1 Kings 3:1-4

THE RULE OF WISDOM

CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES.—

1 Kings 3:1. Pharaoh, king of Egypt—Probably Vaphres, but Winer suggests Psusennes. An alliance with so mighty a royal house shows that the Hebrew kingdom enjoyed high renown, and commanded influence among the nations. From the Egyptian monuments a supposed portrait of this princess has been obtained. The “Song of Solomon” is supposed to have her as the immediate theme. Brought her into the city of David—Not admitted into the stronghold of Zion, where the ark was; probably he found for her a temporary home in his mother’s residence (Song of Solomon 3:4; Song of Solomon 8:2) while his own palace was building. This marriage is never censured in Scripture, so that it is natural to conclude she became a proselyte to the Hebrew religion. To this, Psalms 45:10 may refer, a Psalm which is thought, in addition to the Canticles, to have been composed by Solomon in her honour.

1 Kings 3:2. Only the people sacrificed in high places—This is not recorded as a wrong act, but as rendered necessary until the Temple could accommodate them.

1 Kings 3:4. The king went to Gibeon to worship there: for the tabernacle was now there (2 Chronicles 1:3). called the great high place, because of that fact. High places, בָמוֹת, i.e., hills, and mountain heights: were chosen by all ancient nations for worship and sacrifice. Danger rose out of this temporarily permitted practice (Deuteronomy 12:13); but in Solomon’s conduct now there was nothing wrong. After the Temple was completed, the “high places” should have been abandoned; but the habit had become formed, and hence the share. A thousand burnt offerings—As an act of national consecration and homage to Jehovah; its motive being, “Solomon loved the Lord” (1 Kings 3:3).

HOMILETICS OF 1 Kings 3:1

THE PARADOXES OF A DEFECTIVE PIETY

We obtain a glimpse in these verses of the state of religion in the nation at this period. The enemies of Solomon had been despatched, the throne was established in the popular affection, and the government of the youthful king had already won the respect of surrounding nations. The only thing that indicated the kingdom was not so thoroughly established in all respects as it might be, was the unsettled condition of public worship. “Only the people sacrificed in high places.” The practices of the heathen still clung to the worshippers of the one living and true God. The growth of the religious life of a people is slow: it is a long time before all traces of a previous period of imperfection and debasement disappear. The best guarantee of permanency in all earthly governments is a strong, healthy, propagative piety; and in the process of development towards a more perfect knowledge and experience many contradictions will appear.

I. That piety may include a devout love of God, and yet be defective. “And Solomon loved the Lord.” So far good. It does not say he loved the Lord with all his heart. The command in this respect was most explicit, and frequently repeated (Deuteronomy 13:3; Deuteronomy 30:6; Matthew 22:37; Mark 12:30; Mark 12:33, Luke 10:27). The religion of some is purely intellectual; they conceive noble ideas of God; they construct an ideal paradise, and adorn and fill it with bright poetic fancies; they scorn to betray the least feeling—this would be altogether too gross and sensual: they live in an ever-revolving circle of refined mental intoxication. The religion of others is all emotional; they have tears for everybody and everything; they are a power in society, and they know it, for we are all most easily moved through our sympathies. But excess of feeling is penicious—it over-rides the judgment, and is apt to degenerate into weakness and folly. The victim of emotion goads himself in vain efforts to produce certain sensational effects which will not admit of repetition according to order, and at last sinks into a condition of helplessness, and is constantly employed in a morbid dissection of his own miserable and over-wrought feelings. The religion of others consists in a blind and dogged devotion to some one moral precept; it is obtruded into everything; it is the oracle to interpret every problem, the key to fit the complicated wards of human opinion and unlock every mystery; it is with them the infallible touchstone by which to test the religion of everybody else. Such people have no conception of the harmony and continuity of universal truth. It is possible to love God with a devout and reverential affection, and yet be defective in the realization and practical presentment of the religious life.

II. That piety may influence the practical outgoings of the individual life, and yet be defective. “Walking in the statutes of David his father.” These “statutes” referred, not only to the directions which had been specially enjoined on Solomon by his father David (1 Kings 2:2; 1 Chronicles 28:8), but also to the Divine commandments which David loved, and (notwithstanding some grievous falls) ordinarily practised. They who love God will strive to regulate their every-day life according to the Divine precepts, and in imitation of the holiest examples. The best of human examples is imperfect; and the most devoted and conscientious Christian worker is painfully conscious of constantly coming far short of his own ideal of duty. There are contradictions in the individual Christian life difficult to reconcile—the most saintly have to mourn over innumerable defects.

III. That piety may be demonstrative in acts of worship, and yet be defective. “He sacrificed and burnt incense in high places” (1 Kings 3:3). The heathen were accustomed to perform their religious rites on the summit of lofty mountains, under the idea that they were thus nearer Deity and heaven. Abraham built his altars on mountains (Genesis 12:8; Genesis 22:2), and worshipped in a grove (Genesis 21:33)—whence the custom among the Jews was derived, and for which they were not reprehensible till the law obliged them to worship in one place (Deuteronomy 12:5). The law did not forbid “high places” directly, but only by implication. It required the utter destruction of all the high places which had been polluted by idolatrous rites (Deuteronomy 12:2). The injunction to offer sacrifices nowhere but at the door of the tabernacle (Leviticus 17:3) was an indirect prohibition of high-places, or, at least, of the use which the Israelites made of them; but there was some real reason to question whether this was a command intended to come into force until the place was chosen where the Lord would cause His name to dwell (Deuteronomy 12:11; Deuteronomy 12:14). The result was that high places were used for the worship of Jehovah from the time of the Judges downwards (Judges 6:25; Judges 13:16; 1 Samuel 7:10; 1 Samuel 13:9; 1 Samuel 14:35; 1 Samuel 16:5; 1 Chronicles 21:26), with an entire unconsciousness of guilt on the part of those who used them. And God so far “winked” at this ignorance that He accepted the worship thus offered Him, as appears from the vision vouchsafed to Solomon on this occasion. There were two reasons for the prohibition of high places:—1st, the danger of the old idolatry creeping back if the old localities were retained for worship; and, 2nd, the danger to the unity of the nation if there should be more than one legitimate religious centre. The existence of worship at high places did, in fact, facilitate the division of the kingdom.—Speaker’s Commentary. The worship of God is not confined to any one particular spot—the devotion of the worshipper, and the manifestations of Divine blessing, consecrate the locality. We may worship God with all the proprieties of external ceremonial, and with all the ardour of a devout spirit; and yet the religion of the life be defective. Few men carry into all the departments of practical duty the holy and exalted feeling realized in their best moments at the Mercy Seat.

IV. That piety may be liberal in sacrifices, and yet be defective. “A thousand burnt offerings did Solomon offer upon that altar.” A sacrifice of a thousand victims was an act of royal magnificence suited to the greatness of Solomon. So Xerxes offered a thousand oxen at Troy (Herod. vii. 43). We are not to suppose that Solomon offered sacrifice with his own hand; such a task was beyond the power of a single person to do. He simply presented the victims. Scores of priests officiated on such occasions, and the sacred festival lasted many days. Where God sows plentifully, he expects to reap accordingly; and those who truly love Him and His worship will not grudge the expenses of their religion. The liberality of the wealthy is the easiest part of Christian duty, and few give to God’s cause in proportion to their means. Giving is, to some natures, the severest test of a genuine piety, and one of its best evidences. There may be a princely generosity in giving, while there is a niggardliness in doing. The most opulent sacrifices cannot atone for active, loving, faithful service.

V. That piety may be associated with great worldly affluence, and yet be defective. “And Solomon made affinity with Pharaoh, king of Egypt.” It was an evidence of the importance into which the kingdom of Israel had risen that Solomon should succeed in forming an alliance with Egypt, the most ancient and splendid of the Eastern monarchies. It was the first intercourse between these nations since the time of the Exodus. Its immediate effect was probably favourable to Solomon, by increasing his fame and comparative importance among the nations, and adding to his dominions (chap. 1 Kings 9:16). Riches flowed in upon him, kings courted his favour and were proud to form alliances with his house: There is no reason why piety should not flourish in the king’s palace as well as in the humble cottage: there are many among the great and wealthy who fear God and work righteousness. It is not an easy matter to settle which are the most difficult to bear—the dangers of the rich, or the temptations and miseries of the starving poor. It is possible to be surrounded with temporal abundance, while the heart is restless and unsatisfied. Solomon had all that his soul could desire, and the result was detrimental rather than helpful to his piety. His marriage with the Egyptian princess, though not formally condemned, opened the way to other alliances that were disastrous. According to the letter of the law, only marriage with the Canaanitish tribes was forbidden to the Jews (Exodus 34:16); and inter-marriage with nations outside of Canaan was not only not prohibited, but tolerated in the examples, never rebuked, of Joseph’s marriage with the daughter of an Egyptian priest (Genesis 41:45); of Moses’ marriage with a daughter of Midian (Exodus 2:21); and that of Boaz and Ruth. But though the law did not forbid these marriages, they were not in harmony with its spirit; and it was by foreign marriages that Solomon was at length seduced from the worship of Jehovah. Piety is safest when it is humblest; and only as the believer retains his humble, child-like trust in God, amid increasing temporal prosperity, will he escape the perils that threaten.

LESSONS:—

1. There is danger in resting satisfied with the mere externalism of religion.

2. There may be much that is morally good in individual character, and yet a serious deficiency in piety.

3. True piety demands the full surrender to God of will, affection, and life.

THIS passage may be also homiletically treated as follows:—

PIETY LIMITED BY OPPORTUNITY

I. That piety is limited by individual experience.

1. It is limited by the individual experience of the love of God. “Solomon loved the Lord” (1 Kings 3:3). He was first loved by Him, and was thus called Jedidiah, the darling of Jehovah. Our love to God is but the reflex of His love to us (1 John 4:19). Our piety receives its character and attains its limits by the nature and degree of our love to God: as our love is, so is our piety. Love is the source and power of the religious life, and the stream can never rise higher than the fountain.

2. It is limited by the examples of those we are taught to imitate. Solomon walked in the statutes of David his father, and strove to copy his example. A good man is a pattern for all to imitate; and all men are more potently influenced by a living example of piety, than by the most elaborate code of precepts, however eloquently explained or cogently enforced. It was a high commendation to the Thessalonian converts that they became imitators of the highest patterns of Christian excellence (1 Thessalonians 1:6). All human models are imperfect, and the characters shaped and influenced by them must partake of their imperfections. The example of Christ is the absolute, all-perfect standard, the great infallible pattern after which the noblest life must ever be moulded.

3. It is limited by individual capacity. The dew falls in quantity sufficient to water the whole earth, but there is an endless variety in the capacities of the flower-cups held out to receive the refreshing draught; some are so small that one crystal drop each would fill their tiny fragile goblets. So the blessing of heaven descends upon mankind in superabundant measure, but there is a vast diversity in the capacity of the individual recipient. The grandest created nature is bounded by its finiteness. If man were not finite he could not grow.

II. That piety is limited by the opportunities for its cultivation. “Only the people sacrificed in high places, because there was no house built unto the name of the Lord” (1 Kings 3:2). The frequent public worship of God is founded in a necessity and tendency of human nature. Man will worship, and if he is not constantly directed to the great Object of all true and acceptable worship, and spiritually assisted in the exercise, he is apt to regard the vast fabric of created things as God; and nature, with her grand, silent motions, becomes the object of his pantheistic idolatry. The multiplicity and accessibleness of Christian ordinances in the present day lead many to undervalue their importance. But a compulsory and prolonged absence from the house of God, and the conscious depreciation in spirituality, rectify the delusion, and compel the sufferer to estimate more highly than ever the public means of grace.

II. That piety is limited by the associations and conditions of national life. “And Solomon made affinity with Pharaoh” (1 Kings 3:1). The alliance with Egypt, and growing importance and wealth of the nation, would have a powerful influence in developing and forming the character of the nation at that time. National life is the outcome and representation of many conflicting and contradictory causes, some apparent, some hidden; but all active. Climate, natural scenery, employments, modes of living, intercourse with each other and with other peoples, all act and react in giving form, colour, tone, and spirit to the national character. The ruggedness and strength of the free mountaineers are strangely contrasted with the refinement, softness, and supineness of the inhabitants of the sultry plains; and the causes of the difference are evident. And so the associations and conditions of national life affect and limit the piety of a people. There will be more vigour and enterprise in the religion of a nation struggling for independence and extended commerce, than in a nation reposing in contentment, and revelling in luxuries and riches. Success in either individuals or communities is often a fatal advantage, and the period of greatest prosperity registers the beginning of decline.

LESSONS:—

1. That the opportunities for cultivating personal piety are abundant.

2. That it is an imperative duty to strive after a higher standard of piety.

3. That the actual use made of opportunities will be the measure of personal piety enjoyed.

GERM NOTES ON THE VERSES

1 Kings 3:1. National reformation.

1. Meets with rebellious opposition.
2. Is gradual in accomplishment.
3. Must be wisely conducted.
4. Is facilitated by promoting amicable relations with other nations.
5. Aims at strengthening the internal government.
6. Is permanent in its results only when it grows out of a genuine religious life.

1 Kings 3:1. Marriage.

1. An important crisis in individual life.
2. Not to be entered into without serious thought.
3. May make or mar the happiness of two lives.
4. Is honourable in all.
5. Broadens our sympathies for the race.
6. Has the divine sanction.

—Although marriage with persons of unlike faith be allowed, and is in itself no sin (1 Corinthians 7:14), it is, nevertheless, better that one avoid it, because the unbeliever perverts the believer more frequently than the believer converts the unbeliever. Solomon’s marriage with a daughter of Pharaoh was, strictly speaking, a political alliance, but it has also a significance in the history of redemption. The great and mighty king of the land which for Israel had been “the house of bondage,” in which it had eaten “the bread of affliction” (Exodus 20:2; Deuteronomy 16:3), gives now to the king of this once despised and oppressed people his daughter in marriage, and must, in the providence of God, contribute to the strengthening of the Israelitish throne, and to the increase of the power and glory of the Israelitish kingdom. God has the hearts of all men in his hands, and can bring it to pass that they who have been inimical to us, and have despised us, shall hold us in great honour (Proverbs 16:7; Genesis 31:24).—Lange.

—This seems to have been Solomon’s first act of foreign policy, and was, perhaps, designed to counteract the influence of Hadad, the Edomite, who had fled to Egypt during David’s reign, and was now securely housed in the royal family (see chap. 1 Kings 11:14). Everything in the history of Hadad naturally conspired to make him a settled enemy of the kingdom of Israel; and, perhaps, at a later period, he had a hand with Jeroboam in planning the revolt of the ten tribes of Israel. Solomon doubtless expected to strengthen his kingdom by this affinity with Egypt, and to prevent invasion from that quarter.—Whedon.

—“Until he had made an end of building the house of the Lord.” This Solomon would finish before he would set up the queen’s palace—such was his zeal while young; but he suffered sad decays afterwards. I read of a holy man who oft prayed that he might keep up his young zeal with his old discretion.—Trapp.

1 Kings 3:2. “Only the people sacrificed in high places.” The particle “only” has reference to the last sentence of chap. 1 Kings 2:46. This is not mentioned as a circumstance of blame either in the people or in the king; for had they not sacrificed and burnt incense on high places, they could not have sacrificed or burnt incense at all. And it appears by the sequel that the sacrifice at Gibeon was acceptable.—Bishop Horsley. Possibly Solomon thought it better to allow an error in a circumstance than to occasion a neglect of the substance of God’s worship, which he apprehended would follow upon a severe prohibition of that practice, because the people’s hearts were generally and constantly set upon these high places, as appears from all the following history; and they were not willing to submit to so much trouble and charge as the bringing of all their sacrifices to one place would cause; nor would they yield to it until the temple was built, which he knew would easily incline and oblige them to it. And that being speedily to be done, he might think it more advisable rather to delay the execution of that law of God for an approaching season, wherein he doubted not they would be sweetly and freely drawn to it, than at present to drive them to it by force, although these and all other prudential considerations should have given place to the will and wisdom of God.—Pool.

1 Kings 3:3. “Walking in the statutes of David his father”—the customs, usages, and laws of religious conduct practised by David. But it does not appear that David ever sacrificed or burnt incense in high places. The contrary is implied in this verse; and it is more than intimated that though this worship was tolerated because not offered to false gods, and because there was no house yet built to Jehovah, still both Solomon and his people were censurable for allowing it such great extent and prominence, and thereby paving the way for future idolatry in Israel. It would have been safer and better to have sacrificed only before the ark of the covenant, as Solomon did after his return from Gibeon (1 Kings 3:15), or else only at Gibeon, where the tabernacle was (1 Chronicles 16:39).—Whedon.

1 Kings 3:2. Solomon’s sacrificial festivity.

1. When he celebrated it—at the beginning of his reign, to return thanks for the past assistance of God, and to implore its continuance.
2. Where he kept it—upon the high place at Gibeon, because no temple was built as yet, the place of prayer in the Old and in the New Testament. Though God dwell not in temples built by human hands, yet it is needful for each congregation to have a house where, with one mouth, it praises the name of the Lord. Where this need is not felt, there is a defect in faith and love for the Lord.—Lange.

1 Kings 3:3. He loved the Lord. This is the best and greatest thing that can be said of a man. So every one that loves the world has not in him the love of the Father; this is only where God is loved above all things, His word observed, and His commandments fulfilled with joy and delight (1 John 2:5; 1 John 2:15; 1 John 5:3). Happy is he who, to the question of the Lord, “Lovest thou me?” can return the answer of Peter (John 21:17). Because Solomon loved the Lord, he honoured also his father, and walked in his ways. The want of filial piety in our day comes from want of love to the Lord.—Lange.

1 Kings 3:4. Gibeon was well worthy to be the chief, yea, the only high place. There was the hallowed altar of God; there was the tabernacle, though, as then, severed from the ark; thither did young Solomon go up, and as desiring to begin his reign with God, there he offers no less than a thousand sacrifices.—Bishop Hall.

If we should begin our daily work with the sacrifice of our prayer, how much more our life’s calling, and every weighty undertaking upon which our own and the well-being of other men depend!—Lange.