Sheba (2 Samuel 20). But the Ephraimites, who had an old and irrepressible jealousy of Judah, submitted very reluctantly to labor in the kings citadel and the royal city of Judah; their compulsory work increased their dislike to hatred, so that it was easy to fan the flame of insurrection among them.

1Ki 11:29. And it came to pass at that time,i. e., not at the time Jeroboam made the insurrection, buttaken with 1Ki 11:28the time when he entered upon the office of superintendent over all the Ephraimite levy; therefore, before he lifted his hand against the king, and proceeded to acts, but still he was brooding over insurrection. The notion that 1Ki 11:29-39 is a section taken from another source and inserted here (Thenius) is, to say the least, unnecessary; it contains an explanatory and needful account, which is closely connected with 1Ki 11:28. Jeroboams banishment from Jerusalem was probably the occasion for preparations of rebellion. The prophet Ahijah was of the same tribe as Jeroboam, for Shiloh was in the tribe of Ephraim, north of Bethel, south of Lebonah (Jdg 21:19), and was the seat of the tabernacle from Joshua to Eli (Jos 18:1; 1Sa 21:3). They no doubt knew each other well. The Sept. adds to the words in the way (for explanation): .

1Ki 11:30-39. Ahijah caught the new garment. (for ) is probably similar to the Arabian burnou; a large square piece of cloth, thrown over the shoulders and almost covering the whole person in the daytime, and used at night for a coverlet (Keil). Hess wrongly imagines it to have been a new mantle which Jeroboam had on; and Ewald thinks it was his new and splendid official uniform. It was the prophets own cloak, as 1Ki 11:30 plainly says. The prophet himself explains the meaning of this symbolic act. Le Clerc says that the repetition of the word new shows that the prophet did what he did, non temere. Thenius thinks the new garment denoted the young and powerful kingdom; but both these explanations are strained. A new garment is one that is whole and complete, integer, without a rent or hole; the kingdom was hitherto without split or division, but was now to be torn and divided. is usually applied to tearing the garments in sign of mourning (Gen 37:29; Gen 44:13; 2Sa 13:21; 2Ki 18:37), i. e., of inward rending. Now when the prophet tore the cloak into twelve pieces, and gave Jeroboam only ten pieces instead of eleven, we must of course infer that neither Benjamin nor Judah alone was meant here, or in 1Ki 11:13, by one tribe, but both together (cf. 1Ki 12:20-21; 2 Chron. 11:3; 12:23). Little Benjamin, over against Judah, came scarcely into consideration; and as, besides, the capital of the kingdom (Jerusalem) lay on the borders of both tribes, they might very well be reckoned as one. If, as Keil says, the number ten represents the total sum here, in distinction to the one part (all Israel fell away from the house of David, only a single portion remained to it), the prophet would have torn off only one small piece. For 1Ki 11:32 see above on 1Ki 11:12-13; and for 1Ki 11:33 see on 1Ki 11:5-8. The plural in 1Ki 11:33 is remarkable (all translations, except the Chaldee, have the singular, which we expect here); perhaps it only means our vague word one; it is plain, however, that Israelites had already abandoned themselves to the licensed heathen worship. In the words in 1Ki 11:36, that David may have a light always before me, light is not a symbol of prosperity (Keil), and certainly does not mean breaking forth afresh (Hitzig), but it means simply the continuance of his race, as in 1Ki 15:4; 2Ki 8:19; 2Ch 21:7. As a house (dwelling) is dark (uninhabitable) without a light, so also is a house (family, race) without posterity; this is why we speak of the dying out of a race, at the present day, as its extinction. The same expression, 1Ki 11:37 : and thou shalt reign according to all, &c., is used in 2Sa 3:21, about David; it does not mean pro lubitu tuo imperabis Israelitis (Dathe), but, thou shalt have the dominion thou now strivest for, &c., &c. 1Ki 11:38. Jeroboams dominion then was connected with the condition upon which all dominion in Israel was based.

1Ki 11:40-42. Solomon sought therefore to kill Jeroboam. The immediate connection of these words with Ahijahs address can scarcely mean otherwise than this: that Solomon heard of it, and sought to get Jeroboam out of the way by some means. Jeroboam could but know of this, and he lifted up his hand against the king, i. e., he proceeded to actual rebellion (1Ki 11:26-27). But not succeeding, he fled to Egypt. The king then reigning was not, of course, Solomons father-in-law, nor Sesostris, as older commentators think, but was probably Seconchis or Sesonchusis, the first king of the twenty-second dynasty (cf. Winer, R.-W.-B. s. v. Sishak). The reception he gave Jeroboam shows his feeling towards Solomon. 1Ki 14:21 sq. speaks of his open hostility to the kingdom of Judah.

1Ki 11:43. Solomon slept with his fathers, at about sixty years of age, as he very early succeeded to the throne (1Ki 3:7). Josephus thinks he was eighty or even ninety-four years old, but this is quite wrong, and was caused, probably, by confusion of the ciphers. All copies and translations give forty. Our author gives, in a general way, the book of the acts of Solomon, as the original source of his history; but 2Ch 9:29 names, with more exactness, the book () of Nathan the prophet, the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and the visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam. But it does not follow that these three writings are only extracts from one historical one (Bertheau), but it certainly does appear that each one wrote down his own experience. When Solomon fell away, and Ahijah appeared, Nathan must have been dead. Cf. the Introduction, 2. Rehoboam was not a son of the first and real consort of Solomon, the Egyptian princess (1Ki 3:1; 1Ki 9:24; 1Ki 7:8), but the son of the Naamah the Ammonitess (1Ki 14:21; 1Ki 14:31). He appears to have been the only living son, as no children, especially sons, of Solomon are named (though he had so many wives), except the two daughters mentioned, 1Ki 4:11; 1Ki 4:15; and no brothers disputed the succession of Rehoboam, which was the case with Solomon. For his age at his accession see on 1Ki 14:21.

Historical and Ethical

1. The appearance of the various adversaries of Solomon seems to have been a special act of divine retributive justice; God is named as the direct agent. He is said not only to have permitted them, but to have stirred them up, called them to it. The word means, as here, the stirring up of enemies and rebels, also of deliverers, helpers, prophets (Jdg 2:18; Deu 18:15; Deu 18:18; 1Sa 2:35; Eze 34:23; Jer 29:15), where there is no allusion to mere permission. It is not indeed the absolutely Holy One who excites hatred, enmity, and revenge in one man towards another, for he tempts no man to evil (Jam 1:13); but the Almighty Ruler of the world can use the hatred that He sees in the hearts of sinful men, to fulfil, without their knowledge or wish, the purposes of His retributive justice and the chastisements of His love; and in so far, the stirring up is no passive permission, but the act of God. Thus Nathan announces to David, after his grievous sin, this word of the Lord, behold I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house (2Sa 12:11), and David himself says of Shimei who was cursing him, so let him curse, because the Lord hath said unto him (2Sa 16:10-11). The Assyrian is, without knowing it, the rod of His anger in the hand of Jehovah (Isa 10:1; Isa 10:5), and Solomons adversaries also served for instruments of divine justice. This expression of stirring up shows clearly that the appearance of the adversaries did not take place, as recent commentators say, in the beginning of Solomons reign, for up to that time Solomon had given no occasion for any act of retribution or discipline. Though he did not lose his throne through them, during his life-time; yet it was very humiliating to him, whose power and splendor had been a spectacle to the world, and whose wisdom people of all nations had come to hear (1Ki 4:14; 1Ki 10:24), to be obliged to fear these men, who were far inferior to him, and whom he had once despised.

2. While Hadad and Rezon did not affect materially the destiny of Israel, the third opponent of Solomon was of vastly greater significance. Jeroboam does not disappear, like them, without leaving a trace in the history of the kingdom. His entrance on the scene was felt profoundly for centuries; the breach and partition of the kingdom take place with and through him; a partition which was no temporary one, but lasted about three hundred years, and ended with the dissolution of the kingdom. In this respect he is one of the most important of the characters in the history of Israel. Witsius, in reference to his whole career says (Decaphylon, p. 307): vir sagax, inquietus et dominandi avidus atque ab ineunte tate iis eruditus artibus, quibus ingenia ad magn fortun cultum incitantur. Here where he is first mentioned the question properly arises, how it came to pass that he lifted up his hand against the King. The text certainly says nothing explicit about it, but gives some distinct clues. It says, first of all, he was an Ephraimite, thus being a member of the largest, most powerful, and warlike tribe, that had always vied with Judah for pre-eminence; and that, even when David had subdued them, never renounced their deeply rooted jealousy and love of independence and dominion over the other tribes (2Sa 2:9; 2Sa 20:21). After the division of the kingdom, Ephraim stood at the head of the ten tribes, so that the kingdom of the ten was called Ephraim (Hos 4:17; Hos 5:9; Hos 12:1 sq.; Isa 7:2). Dislike of the supremacy of Judah was in the very blood of so young and powerful a man as Jeroboam, and it needed not much to excite thoughts of rebellion and independence in him. The fact that Solomon employed the Ephraimites not so much in the matter of levy-works as in building Millo, and in stopping up the ravine which served to fortify the city of David and to secure the supremacy of Judah, was calculated to increase the ancient jealousy and dislike to Judah, and to excite discontent and disgust. Recognizing the distinguished ability of young Jeroboam, Solomon made him overseer of his own people; thus feeding the ambition of this man who was born to rule. He now first became conscious of his powers, and soon acquired the confidence of his already discontented tribe by his prudence and energy, so that he could hope to succeed in placing himself at their head, and lifting his hand against the Judah-King. Perhaps he also perceived that the splendor of Solomon had lost its ground through the influence of his wives, the open introduction of idol-worship side by side with that of Jehovah, and the luxurious court life, and that his rule gave great dissatisfaction to the most worthy of the people. When we consider all this we readily conceive that a man like the Ephraimite, Jeroboam, should, without being especially influenced by any one, think of breaking loose from Solomons rule. The later critics have therefore no grounds for asserting that the prophet Ahijah, who appeared at the head of a (discontented) faction, induced Jeroboam to rebel against the king (Winer, R.-W.-B. I. s. 544). Thenius is quite right when he says, Ahijah did not incite Jeroboam, but he knew the thoughts he cherished, and when Ahijah addressed him he was about taking steps to realize these thoughts, as 1Ki 11:37 says: the prophet then appeared, for he saw that the deed would infallibly follow the resolve in this case, and recognized in Jeroboam a capable man, knowing also the promise of success under condition of continuance in a God-fearing mind. This relation is quite in the spirit of prophecy, and is totally different from an intentional and forcible introduction. The text says distinctly that Ahijah met Jeroboam when the latter went out of Jerusalem (1Ki 11:29) to lift up his hand against the king.

3. The prophet Ahijah stands in a relation to Solomon and Jeroboam analogous with that of Samuel to Saul and David (1Sa 15:16). As Sauls sentence of rejection was accompanied by the calling of David, so the prophetical announcement to Solomon was accompanied by the prophecy to Jeroboam (v. Gerlach). Ahijah opened to him the same divine decision which he had first made known to Solomon (cf. 1Ki 11:11-13). In doing so he emphasizes two things particularly, and these are worthy of notice; the first is, that Solomon was to remain king of all Israel to the end of his life, and the division of the kingdom was to take place under his son (1Ki 11:31 sq.); the second, that Jeroboam only received dominion over the ten tribes, on the presupposition and condition that he would walk in all the commandments of Jehovah, as David did, and not sin like Solomon (1Ki 11:37 sq.). It is added also that Davids seed was to be humbled, but not forever (1Ki 11:39). We should not overlook the circumstance that the prophet met Jeroboam on the way as he came out of Jerusalem, and was proceeding to carry put his intentions, and that the prophet took him aside (as the Sept. at least has it) so that they two were alone in the field (1Ki 11:29). Ahijahs communication was, therefore, not intended for the public, but was confidential, thus intimating to Jeroboam that he ought not to proceed to rebellion at once, but keep quiet, and wait till it might please the Lord to bring about circumstances to fulfil the purpose He had announced. The prophet, so far from counselling him to rebellion, warned him rather, and recommended patience as long as Solomon lived. But when Jeroboam, nevertheless, lifted up his hand against the king, he committed an inexcusable, sinful deed on his own responsibility, and anticipated divine providence. His conduct was just the opposite of Davids, who, though anointed to be king, and persecuted by Saul, endured every wrong, never revenged himself on the king, though the latter was often in his power, even mourned his death, and had the Amalekite who killed him executed as a traitor (2Sa 1:11-16). He believed that the Lord knew the right hour to fulfil his promise. It cannot, therefore, be accounted a crime in Solomon to strive to kill a man whom he had raised from nothing, and who then rebelled against him. From all this it appears that it is quite erroneous to account for Jeroboams appearance by saying that the ancient prophetical estate wished, by the forcible introduction of a new royal house, to stand directly under the Lord and above the human monarchy; so that the kingdom of the ten tribes was the birth of this prophet-power, and the latter a retarded error (Ewald). And it is equally untrue that the rebellion of the ten tribes was an enterprise which the prophet had encouraged, to bring back the old national constitution, and restore the consideration in which his class was held in Samuels time, when he, their founder and representative, deposed a king who disobeyed him, and raised up another in his place (Menzel, l. c. s. 152). When will men cease to compare the old prophets with modern demagogues and ambitious priests!

4. The symbolic procedure of the rending the garment into twelve pieces preceded the prophecy delivered by the prophet. It could not, therefore, have been intended to make that prophecy clear, but rather inversely, the prophecy explained the transaction. This was the case not only here, but the prophets generally performed a preliminary symbolic action which represented the substance of the meaning of the solemn prophecy which followed; and they performed this act on the impulse of the divine spirit, just as they proclaimed the word following in their divine commission. Cf. Isa 20:2 sq.; Jer 13:1 sq.; Jer 29:1 sq.; Jer 35:2 sq.; Jer 43:9 sq.; Eze 4:1 sq.; Eze 5:1 sq.; Eze 12:3 sq.; Eze 24:2 sq.; Eze 37:15 sq.; Eze 13:15 sq. From these passages we see that the performance of such actions was as much a part of the prophetic calling and office as the proclamation of the word. All revelation of God is in the way of act as well as of word: Gods deeds as well as His words are signs that testify of Him. His acts are also, as it were, speech, i. e., a revealing of Himself. The speaking of God is a sign-language, and therefore a symbol-language. The entire cultus has, hence, symbolic form as the real expression of the divine-human relation. When the prophets, therefore, appeared as such, i. e., as men of God, as mediators and instruments of divine revelation, they did not communicate it in words only, but in solemn acts, which were signs; and thus they proved themselves the servants of God, speaking in His language. Their prophetic acts, as well as their prophetic words, were announcements and revelations of the divine purpose. When they anticipate their words by an act commanded by God, this act is not to be viewed as a mere image, according to their own pleasure, but it represents the future which they had to reveal as a fact, as it were, a present deed of God, and therefore as something which would assuredly happen. The action, then, was an assurance and pledge of the fulfilment of the prophecy; and it was entirely natural that it should precede the word explaining and interpreting it. Besides, every thought which is embodied in a deed produces a much greater and more lasting impression than if only expressed in words. Of Christ, in whom all that is prophetic culminates, the disciple says (Luk 24:19): which was a prophet mighty in deed and word, thus proving that not words only, but actions also belong to the essence of the calling of the prophet. The people concluded from his deeds that a great prophet is risen up among us (Luk 7:16). His prophetic deeds were signs (Joh 6:26; Joh 20:20), not mere evidences of power, but of divine authority; and they spoke of divine things as loudly and, if possible, more loudly than His words. He himself says, Though ye believe not me, believe the works (Joh 10:38); the works that I do in my Fathers name they bear witness of me (Joh 10:25).

5. The rending of the ten tribes appears, in the prophets prediction here as in 1Ki 11:11-13, to be a punishment ordained and determined by Jehovah for Solomons falling away, not, therefore, as an event merely permitted by God but designed; and therefore announced beforehand. The question arises, in what relation did this partition, determined on by Jehovah, stand to His plans regarding Israel considered as one people composed of twelve tribes? The whole nation was His inheritance, for He had called them from among all nations to be a divine kingdom (Exo 19:5-6), i. e., a theocracy. The one God, Jehovah, was, as the true King and Lord of that people, so also the root and principle of their unitythe bond binding together all the tribes into one whole. The human monarchy afterwards established by the desire of the people did not destroy the theocracy but served rather to sustain and preserve it (see above). But it was not now absolutely necessary that all the tribes should have one head; in fact they might each have had a head, had they only acknowledged Jehovah as the one true king of all Israel, and held fast to the covenant, i. e., the law of God. It was not contrary to the Mosaic constitution for Jehovah to weakennot destroya royal house that had turned to idolatry; to rend away some tribes from it, and to place them under the government of another king. It was rather the fittest thing to be done; for otherwise the principles that lay in the very nature of the constitutionnamely, that disaster should follow idolatry, and prosperity the fear of God, would have been violated. One of these two things must (according to these principles) have come upon Davids house after a lapse into idolatry, viz. either expulsion from the throne (which could not be on account of the promise of perpetual succession), or weakening such as was foretold by Jehovah,. a falling away of some tribes (Hess, Von dem Reiche Gottes, I. s. 301). As Jehovah had heretofore governed his people by one king (David and Solomon) he could also do it by two without destroying the theocratic principle. The new kingdom is offered to Jeroboam and continuance is promised to his dynasty on the express condition that he should, like David, faithfully adhere to the law; with the explanation, nevertheless (1Ki 11:39), that the humiliation of the house of David would be but temporary. Thus it is indicated that the promise of the everlasting kingdom would not be realized in Jeroboams race, but in that of David (Oehler). The prediction of Ahijah does not imply a partition of the theocracy or of Israel, but only of the human monarchy under two kings. The double nature of the kingdom was not the cause of the permanence of the division, nor of the commencement of the destruction of the kingdom; these were the results of the continued falling away from the supreme commandment of the theocratic law on the part of the ten tribes.

6. There are no accounts of Solomons end, nor of his life and acts from the time of his lapse till his death; all is reduced to the notice that he sought to kill Jeroboam, and that he died and was buried. This is the more remarkable as the life and acts of this king are more minutely narrated than those of any succeeding one, and that the last days and end of David in particular are recorded with such evident care both in our books and in the Chronicles. Had Solomon ended his life like David, who with joyous heart blessed the Lord to the last (1Ch 29:10 sq.), and charged his son and successor most emphatically to remain faithful to Jehovah (1Ki 2:1 sq.), and been anxious that the prosperity of the kingdom should endure on the basis of the covenant with Jehovah (2Sa 23:1 sq.), such a circumstance would not have been passed over. We must therefore conclude, from the entire silence of the history, that Solomon did not die as David died, that he remained in the state of mind into which he had fallen in his later age. The question whether Solomon was finally converted and saved was formerly discussed extensively (Buddeus, Hist. Eccl., II. p. 237 sq.), but we see no occasion to introduce it here. Both Hess and Niemeyer have endeavored to ascertain from Ecclesiastes what Solomons state of mind was in his last days; but apart from the mistaken presupposition that this treatise was composed by Solomon, no one could prove his conversion from it; and Niemeyer concludes his character-sketch with these words: the cheerful peace of his soul was gone. Gloomy was his retrospect of life, and gloomy was his view of the near and of the distant future. It is worthy of remark, that while Solomon (Suleiman) is held in high honor in the East at the present day, his memory is far less revered among the Jews than that of David, which could not have been the case had his reign ended as gloriously as it began. Bertheau justly remarks that Solomon did more towards undermining the distinctive peculiarity of his people than any other king. We are not, however, to seek the cause of this simply in his making a people who were adapted to agriculture, commercial, and in his splendid buildings, his harem, and his court, all hitherto unknown in Israel, but the real specific reason was that by the introduction and the toleration of foreign idolatrous forms of worship he undermined the religion of his people, forth from which religion flowed all the characteristics which distinguished them over against all other peoples; that was the worm at the root of the kingdom and the national life.

[7. It is extremely difficult to give a portraiture of Solomon which can harmonize at once both the demand for historic truth and the general estimation which tradition assigns to him. The story is extraordinary. David the father of the wise king founded and consolidated the kingdom. His life was stormy and checkered. His character was romantic and chivalric and generous. He showed himself capable both of great self-sacrifice and of revolting criminality and treachery. He was tender and he was brave. His soul rested upon the covenant-keeping Jehovah, yet he dared to violate all the duties of the decalogue which concern mans dealings with his brother man. Solomon did not inherit the personal traits of his father. He was not warlike; he was a man of peace. He sought wisdom, and he sought it from Jehovah. He desired to administer his government according to the law and will of God. He had fine talent for observation. He was a naturalist of rare attainments. He knew much of the earth; he knew much of men. He was a man of understanding, expressing his thoughts and observations in proverbs. He was splendid in his tastes. He sought wealth by commerce and by trade with heathen nations. He made Israel a kingdom of this world; at the same time, he built the temple, lavishing upon it untold sums of money, and aiming to make it, according to Eastern conceptions, splendid in all respects. Certainly at its dedication he is one of the most imposing and majestic figures in all history. But by degrees, enervated by luxury, by pleasure, by plenty, he lost the strength of his convictions. He became wise in this world. The law of Jehovah lost its hold upon his conscience. He began to justify idolatry. He that built a temple to the living God for himself and Israel, in Sion, built a temple to Chemosh in the Mount of Scandal for his mistresses of Moab, in the very face of Gods house. No hill about Jerusalem was free from a chapel of devils: each of his dames had their puppets, their altars, their incense; because Solomon feeds them in their superstition, he draws the sin home to himself, and is branded for what he should have forbidden.Bp. Hall. And by degrees the splendor passed away, and darkness and weariness, and hopelessness, and an ignoble old age came on. He forsook the noble path of his youth, and his glory was lost. See Stanley, Jewish Church, second series, Lect. 28., and F. D. Maurice, The Prophets and Kings of the Old Testament, Sermon on the Wise King. The sun of his life rose in all splendor, and shone brilliantly, to go down at last amid the heavy darkness of impending storm and night. The people lost their sense of the exclusive sovereignty of Jehovah; their burdens were heavyand the brief glory of Israel as a kingdom of this world passed away forever.E. H.]

Homiletical and Practical

1Ki 11:14-40. Solomons enemies. 1. They are roused against him by God, so that he may know and confess what heart-suffering it brings to forsake the fear of the Lord his God (Jer 2:19). Cramer: So marvellously does God bring it about, that he who will not fear him, must needs fear his fellow-men. Once the man of rest, and the Prince of Peace (1Ki 5:4), now he is pressed sore by enemies from the north, from the south, and from his midst; they are the scourges with which the Lord chastises him. When foes and opponents rise against thee, and cause thee care and anguish, then think: The Lord has summoned them on account of thy sins, and unfaithfulness. The hostility of men is a sermon of repentance from thy God to thee. 2. They were in Gods hand, and could do no more than he permits; they rebelled, but they were powerless to take from Solomon the throne and kingdom during his lifetime. The Lord commands our foes: So far shalt thou go, and no further.J. Heermann: If thou speakest the word, they soon become friends: they must needs lay down arms and defences, and stir no finger.P. Gerhardt: If I am beloved of God, and have the Head for my friend, what can troops of foes and opposers do to me? For he can humble the proud (Dan 4:35). Formerly all kings did homage to Solomon, and brought him gifts, and journeyed from all countries to see and to hear him; his power was as great as his kingdom. But now his power and might are abased before those who hitherto ranked far below him, whom he had regarded as the least of his slaves and vassals. Humiliation coming through weak and inferior means is much more bitter than the same humiliation through strong and powerful means; the latter we can ascribe to men, but in the former we must recognize the will and power of God.

1Ki 11:14-22. The fate of Hadad is recounted to us not so much on his account as on our own, in order that we may learn to regard the ways of God with man, and order our own ways by Him, who is ever mercy and wisdom (Psa 25:10). If God brought back the heathen Hadad by mysterious ways to his native land, how much more will he lead those who keep his covenant and testimony to the true native land, and to the eternal rest, how dark and inscrutable soever may be the ways by which he leads them. 1Ki 11:21. Let me go into mine own country. The power of love of country. Not ubi bene, ibi patria, but ubi patria, ibi bene. Yet must we not in the earthly country forget the heavenly Fatherland. 1Ki 11:23-25. Though vanquished and cast down, tyranny and ambition do not forget; they think perpetually of vengeance, and seek to satisfy it, now by rough means now by subtle ones, whenever an opportunity offers. Therefore, warns the apostle so earnestly (Rom 12:19) against those secret and mighty motives in the natural heart of man.

1Ki 11:26-28. God is wont to chastise the rebellion of princes against his will, by means of the rebellion of their own subjects; as Solomon raised his hand against Jehovah, so did his servant Jeroboam against him. Destruction from above unites with ruin from below. Whatever Solomon undertook after his fall, was deprived of Gods blessing. By the building of Millo he intended still further to strengthen his dominion over all his enemies, and to render impregnable his dwelling-place, but this very building was the cause why his throne began to totter, and why he lost the greater part of his kingdom. Here applies Psa 127:1. It was by divine decree that Solomon himself, without his own will or knowledge, should raise from the dust to high places the very man appointed by God to abase him, and to dismember his kingdom. Conspiracies and rebellions are chiefly led by those who have to complain least of injustice or oppression, but have been pampered and favored until ambition incites them to suppress every feeling of gratitude (Joh 13:18).

1Ki 11:29-39. cf. above 1Ki 11:9-13. The prediction of the prophet Ahijah announces 1. the division of the kingdom as a consequence of the going astray to the worship of strange gods (1Ki 11:31-33); 2. the preservation of the kingdom of Judah on account of the promise given to David (1Ki 11:34; 1Ki 11:36; 1Ki 11:39); 3. the choice made of Jeroboam, on condition of inflexible fidelity to Jehovah and to his law (1Ki 11:37-38). 1Ki 11:31. All the world must confess, upon beholding the abasement of the house of David and the elevation of Jeroboam, that the Most High has power over the kingdoms of men, and bestows them upon whom he will (Dan 4:29; 1Sa 2:7-8; Luk 1:52). 1Ki 11:36. Even in the midst of his just anger the Lord is merciful, and the inconstancy of man can never shake His fidelity. The fulfilment of 2Sa 7:14-15, is seen in Solomons history. The house of David remained a light forever, until that Son of David came who is the light of the world, which lighteth all men who come into the world (Joh 1:9; Rom 15:12).

1Ki 11:40-43. These three truths are nowhere more powerfully exemplified than in the life of Solomon: What availeth it a man, &c., (Mat 16:26); Vanity of vanities, &c. (Ecc 1:2), and The world passeth away, &c. (1Jn 2:17; cf. 1Pe 1:24). 1Ki 11:40. Roos: Sin obscures the soul. He who turns aside from God departs from wisdom; and let those who, instead of bowing and submitting with resignation to the chastisements of God, haughtily strive against them, contemplate the fate of Jeroboam, who, doubtless, stirred up the plot against Solomon, since he afterwards eagerly abetted the desertion of the ten Tribes. Even as Solomon, when he sought to slay Jeroboam, must have felt that in vain he resisted the divine decrees, and was powerless to hinder them, so likewise Jeroboam, compelled to fly to Egypt, must have become conscious that in vain he strove rashly and insolently to anticipate the execution of the divine decrees. We must even make bitter expiation when we haughtily resist and oppose the Lord, or when we strive to hasten his designs, or to appoint time and place for their fulfilment. The life of Solomon closes with the words: Therefore Solomon sought to kill Jeroboam. Instead of seeking forgiveness from Him who forgiveth much, and himself granting forgiveness, he is thinking of murder and vengeance. How great and noble the contrast between this and the Figure of Him who in the face of death upon the cross cried: Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. Let us strive to become like unto his image, and that our last thought in life may be of love and reconciliation, and not of revenge and hatred. Solomon possessed the fairest and noblest crown that mortal can wear, yet it was perishable, not enduring beyond death and the grave. The Lord promises an immortal crown to those who love and follow Him. Be faithful unto death, then He will give thee the crown of life; blessed is he who endureth unto the end.

Footnotes:

[6]1Ki 11:14.[This name is variously written in the printed Heb. text and ; in some MSS. and in the Syr. it is uniformly written . The Sept. has , and the Vulg. Hadad. The Chald. follows the variations of the Hebrew. After the mention of his name the Vat. Sept. subjoins a summary of 1Ki 11:23-25, omitted in their place.

[7]1Ki 11:15. Instead of the Sept ., Syr., and Arab. read (when David had slain the Edomites), which Maurer and Thenius consider right. But according to 1Ch 20:5; Gen 14:9 [add Num 20:13], the reading of the text is not to be peremptorily rejected.

[8]1Ki 11:17.[The Sept., in curious contradiction to 1Ki 11:15-16, has here all the Edomites, &c.

[9]1Ki 11:25.[The Vat. Sept. here resumes the course of the Heb. narrative, but gives quite a different sense: this is the evil which Hadad did: he abhorred Israel and reigned in Edom. On the true rendering of the verse see Exeg. Com. In regard to the last word, three MSS., followed by the Sept., Syr., and Arab., have for : but, as pointed out in the Exeg. Com., the true reading must necessarily be that of the text. Our author in his translation, in opposition to his own exegesis, follows the Sept.

[10]1Ki 11:29.[The Sept. renders or replaces the last clause by and he took him aside from the way.

[11]1Ki 11:32.[The Sept. has two tribes. So also 1Ki 11:36.

[12]1Ki 11:33.[Instead of the peculiar form many MSS. read .

[13]1Ki 11:33.[The Sept. has evidently understood in the final as a pronominal suffix, and so translate their king, the stumbling-block of the children of Ammon. Throughout this verse the Sept. puts the verbs in the singular as having Solomon for their nominative.

[14]1Ki 11:38.[The Vat. Sept. omits the clause and will give Israel unto thee.

[15]1Ki 11:40.[ = but Solomon sought. The word therefore of the ancient version is not necessary, and connects the attempt of Solomon quite too distinctly with the communication of Ahijah, which may have been known to him (see Exeg. Com.) or may not. The true connection of 1Ki 11:40 is with 1Ki 11:26, 1Ki 11:27-39 being parenthetical.F. G.]

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

(14) And the LORD stirred up an adversary unto Solomon, Hadad the Edomite: he was of the king’s seed in Edom. (15) For it came to pass, when David was in Edom, and Joab the captain of the host was gone up to bury the slain, after he had smitten every male in Edom; (16) (For six months did Joab remain there with all Israel, until he had cut off every male in Edom:) (17) That Hadad fled, he and certain Edomites of his father’s servants with him, to go into Egypt; Hadad being yet a little child. (18) And they arose out of Midian, and came to Paran: and they took men with them out of Paran, and they came to Egypt, unto Pharaoh king of Egypt; which gave him an house, and appointed him victuals, and gave him land. (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 the queen. (20) And the sister of Tahpenes bare him Genubath his son, whom Tahpenes weaned in Pharaoh’s house: and Genubath was in Pharaoh’s household among the sons of Pharaoh. (21) And when Hadad heard in Egypt that David slept with his fathers, and that Joab the captain of the host was dead, Hadad said to Pharaoh, Let me depart, that I may go to mine own country. (22) Then Pharaoh said unto him, But what hast thou lacked with me, that, behold, thou seekest to go to thine own country? And he answered, Nothing: howbeit let me go in any wise.

God had said that he would chastise David’s son with the rod of men, if he swerved from his duty; and the Lord can never long want an instrument for the accomplishment of the purposes of his will, whenever this is the case. See 2Sa 7:14-15 .

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Divine Impulses

1Ki 11:14-22

THERE was a time when Joab was captain of the whole host of Israel. He, under David and along with the king, had wrought great desolation in the land of Edom. For six months Joab had been using his cruel sword in that country. The end of it was that not a man was left in Edom, not a male could be found within all the limits of the land. That was the bloody purpose of the cruel soldier, and he carried it out with but too complete effect. The king of Edom had a little boy whose name was Hadad, and this little boy ran away in company with some of his father’s servants. They took charge of the little exile, and they and he landed in Egypt and sought the protection of Pharaoh. Like to like the royal Pharaoh took to the royal Hadad; was fond of the boy, and gave him a place in his own house and amongst his own sons. Growing years brought growing favour, and at length Hadad married the sister of Tahpenes, queen of Egypt. A happy ending. A son was born unto Hadad and Genubath, lived in Pharaoh’s house, and enjoyed all the privileges of royal offspring.

But one day, to the infinite surprise of Pharaoh, Hadad said to him, “I want to go back to Edom.” “Back to Edom?” said the king, “hast thou lacked anything since thou hast been in Egypt?” Hadad said, “Nothing: howbeit, let me go, in any wise.” Pharaoh, like a just and honourable man, went back through the years of his recollection, to find out if he could discover what reason Hadad could have for leaving a hospitable country, a land that had been an asylum to him in the time of his distress and orphanage and helplessness. Hadad soon relieved the king’s mind upon all these points: he said, “I have lacked nothing: bread and water, venison and wine, patronage and security all things have I had in this land of Egypt that heart could desire; howbeit, let me go, in any wise.”

Is this an old story that has in it no modern pith or music, or is it our own life anticipated and set in strange lights? Does it require but very little and hardly any skilful handling to put it into relation that we shall ourselves recognise as having a very distinct and instructive bearing upon the development of our own life? Does it not throw some light upon the unexplained restlessness which now and again comes over the spirit of perhaps the quietest man? What is that tugs at the heart and that says, “Come this way?” We are not sitting upon barren rocks, nor are we ploughing inhospitable and unresponding sand: we are in paradise: we have but to touch the ground and it blooms with flowers or teems with luscious fruit. And yet that same invisible hand keeps tugging at the heart, that same weird voice sustains its appeal in the reluctant, wonderstruck and unwilling ear “Leave the gilded roof, leave the marble floor, leave the loaded table, leave the streams of ruddy or foaming wine; come away, come away.” What is it that will not let us alone? I said, “I will die in my nest,” and lo, it was torn to pieces. I said, “Now I will find a place on which I can build tabernacles, whereupon I can rest,” and lo, in the morning when I came to dig my foundations, I found that I had mistaken bog for rock, and there was no foundation to be dug. “This is all,” I have said “it is more than enough: no longer shall I know the plague of discontent, or feel the urgency of an importunate voice, luring and persuading me almost up to the point of compulsion in this or that direction. My address is fixed, my home is settled, you will always find me here,” and lo, in three days men seek for me and I cannot be found, I have been already three days at sea how is this?

“Wherefore didst thou call me?” said the little priest-boy to the old priest of Israel; and the old priest said, “My child, this is a delusion: I did not call thee: go and lie down again.” “Wherefore didst thou call me?” a second time the question is asked. “My child, I did not call thee what is the matter with thee, what ails thy mind? Go and lie down again and sleep till the morning, dear one.” “Thou didst call me wherefore?” Then Eli perceived that the Lord had spoken to the child. At last. The religious thought is always the last that occurs to pachydermous insensate brains. O that we were wise, that we were more morally sensitive, that we answered the divine touch more easily and kindly! But we have a knocking, and another knocking, and a third appeal, and then we perceive that this is the Lord’s doing. If our minds were in the right mood and temper, the very first idea that would occur to us under extraordinary circumstances would be, Perhaps God is in this.

Take another instance. A surly brother a younger brother, and this colloquy ensues. “With whom hast thou left those few sheep in the wilderness? I know the pride and naughtiness of thine heart. For to see the fight art thou come down.” And David answered and said, “What have I now done? Is there not a cause an unexplained mysterious cause?” David himself did not know the reason of his being there, in full, but he was wise enough to know that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in any man’s philosophy. He always had one side of his life open heavenward. The daily factors that busied themselves in making up his daily life he knew full well their name, weight, velocity, power of action, relativity, “but,” said he, “there is more in life than all this.” More than the boy that takes down my shutters in the morning, and the man who keeps my books, and writes my letters: more than debtors and creditors, and customers and clients and appellants of every name all this I know, but there is something more. The wise man keeps himself open in the direction of that something more. Call it divinity, call it providence, call it mystery, call it fate, call it the immeasurable and the impalpable, or the unknowable, or the inscrutable what you may there it is, and until you have got into right relation with that, your life is a mere muddle, a more or less successful trick, but not a planet, centred, poised, immovable. You cannot escape the religious element in life; you may shut your eyes, you may close your ears, you may learn the language of earth and the worse language of the pit, and you may exclude all outward religious ministries and appeals, but now and again there is a shaking in the life, a whisper in the ear, a strange quiver in the air, a face at the window, a quantity you cannot name.

Then again, this incident shows us how impossible it is, sometimes, to give reasons for our action. Persons say to the Hadads who come round them, “Why do you leave Egypt?” and Hadad says, “I do not know.” O foolish man, are you going back to Edom, the memory of cruelty, shame and agony, without knowing why you are going back?” And poor Hadad can only answer, “Yes.” And to the men who can give a reason for everything, Hadad’s answer is a reply of insanity. Oh, happy is the man who has never to leave the paved pathway, who knows nothing of the pains of inspiration, the pangs of a high calling, the surprises of a divine election! Yet not so happy, measured by the higher and larger scale; if he misses much pain, he misses much high delight; if he is commonplace on the one side, he is commonplace all through. Is it not better sometimes to be mad with inspiration, though afterwards there be collapse and suffering, than never to feel the divine afflatus, and never to respond to the call of God? Hadad, you must have some reason for going from Egypt what is it? If you do not give us some reason, we will give you one. You have been behaving badly do not conceal it you are going away because of some concealed crime don’t you try to make a good thing out of a bad one; if you do not find reasons, we will find them for you. Poor Hadad can only say, “I cannot tell why I am going but I must go.”

In the fourteenth verse of the chapter in which the narrative is recorded the whole secret is given. The Lord had stirred up the heart of Hadad against wicked Solomon. It was a divine stirring, it was an impulse from heaven, it was the sound of a rushing mighty wind from the skies, a song without words, a ministry without articulation, a movement of the soul. Have you ever been in that case in any degree? I have, and persons have said to me, “Surely you can give us some reasons for going?” I have said, “Really, I cannot.” “Well, but a sensible man always bases his conduct upon reason. Think of it and tell us what your reasons are, and they will relieve our minds, for our anxiety is very painful,” and I have only had to say, “I cannot tell you anything more about it, but I must go.”

It was a divine stirring. And we often do things in the face of reason. Hadad not only had no reason for going, but he had many reasons for staying, and the action of Hadad, viewed from a strictly human and social point of view, was the action of a madman. It is marvellous how God snubs and rebukes our reason that we are so proud of. We say, “It stands to reason,” and God turns our reason upside down. We say, “We must be reasonable,” and God does all the greatest actions of the world along a plane that reason never traversed. Why, everything in life seems to contradict reason. Tell me that this earth on which I stand is round it contradicts my reason. Tell me the earth on which I stand goes round Goes round? If it went round we should fall off. Tell me that this earth is hung upon nothing go and tell that in a lunatic asylum, but do not tell it to men whose heads are strong and clear. The whole universe is a mockery of what we call reason. We must enlarge the term; it is not reason that must be despised, but rightly defined, and reason rightly defined has two wings, hope, faith now loose her and let her go, and she seeks the gate of the sun. You have ill-used your reason, you have starved the angel, you have shut her up within iron cages and bars, and have drawn your rod across those iron staves and mocked the poor prisoner. Only give your reason fair play, right enlargement, just application, and you will find that reason is the earthly name, and faith the heavenly.

This narrative suggests the inquiry, How am I to know when I am stirred by divine impulses? Some say, “I know that I do feel the stirring, and I want to go and march and to fight, and to conquer how am I to know when the impulse is divine, and when it is a mere motion of my own will?” I will tell you yet not I, but the story itself will answer. When the impulse moves you in the direction of loss, pain, and sacrifice, the probability is that the impulse is divine. Now where is your stirring? Gone. I thought it would go. I have frightened many birds in the same way, and they have flown from the trees on which they had alighted, in chaffering crowds. I will repeat. When the impulse leads you in the direction of self-sacrifice, self-mortification, pain and loss, as it did in the case of Hadad, the probability is that the impulse is divine; but if the impulse moves you in the direction of a fuller cup, a weightier table, a softer bed, a more velvety footing, the probability is that the impulse is not an inspiration of God, but a suggestion of the lower powers. Moses is called to what? To hardship and difficulty, and much pain, and long provocation in the wilderness. Before him Abraham is called to what? To a pilgrimage that has a beginning only that he can ascertain: what the explanation and conclusion of it will be he knoweth not: the impulse was divine. Peter was called: “Follow me:” to what? To leave the ship, to leave the nets, to leave friends and kindred, to leave usual avocations and enjoyments, and the call was from God. If we were called to more influential positions, the very first notion that would occur to us would be that the call was a good one. If we were called to a humbler position, and to meaner surroundings, to hardships and pains and difficulties, the devil would say, “Do you suppose God is going to call any man in a direction like that? Nothing of the sort. Stop where you are.”

We hear what we want to hear, in the ear. The young woman says, “I feel as if I ought to do it.” Do what? You are going to marry a man because he is clever, rich, fine, high, gay, and you a Christian girl? It is no call of God. Resist the devil and he will flee from thee. The young man says, “I feel as if this might be a providential opening.” Let me hear what it is and I will tell you at once. “Call to a good position in the city, ten times my present income, position of influence and respectability.” What is it to do? “Well, that is that is the difficulty.” Well, I say, what is it to do? “Why, I hardly like to tell you what it is to do.” Then don’t go; don’t go. “But it is ten times the income.” Are you sure of that? What is ten times the income? and will not the gold so-called turn to dross as you put it in your purse? Is it not blood money? “Well, if you like to put it in that way I do not know perhaps it may be.” I do put it in that way: is it not to live on human misery, on broken hearts? “Well, if you like to put it in that sort of way, why, I dare say it would admit of being so stated.” I do state it so: an honest pound a week, an honourable crust, a few odd things in the garret you have paid for, and every one of which will make a place to kneel at for your evening prayer that, rather than all the riches of Egypt, if you have to forswear one honourable oath, revoke one solemn testimony, or insult one sacred memory.

Then I hear a dear old father-friend: now, what says he? Listen. “Howbeit, let me go, in any wise.” Where to, dear father? “To the other country.” What other country? “I have a desire to depart.” What, to leave the old house at home, with all your children and grandchildren, and the garden, and the library, and the church you have not a desire to depart, have you? “Yes. O that I had wings like a dove, for then I would flee away and be at rest. My Lord calls me, I must meet him in the promised land.” Ay, God sends that homesickness over the heart when he wants to take us up. We begin to say, “I am much obliged to you for all your kindness; you have bestowed favours and honours upon me. God bless you, but I want to go, to go home, to be at rest; I want to see God’s heaven let me go.

It is a divine stirring: it is the beginning of immortality.

Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker

1Ki 11:14 And the LORD stirred up an adversary unto Solomon, Hadad the Edomite: he [was] of the king’s seed in Edom.

Ver. 14. And the Lord stirred up an adversary to Solomon. ] So that we may say of him, as Pliny a did of Metellus, qui infelix dici non debet, felix non potest, since

“ Ante obitum felix supremaque funera nemo. ”

Now God is said to have stirred up Solomon’s adversaries, not by infusing this malice into them, but as using it to punish his wickedness by them; even as a workman worketh by tools that another made; and by crooked tools oft maketh straight and smooth work.

a Lib. vii. cap. 47.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

an adversary = a Satan.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

Adversaries of the Recreant King

1Ki 11:14-25

Two of the instruments of Solomons chastisement are enumerated in this paragraph.

First, Hadad, the Edomite, 1Ki 11:14-22. Notice the importance of a little child. All the male representatives of the royal family of Edom had perished; but in this child, the line was preserved and perpetuated, to be, through long years, a formidable menace to Israel. Never neglect a little child. You never know what good or ill may be hidden in a tiny bud-an Ingersoll or a Garfield, a Paine or a Wilberforce. Mark in this man Hadad the trace of those strange impulses which determine destiny. He could not assign the reason that led him to leave Egypt, but he knew he must go, 1Ki 11:22. Thus migratory birds feel the call of southern lands.

Second, Rezon, also, hated Israel, 1Ki 11:23-25. It is an awful thing when such hatred arises between two peoples. We as Christians must use all our power to arrest and allay it. Only love and good-will can guarantee a lasting peace. It was by these two human rods that God chastened Solomon. Let us live in such conformity to His will that he may not need to chasten us as individuals or as a nation. Our God is a consuming fire!

Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary

the Lord: 1Ki 12:15, 1Sa 26:19, 2Sa 24:1, 1Ch 5:26, Isa 10:5, Isa 10:26, Isa 13:17

an adversary: 2Sa 7:14, Psa 89:30-34

Reciprocal: 1Ki 11:23 – God 2Ch 21:16 – the Lord 2Ch 36:22 – the Lord stirred Psa 89:32 – General Jer 51:11 – the Lord hath

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

1Ki 11:14. The Lord stirred up an adversary to Solomon All his glory, and riches, and human wisdom availed nothing to preserve his kingdom entire to his posterity, when he turned away from keeping Gods covenant, and fell into idolatry. Hadad the Edomite A young prince of the royal family of Idumea, who fled into Egypt when David conquered that country; and, finding favour with the king, settled there.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

11:14 And the LORD stirred up an adversary unto Solomon, Hadad the Edomite: he [was] of the king’s {h} seed in Edom.

(h) Of the king of Edom’s stock.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

Solomon’s external adversaries 11:14-25

Hadad hated Solomon because of Joab’s severe treatment of the Edomites. He may have been a relation of Solomon’s by marriage. Pharaoh Siamun, of dynasty 21, apparently gave his daughter to Solomon in marriage and his sister-in-law to Hadad (1Ki 11:19).

"The result of Hadad’s opposition was not only that it lost Solomon the full control of a satellite neighbor, but it cut off his southern route for trade. If he maintained his shipping out of Ezion-geber at all, it was probably on a greatly reduced scale, and it is even possible that it stopped entirely before his death." [Note: Wood, p. 336.]

Rezon also had reason to oppose Solomon (1Ki 11:23-25). The Lord raised up both these men to bring judgment on Solomon (1Ki 11:14).

"The result of Rezon’s opposition was that it cut off all contact with the satellite countries of the north. Damascus was the key to control over Zobah, Hamath, and the fortified city of Tadmor. With full control gone in Damascus, there was no possibility of maintaining supervision in these other areas." [Note: Ibid.]

Kings of Aram in 1 Kings

Kings	Dates	References
Rezon (Hezion)	ca. 940-915 B.C.	1Ki 11:23; 1Ki 11:25; 1Ki 15:18
Tabrimmon	ca. 915-900 B.C.	1Ki 15:18
Ben-Hadad I	ca. 900-860 B.C.	1Ki 15:18; 1Ki 15:20
Ben-Hadad II	ca. 860-841 B.C.	1 Kings 20; 2Ki 6:24; 2Ki 8:7; 2Ki 8:9; 2Ki 8:14

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

THE WIND AND THE WHIRLWIND

1Ki 11:14-41

“He that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption.”

– Gal 6:8

SUCH degeneracy could not show itself in the king without danger to his people. “Delirant reges, plectuntur Achivi.” In the disintegration of Solomons power and the general disenchantment from the glamour of his magnificence, the land became full of corruption and discontent. The wisdom and experience of the aged were contemptuously hissed off the seat of judgment by the irreverent folly of the young. The existence of a corrupt aristocracy is always a bad symptom of national disease. These “lisping hawthorn-buds” of fashion only bourgeon in tainted soil. The advice given by the “young men” who had “grown up with Rehoboam and stood before him” shows the insolence preceding doom which had been bred by the idolism of tyranny in the hearts of silly youths who had ceased to care for the wrongs of the people or to know anything about their condition. Violence, oppression, and commercial dishonesty, as we see in the Book of Proverbs, had been bred by the mad desire for gain; and even in the streets of holy Jerusalem, and under the shadow of its Temple, “strange women,” introduced by the commerce with heathen countries and the attendants on heathen princesses lured to their destruction the souls of simple and God-forgetting youths. The simple and joyous agricultural prosperity in which the sons of the people grew up as young plants and their daughters as the polished corners of the Temple was replaced by struggling discontent and straining competition. And amid all these evils the voices of the courtly priests were silent, and for a long time, under the menacing and irresponsible dominance of an oracular royalty, there was no prophet more.

Early in Solomons reign two adversaries had declared their existence, but only became of much account in the darker and later days of its decline.

One of these was Hadad, Prince of Edom. Upon the Edomites in the days of David the prowess of Joab had inflicted an overwhelming and all but exterminating reverse. Joab had remained six months in the conquered district to bury his comrades who had been slain in the terrible encounter, and to extirpate as far as possible the detested race. But the kings servants had been able to save Hadad, then but a little child, from the indiscriminate massacre, as the sole survivor of his house. The young Edomite prince was conveyed by them through Midian and the desert of Paran into Egypt, and there, for political reasons, had been kindly received by the Pharaoh of the day, probably Pinotem I of the Tanite dynasty, the father of Psinaces whose alliance Solomon had secured by marriage with his daughter. Pinotem not only welcomed the fugitive Edomite as the last scion of a kingly race, but even deigned to bestow on him the hand of the sister of Tahpenes, his own Gebria or queen-mother. Their son Genubath was brought up among the Egyptian princes. But amid the luxurious splendors of Pharaohs palace Hadad carried in his heart an undying thirst for vengeance on the destroyer of his family and race. The names of David and Joab inspired a terror which made rebellion impossible for a time; but when Hadad heard, with grim satisfaction, of Joabs judicial murder, and that David had been succeeded by a peaceful son, no charm of an Egyptian palace and royal bride could weigh in the balance against the fierce passion of an avenger of blood. Better the wild freedom of Idumea than the sluggish ease of Egypt. He asked the Pharaohs leave to return to his own country, and, braving the reproach of ingratitude, made his way back to the desolated fields and cities of his unfortunate people. He developed their resources and nursed their hopes of the coming day of vengeance. If he could do nothing else he could at least act as a desperate marauder, and prove himself a “satan” to the successor of his foe. Solomon was strong enough to keep open the road to Ezion-Gebir but Hadad was probably master of Sela and Maon.

Another enemy was Rezon, of whom but little is known, David had won a great victory, the most remarkable of all his successes, over Hadadezer, King of Zobah, and had then signalized his conquest by placing garrisons in Syria of Damascus. On this occasion Rezon, the son of Eli, who is perhaps identical with Hezion, the grandfather of Benhadad, King of Syria in the days of Asa, fled from the host of Hadadezer with some of the Syrian forces. With these and all whom he could collect about him, he became a guerilla captain. After a successful period of predatory warfare he found himself strong enough to seize Damascus, where, to all appearance, he founded a powerful hereditary kingdom. Thus with Hadad in the south to plunder his commercial caravans, and Rezon on the north to threaten his communication with Tiphsah, and alarm his excursions to his pleasances in Lebanon, Solomon was made keenly to feel that his power was rather an unsubstantial pageant than a solid dominion.

The enmity of these powerful Emirs of Edom and Syria was a hereditary legacy from the wars of David and the ruthless savagery of Joab. A third adversary was far more terrible, and he was called into existence by the conduct of Solomon himself. This was Jeroboam, the son of Nebat. In himself he was of no account, being a man of isolated position and obscure origin. He was the son of a widow named Zeruah, who lived at Zarthan in the Jordan valley. The position of a widow in the ancient world was one of feebleness and difficulty; and if we may trust the apocryphal additions to the Septuagint, Zeruah was not only a widow but a harlot. But Jeroboam, whose name perhaps indicates that he was born in the golden days of Solomons prosperity, was a youth of vigor and capacity. He made his way from the wretched clay fields of Zeredah to Jerusalem, and there became one of the vast undistinguished gang who were known as “slaves of Solomon.” The corvee of many thousands from all parts of Palestine was then engaged in building the Millo and the huge walls and causeway in the valley between Zion and Moriah, which was afterwards known as the Valley of the Cheesemongers (Tyropaeon). Here the unknown youth distinguished himself by his strenuousness, and by the influence which he rapidly acquired. Solomon knew the value of a man “diligent in his business,” and therefore worthy to stand before kings. Untrammeled by any rules of seniority, and able to make and unmake as he thought fit, Solomon promoted him while still young, and at one bound, to a position of great rank and influence. Jeroboam was an Ephramite, and Solomon therefore “gave him charge over all the compulsory levies (Mas) of the tribe of the house of Joseph”-that is, of the proud and powerful tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, who practically represented all Israel except Judah, Benjamin, and the almost nominal Simeon.

The spark of ambition was now kindled in the youths heart, and as he toiled among the workmen he became aware of two secrets of deadly import to the master who had lifted him out of the dust-secrets which he well knew how to use. One was that a deep undercurrent of tribal jealousy was setting in with the force of a tide. Solomon had unduly favored his own tribe by exemptions from the general requisition, and Ephraim fretted under a sense of wrong. That proud tribe, the heir of Josephs preeminence, had never acquiesced in the loss of the hegemony which it so long had held. From Ephraim had sprung Joshua, the mighty successor of Moses, the conqueror of the Promised Land, and his sepulcher was still among them at Timnath-Serah. From their kith had sprung the princely Gideon, the greatest of the judges, who might, had he so chosen, have anticipated the foundation of royalty in Israel. Shiloh, which God had chosen for His inheritance, was in their domains. It required very little at any time to make the Ephraimites second the cry of the insurgents who followed Sheba, the son of Bichri, –

“We have no part in David, Neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse. Every man to his tents, O Israel.”

Jeroboam, who was now by Solomons favor a chief ruler over his fellow-tribesmen, had many opportunities to foment this jealousy, and to win for himself by personal graciousness the popularity of Solomon which had so long begun to wane.

But a yet deeper feeling was at work against Solomon. The men of Ephraim and all the northern tribes had not only begun to ask why Judah was to monopolize the kings partiality, but the much more dangerous question, What right has the king to enforce on us these dreary and interminable labors, in making a city of palaces and an impregnable fortress of a capital which is to overshadow our glory and command our subjection? With consummate astuteness, by a word here and a word there, Jeroboam was able to pose before Solomon as the enforcer of a stern yoke, and before his countrymen as one who hated the hard necessity and would fain be their deliverer from it.

And while he was already in heart a rebel against the House of David, he received what he regarded as a Divine sanction to his career of ambition.

The prophets, as we have seen, had sunk to silence before the oracular autocrat who so frequently impressed on the people that there is “a Divine sentence on the lips of kings.” No special inspiration seemed to be needed either to correct or to corroborate so infallible a wisdom. But the heaven-enkindled spark of inspiration can never be permanently suffocated. Priests as a body have often proved amenable to royal seductions, but individual prophets are irrepressible.

What were the priests doing in the face of so fearful an apostasy? Apparently nothing. They seem to have sunk into comfortable acquiescence, satisfied with the augmentation of rank and revenue which the Temple and its offerings brought to them. They offered no opposition to the extravagances of the king, his violations of the theocratic ideal, or even his monstrous tolerance for the worship of idols. That prophets as a body existed in Judah during the early years of this reign there is no proof.

The atmosphere was ill-suited to their vocation. Nathan probably had died long before Solomon reached his zenith.

Of Iddo we know almost nothing. Two prophets are mentioned, but only towards the close of the reign-Ahijah of Shiloh, and Shemaiah; and there seems to have been some confusion in the roles respectively assigned to them by later tradition.

But the hour had now struck for a prophet to speak the word of the Lord. If the king, surrounded by formidable guards and a glittering court, was too exalted to be reached by a humble son of the people, it was time for Ahijah to follow the precedent of Samuel. He obeyed a divine intimation in selecting the successor who should punish the great kings rebellion against God, and inaugurate a rule of purer obedience than now existed under the upas-shadow of the throne. He was the Mazkir, the annalist or historiographer of Solomons court; {2Ch 9:29} but loyalty to a backsliding king had come to mean disloyalty to God. There was but one man who seemed marked out for the perilous honor of a throne. It was the brave, vigorous, ambitious youth of Ephraim who had risen to high promotion and had won the hearts of his people, though Solomon had made him the task-master of their forced labor. On one occasion Jeroboam left Jerusalem, perhaps to visit his native Zeredah and his widowed mother. Ahijah intentionally met him on the road. He drew him aside from the public path into a solitary place. There, seen by none, he took off his own shoulders the new stately abba in which he had clad himself, and proceeded to give to Jeroboam one of those object-lessons in the form of an acted parable, which to the Eastern mind are more effective than any words. Rending the new garment into twelve pieces, he gave ten to Jeroboam, telling him that Jehovah would thus rend the kingdom from the hands of Solomon because of his unfaithfulness, leaving his son but one tribe that the lamp of David might not be utterly extinguished. Jeroboam should be king over Israel; to the House of David should be left but an insignificant fragment. God would build a sure house for Jeroboam as He had done for David, if he would keep His commandments, though the House of David “should not be afflicted forever.” {1Ki 11:34-39}

A scene so memorable, a prophecy of such grave significance, could hardly remain a secret. Ahijah may have hinted it among his sympathizers. Jeroboam would hardly be able to conceal from his friends the immense hopes which it excited; and as his position probably gave him the command of troops he became dangerous. His designs reached the ears of Solomon, and he sought to put Jeroboam to death. The young man, who had probably betrayed his secret ambition, and may even have attempted some premature and abortive insurrection, escaped from Jerusalem, and took refuge in Egypt. There the Bubastite dynasty had displaced the Tanite and from Shishak I, the earliest Pharaoh whose individuality eclipsed the common dynastic name, he received so warm a welcome that, according to one story, Shishak gave him in marriage Ano, the elder sister of his Queen Tahpanes (or Thekemina, LXX) and of Hadads wife. He stayed in Egypt till the death of Solomon, and then returned to Zeredah, either in consequence of the summons of his countrymen, or that he might be ready for any turn of events.

Under such melancholy circumstances the last great king of the united kingdom passed away. Of the circumstances of his death we are told nothing, but the clouds had gathered thickly round his declining years. “The power to which he had elevated Israel,” says the Jewish historian Gratz, “resembled that of a magic world built up by spirits. The spell was broken at his death.” It must not, however, be imagined that no abiding results had followed from so remarkable a rule. The nation which he left behind him at his death was very different from the nation to whose throne he had succeeded as a youth. It had sprung from immature boyhood to the full-grown stature of manhood. If the purity of its spiritual ideal had been somewhat corrupted, its intellectual growth and its material power had been immensely stimulated. It had tasted the sweets of commerce, and never forgot the richness of that intoxicating draught which was destined in later ages to transform its entire nature. Tribal distinctions, if not obliterated, had been subordinated to a central organization. The knowledge of writing had been more widely spread, and this had led to the dawn of that literature which saved Israel front oblivion, and uplifted her to a place of supreme influence among the nations. Manners had been considerably softened from their old wild ferocity. The more childish forms of ancient superstition, such as the use of ephods and teraphim, had fallen into desuetude. The worship of Jehovah, and the sense of His unique supremacy over the whole world, was fostered in many hearts, and men began to feel the unfitness of giving to Him that name of “Baal” which began henceforth to be confined to the Syrian sun-god. Amid many aberrations the sense of religion was deepened among the faithful of Israel, and the ground was prepared for the more spiritual religion which, later reigns found its immortal expositors in those Hebrew prophets who rank foremost among the teachers of mankind.

But as for Solomon himself it is a melancholy thought that he is one of the three or four of whose salvation the Fathers and others have openly ventured to doubt! The discussion of such a question is, indeed, wholly absurd and profitless, and is only here alluded to in order to illustrate the completeness of Solomons fall. As the Book of Ecclesiastes is certainly not by him it can throw no light on the moods of his latter days, unless it be conceivable that it represents some faint: breath of olden tradition. The early commentators acquitted or condemned him as though they sat on the judgment-seat of the Almighty. They would have shown more wisdom if they had admitted that such decisions are-fortunately for all men-beyond the scope of human judges. Happily for us God, not man, is the judge, and He looks down on earth

“With larger other eyes than ours

To make allowance for us all.”

Orcagna was wiser when, in his great picture in the Campo Santo at Pisa and in the Strozzi Chapel at Florence, he represented Solomon rising out of his sepulcher in robe and crown at the trump of the archangel, uncertain whether he is to turn to the right hand or to the left.

And Dante, as all men know, joins Solomon in Paradise with the Four Great Schoolmen. The great mediaeval poet of Latin Christianity did not side with St. Augustine and the Latin Fathers against the wise king, but with St. Chrysostom and the Greek Fathers for him. He did so because he accepted St. Bernards mystical interpretation of the Song of Songs:-

“La quinta luce, che tra noi pitt bella Spira di tale amor, che tutto il mondo Laggiu ne gola di saver novella. Entro ve lalta mente, u si profondo Saver fu messo, che si il vero e vero, A veder tanto non surse il secondo.”

There is a famous legend in the Quran about the death of Solomon.

“Work ye righteousness O ye family of David; for I see that which ye do. And we made the wind subject unto Solomon And we made a fountain of molten brass to flow for him. And some of the genii were obliged to work in his presence by the will of his Lord. They made for him whatever he pleased of palaces, and statues, and large dishes like fishponds, and caldrons standing firm on their trivets; and we said, Work righteousness, O family of David, with thanksgiving; for few of my servants are thankful. And when we had decreed that Solomon should die, nothing discovered his death unto them, except the creeping thing of the earth that gnawed his staff. And when his body fell down, the genii plainly perceived that if they had known that which is secret they had not continued in a vile punishment.”

The legend briefly alluded to was that Solomon employed the genii to build his Temple, but, foreseeing that he would die before its completion, he prayed God to conceal his death from them, so that they might go on working. His prayer was heard, and the rest of the legend may best be told in the words of a poet:-

King Solomon stood in his crown of gold,

Between the pillars, before the altar

In the House of the Lord.

And the king was old,

And his strength began to falter,

So that he leaned on his ebony staff,

Sealed with the seal of the Pentegraph.

And the king stood still as a carven king,

The carven cedar beams below,

In his purple robe, with his signet-ring,

And his beard as white as snow.

And his face to the Oracle, where the hymn

Dies under the wings of the cherubim.

And it came to pass as the king stood there,

And looked on the House he had built with pride,

That the hand of the Lord came unaware

And touched him, so that he died

In his purple robe and his signet-ring

And the crown wherewith they had crowned him king.

And the stream of folk that came and went

To worship the Lord with prayer and praise,

Went softly ever in wonderment,

For the king stood there always;

And it was solemn and strange to behold

The dead king crowned with a crown of gold.

“So King Solomon stood up dead in the House Of the Lord, held there by the Pentegraph,

Until out from the pillar there ran a red mouse,

And gnawed through his ebony staff;

Then fiat on his face the king foil down,

And they picked from the dust a golden crown.”

The legends of the East describe Solomon as tormented indeed, yet not without hope. In the romance of Vathek he is described as listening earnestly to the roar of a cataract, because when it ceases to roar his anguish will be at an end.

“The king so renowned for his wisdom was on the loftiest elevation, and placed immediately beneath the Dome. The thunder, he said, precipitated me hither, where, however, I do not remain totally destitute of hope; for an angel of light hath revealed that, in consideration of the piety of my early youth, my woes shall come to an end. Till then I am in torments, ineffable torments; an unrelenting fire preys on my heart. The caliph was ready to sink with terror when he heard the groans of Solomon. Having uttered this exclamation, Solomon raised his hands towards heaven, in token of supplication; and the caliph discerned through his bosom, which was transparent as crystal, his heart enveloped in flames.”

So Solomon passed away-the last king of all Palestine till another king arose a thousand years later, like him in his fondness for magnificence, like him in his tamperings with idolatry, like him in being the builder of the Temple, but in all other respects a far more grievous sinner and a far more inexcusable tyrant-Herod, falsely called “The Great.”

And in the same age arose another King of Solomons descendants, whose palace was the shop of the carpenter and His throne the cross, and whose mortal body was the true Temple of the Supreme-that King whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and whose dominion endureth throughout all ages.

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary