The Pulpit Commentaries
1 Kings 11:1-13
EXPOSITION
SOLOMON'S DEFECTION.—The observant reader will have already remarked in this history some intimations of Solomon's approaching fall. Among these are, first, the repeated warnings which are addressed to him, especially in 1 Kings 9:6, and, second, his repeated transgressions of the law by which he ruled. We have already heard of the multiplication of silver and gold (1 Kings 10:14-11), in defiance of Deuteronomy 17:17, and of the multiplication of horses (1 Kings 10:27-11), in disregard of Deuteronomy 17:16 of the same chapter. We now read how the rain of this great prince was completed by the multiplication of wives. The historian obviously had the words of Deuteronomy 17:1. in his mind as he wrote. It is remarkable that the chronicler is altogether silent as to Solomon's fall, as he is also as to David's sin.
But [Heb. And. This chapter is a direct continuation of the preceding. LXX. κὰι ὁ βασιλεὺς κ.τ.λ. The polygamy was but a part of his worldliness, like the chariots, gold, etc.] king Solomon loved [The LXX. ἦν φιλογόνης. is misleading. It is perfectly clear that it cannot have been mere sensuality led to this enormous harem. This is evident from
(1) his time of life. It was "when he was old"—i.e; when passions are not at their strongest—that his wives turned away his heart.
(2) The number—if the numbers are to be trusted—of his wives. A thousand concubines cannot be kept for mere purposes of passion.
(3) The large number of princesses, which shows that the object of this array of mistresses was to enhance his state and renown. As he exceeded other kings in glory, wisdom, and power, so must he excel them not only in armies, chariots, and horses, but also in the number of his wives. It is clear, therefore, that the "lust of the eye" and "the pride of life" had their part in this huge establishment. "The same consideration of state which leads a Western prince or noble to multiply horses, leads an Eastern prince to multiply wives, with often as little personal consideration in the one ease as in the other" (Kitto) ] many [He is blamed for their number. This was against Deuteronomy 17:17] strange [not merely foreign, though that is the primary meaning of the word, but strange as opposed to a lawful wife. Cf. Proverbs 5:20; Proverbs 6:24; Proverbs 7:5, etc. No doubt the harlots in Israel were principally aliens] women, together with [וְאֵת־בַּת־כי i.e; praeter filiam Ph. (Maurer). Pharaoh's daughter is regarded as his lawful wife] the daughter of Pharaoh [see note on 1 Kings 3:1], women of the Moabites, Ammonites [Heb. Moabitesses, etc. Perhaps these two nations are mentioned first because such alliances as these, though not forbidden in terms by the law, would nevertheless, from its spirit and bearing towards these races, be looked upon with especial disfavour. If the Ammonite or Moabite was not to be received into the congregation until the tenth generation (Deuteronomy 23:3); if the Israelite was not to seek their peace or prosperity all the days of his life (verse 6), then the idea of intermarriage with them must have been altogether repugnant to the Hebrew polity, as indeed we may gather from the book of Ruth], Edomites [Favourably distinguished (Deuteronomy 23:7) from the two preceding races. The Edomite was a "brother." His children of the third generation might enter into the congregation], Zidonians [Rawlinson thinks this word lends "some countenance to the tradition recorded by Menander, that Solomon married a daughter of Hiram, king of Tyre." But such tradition was sure to arise; the uxorious character of Solomon and his close relations with Hiram are quite sufficient to account for its growth. And a daughter of Hiram would hardly have been passed over without special mention], and Hittites [see on 1 Kings 10:29].
Of the nations concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel [Of the nations just enumerated, the law expressly forbade marriage with the Hittites alone (Exodus 34:11-2; Deuteronomy 7:1), though the Zidonians are probably to be included, as being Canaanites (Genesis 10:15). But the principle which applied in the ease of the seven nations of Canaan applied equally to all other idolaters. "They will turn away thy son from following me," etc. (Deuteronomy 7:4). The spirit of the law, consequently, was as much violated by an Edomite or Ammonite as by a Hittite alliance], Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you [much the same expression Joshua 23:12. The historian does not cite any special Scripture, however, but gives the substance of several warnings], for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods [cf. Exodus 34:16]: Solomon clave [same word Genesis 2:4] unto these [emphatic in Heb. "even to these," instead of cleaving to God (Deuteronomy 4:4; Deuteronomy 10:20; Deuteronomy 30:20, each of which has the same word as here), and despite the prohibitions of the law, etc.] in love.
And he had seven hundred wives, princesses [These may have been members of royal or princely houses of neighbouring nations. Evidently they enjoyed a distinguished rank], and three hundred concubines [Though not committed to a defence of the accuracy of the figures 700 and 300 (which are clearly round numbers), it must be said that the reasons alleged for reducing them are not of much weight. It is hardly correct, e.g; to say (as Rawlinson) that the numbers are given in Song of Solomon 6:8 as "threescore queens and fourscore concubines," for it is obvious that too much importance must not be attached to an obiter statement ("there are threescore," etc.) in a poetical book, too, and one descriptive of Solomon's youth. The view of Ewald and Keil, again, that these numbers represent the sum total of the inmates of the harem at different periods of Solomon's long reign, rather than the number present at any one time—they would see in the numbers of Song of Solomon l.c. a statement of the average strength of the seraglio—though not to be described as evasive, is certainly not the natural interpretation of the words. And these numbers, when we compare them with the establishments of other Eastern potentates, are not found to be at all incredible. The commentators all remind us that Dareius Codomannus, e.g; took with him on his expedition against Alexander 360 pellices. Or if ancient history, as Rawlinson affirms, furnishes no strict parallel to these figures, the harems of modern Persia and Turkey at any rate have quite equalled that of Solomon. (See Bähr in loc.) It is true that Rehoboam had only 18 wives and 60 concubines (2 Chronicles 11:21), but then Rehoboam was not Solomon. If his harem was but a tithe of his father's, so also were his wealth and his power]: and his wives turned away his heart. ["Satan hath found this bait to take so well that he never changed since he crept into Paradise" (Bp. Hall).]
For it came to pass, when Solomon was old [As he was but sixty at the time of his death, "old" is here a relative term, and must mean "toward the close of his life," i.e; when he was about 50 or 55], that his wives turned away his heart after other gods [The text does not limit Solomon's polygamy to the time of old age, but his idolatrous leanings. I say leanings, for it is doubtful to what extent Solomon himself took part in actual idolatry. Both Bähr and Keil—the latter in opposition to the views he held in 1846—not to speak of others, deny that he shared the idolatries of his wives, and the former labours hard, and on the whole, it seems to me, successfully, to prove that he was only guilty of sanctioning idolatrous worship in the vicinity of Jerusalem. His arguments, briefly stated, are these:
(1) It is nowhere said that he "served" (עָבַד) other gods—the expression constantly used of the idolatrous kings; cf. 1 Kings 16:31; 1Ki 22:53; 2 Kings 16:3, etc.
(2) Neither the son of Sirach nor the Talmud nor the Rabbins know anything of his personal idolatry.
(3) Had he formally worshipped idols, his sin would have been greater than that of Jeroboam as to which, however, see on 1 Kings 12:29 sqq. (The "sin of Jeroboam" lay in "making Israel to sin," i.e; in forcing his people into schismatic and unauthorized worship, rather than in any practices of his own.)
(4) The expressions "his heart was not perfect," below, and "he went not fully" (1 Kings 12:6) are inconsistent with the idea of idolatry. Similarly Ewald says, "There is no evidence from ancient authorities that Solomon, even in advanced life, ever left the religion of Jahveh, and with his own hand sacrificed to heathen gods. All traces of contemporary history extant testify to the contrary". See, however, on 1 Kings 12:5]: and his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God [It is instructive to compare with this the words of 1 Kings 8:61, "Let your heart be perfect," etc. Wordsworth remarks that "the defection even of Solomon from God through the influence of his strange wives is one of the best justifications" of the commands of Exodus 34:12-2; Deuteronomy 7:2, etc.], as was the heart of David his father.
For Solomon went after [Rawlinson observes that this expression, which is "common in the Pentateuch, always signifies actual idolatry." He cites Deuteronomy 11:28; Deuteronomy 13:2; Deuteronomy 28:14; but it should be considered that in the two passages last cited the words are added, "and served them." And the true explanation would seem to be that, though "it is not stated that Solomon himself offered sacrifice to these idols," yet "even the building of altars for idols was a participation in idolatry, which was irreconcilable with true fidelity to the Lord" (Keil). Bähr contends that the words "went after Ashtoreth," etc; no more involve personal service than the word "built" in Deuteronomy 28:7 involves personal labour; but both expressions show that he regarded these idolatries not only without disfavour, but with positive approval and practical encouragement. "It is not likely he could be so insensate as to adore such deities, but so far was the uxorious king blinded with affection, that he gave not passage only to the idolatry of his heathenish wives, but furtherance" (Bp. Hall). And the distinction, so far as the sin is concerned, between this and actual idolatry is a fine one. It is not implied, however, that Solomon ever discarded the worship of Jehovah. To the end of his reign he would seem to have offered his solemn sacrifices on the great altar thrice a year. But his heart was elsewhere (Deuteronomy 28:9).] Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians [עַשְׁתֹּרֶת , Ἀστάρτη, probably connected with ἀστήρ, stella, and star, by some identified with the planet Venus, by others with the moon, is here mentioned for the first time in the singular (Ashtaroth, plural, is found in Genesis 14:5; Judges 2:13; Judges 10:6; 1 Samuel 7:4; 1 Samuel 12:10, etc.) With Baal, she divided the worship of the Phoenicians, the antiquity of which is evident from Genesis 14:5; Numbers 22:41. It was really an impure cultus of the reproductive powers (see below on Numbers 14:23). Interesting proof of the existence of a temple of this goddess at Sidon is supplied by an inscription discovered there in 1855 (see Dict. Bib. 1:123) ], and after Milcom [In Jeremiah 49:13; Amos 1:15, "Malcam," i.e; their king. According to Gesenius, the same as Molech (i.e; the king) in Amos 1:7, though Ewald, Movers, Keil regard them as different deities. But it seems more probable that it was the same deity, worshipped (2 Kings 23:10, 2 Kings 23:13) under different attributes. This is "the first direct historical allusion" to his worship in the Old Testament. A warning against it is found Leviticus 20:2. He was the fire god, as Baal was the sun god, and the sacrifices offered to him were those of children, who would seem to have not only "passed through the fire," but to have been burnt therein. Psalms 106:37, Psalms 106:38; Jeremiah 7:31; Jeremiah 19:5; Ezekiel 23:39, etc. See Dict. Bib. 2:403] the abomination [i.e; the hateful, detestable idol] of the Ammonites. [It has been suggested (Speaker's Commentary on Le Ezekiel 20:2) that the children offered to Molech were children of incest or adultery; and we are reminded that Ammon was the child of incest. It must he remembered, however, that we have no record of Jewish children passing through the fire to Molech before the time of Ahaz (Bähr, Keil).]
And Solomon did evil in the sight of the Lord [cf. Judges 2:11; Judges 3:7, etc.], and went not fully [לאֹ מִלֵא s.c. לֶלֶכֶת. A pregnant expression found also Numbers 14:24; Numbers 32:11, Numbers 32:12; Deuteronomy 1:36] after the Lord, as did David his father.
Then did Solomon build an high place [see on 1 Kings 3:2] for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab [The meaning of "Chemosh" is uncertain. Gesenius suggests "Vanquisher"—Chemosh was the god of war. The mention of Ashtar-Chemosh on the Moabite stone "connects the Moabite religion with the Phoenician," where Ashtar is the masculine form of Astarte, and suggests that "Chemosh was connected with the androgynous deities of Phoenicia" (Speaker's Comm. on Numbers 21:29). It is probable, in fact, that Chemosh, Baal, Ashtoreth, Molech, etc; were originally so many names of the one supreme God, worshipped under different attributes, and with various rites in different countries], in the hill that is before Jerusalem [see 2 Kings 23:13. The hill is of course the mount of Olives. The altar would seem to have stood on the south peak, which is now known, as it has been for centuries past, as the Mons Scandali, or the Mons Offensionis (the Vulg. rendering of 2 Kings l.c.) See Robinson, 1:565, 566], and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon. [Ewald sees in these altars a wise religious tolerance.]
And likewise did he for all [having done it for one, he must needs do it for all. "No hill about Jerusalem was free from a chapel of devils" (Hall) ] his strange wives, which burnt [Heb. burning, Ewald, 335 a] incense and sacrificed unto their gods. [Observe, as bearing on the question of Solomon's apostasy, that Solomon built the altars; his wives sacrificed, etc. According to Keil, incense is here mentioned before sacrifice, because vegetable took precedence of animal offerings in the nature worship of Western Asia But it is very doubtful whether this idea was in the mind of the writer.]
And the Lord was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the Lord God of Israel, which had appeared unto him twice. [cf. 1 Kings 3:5 and 1 Kings 9:2. The anger arose partly from the exceptional favours which had been shown to him; cf. Amos 3:2; Luke 10:12.]
And had commanded him concerning this thing [1 Kings 9:6] that he should not go after other gods: but he kept not that which the Lord commanded.
Wherefore the Lord said unto Solomon [probably by a prophet, Ahijah or Iddo. There would hardly be a third appearance], Forasmuch as this is done of thee [Heb. this was with thee], and thou hast not kept my covenant and my statutes, which I have commanded thee, I will surely rend [i.e; despite thy great power and magnificence, thy fortifications and munitions of war] the kingdom from thee, and will give it to thy servant. [Not merely subject, but officer, employe. This made the decree the more bitter. A "servant" should be heir to his glory. For a hireling Solomon's vast treasures had been prepared. This verse should be read in the light of Ecclesiastes 2:18.]
Notwithstanding in thy days I will not do it [The threatening had two gracious and merciful limitations,
(1) The blow should not fall until after his death (cf. 1 Kings 11:34; 1 Kings 21:29; 2 Kings 22:20), and
(2) the disruption should be but partial. There should be a "remnant" Romans 9:27; Romans 11:5, etc.] for David thy father's sake [i.e; because both of David's piety and God's promise to him (2 Samuel 7:13) ]: but I will rend it out of the hand of thy son.
Howbeit I win not rend away all the kingdom; but will give one tribe [viz; Judah (1 Kings 12:20, "the tribe of Judah only"). "Even the reservation of one tribe is called a gift" (Wordsworth) to thy son for David my servant's sake, and for Jerusalem's sake which I have chosen. [But for this provision, Jerusalem would have ceased to be the religious capital. When the sceptre departed from Judah, we may be sure that the "envy of Ephraim" would have demanded that the city of their solemnities should be placed elsewhere—at Shiloh, which for 400 years had been God's "bright sanctuary," or at Bethel, which from far earlier times had been a holy place. See on 1 Kings 12:29, 1 Kings 12:32.]
HOMILETICS
The Sin of Solomon.
Three questions will suffice to bring this subject before us. First, what was this sin? secondly, by whom was it committed? thirdly, when, and under what circumstances?
But first, it is well we should understand what this sin was not.
(1) It was not actual idolatry. True, Solomon built the altars, but he built them for his wives (1 Kings 11:7, 1 Kings 11:8). The wisest of men never stooped so low as to "project his person" to dumb idols (note on 1 Kings 11:4). To him, an idol was "nothing in the world" (1 Corinthians 8:4). That, of all things, was "vanity of vanities;"
(2) Nor was it the outcome of simple sensuality. The wives who "turned away his heart," and to whom he "clave in love"—it was not passion but pride had collected them in such numbers under his palace roof. "His crowded seraglio was but one instance more of the sort of ambition which made him seek to surpass all men in his gardening, his agriculture, his treasures of gold," etc. (Keble). See on 1 Kings 11:1. But when he had them, he must humour them, even in their idolatries. He was very far, we may be sure, from thinking that all religions were alike, which has been "the disease of some great wits;" but he flattered himself that he was tolerant and liberal, and as he claimed liberty of conscience, so he must concede it to others.
We see, then, that the essence of this sin was that having permitted himself, or purposes of state and pride and ostentation, the love of many strange women, he permitted them, and possibly some of his subjects also, to worship their false gods. And by so doing—
1. He gave a direct sanction to superstition. He may have argued, like some in later times and some who bear the Christian name, that these things, though nothing in themselves, were all very well for women, that the ignorant must have material objects of worship, etc. But it was not thus that the God of his fathers viewed the deed. This philosophic tolerance of other creeds, He called the teaching of falsehood. This liberality, in His sight, was "damnable uncharitableness"—the expression is Jeremy Taylor's—for it was leading poor souls away from the light and changing the truth of God into a lie (Romans 1:25). It was "making the blind to wander out of the way" (Deuteronomy 27:18) in the worst possible sense of the words.
2. He encouraged immorality and cruelty. For it must never be forgotten what the "abominations" of these Semitic divinities were like. The idolatry of the East always involved impurity; hence its powerful hold on a nation like the Jews, for whom the worship of "silver and gold, the works of men's hands," could have had but little charm. Its "vile affections" (Romans 1:26) were its chief attractions. And Solomon, who knew what the worship of Baal and Ashtoreth meant, who knew how unclean were their rites, and what painful and shameful sacrifices Molech and Chemosh demanded of their votaries, nevertheless gave the word, and presently the hills about Jerusalem were crowned with chapels of devils.
3. He dishonoured the one true God. For if "Polytheism is not exclusive," Monotheism, in the very nature of things, is and must be. Its basis, its fundamental conception, is that there are not "gods many and lords many." Its keynote is the Shema Israel (Deuteronomy 6:4), "the Lord our God is one Lord." It proclaims a "jealous God" who will not give His glory to another, nor His praise to graven images (Isaiah 42:8). But Solomon robbed Him of His rights; of the exclusive sovereignty and the undivided authority which belonged to Him alone. By building idol altars he claimed homage for idol deities; before the eyes of the Lord's people, he thrust rivals and pretenders on to the Lord's throne, and degraded "the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man." (Romans 1:23).
4. He defied the Holy One of Israel. For these altars of lust and cruelty were not built in a corner. They did not shrink from the light as in a past age; they were not frequented by pagani. They rose "on the hill that is before Jerusalem;" they fronted the altar of Jehovah; their priests were visible to the priests in the temple court; their smoke ascended to the sky along with the smoke of the daily sacrifice. If insult had been designed, it could hardly have been more open or obtrusive.
II. And by WHOSE permission, at whose bidding were these shrines of infamy erected? They were built by -
1. The wisest of men. In science (1 Kings 4:33), in philosophy (ib. 1 Kings 11:29-11), in self knowledge. Cf. 1 Kings 3:12, 1 Kings 3:28.
2. The most favoured and enlightened of men. The Lord "appeared unto him twice" (1 Kings 3:9). His was "abundance of revelations" (cf. 2 Corinthians 12:7). To him it was said, "Ask what I shall give thee" (1 Kings 3:5). This was Jedidiah. "There was no king like Solomon, who was beloved of his God, yet even him did outlandish women cause to sin" (Nehemiah 13:26).
3. The builder of the temple. To him had been granted the high honour which was denied to pious David. He had "found a place for the Lord, a habitation for the mighty God of Jacob" (Psalms 132:5). The golden altar, the brazen altar; he had planned and reared them both. And now he builds altars to "horrors" (see note on 1 Kings 15:13). "He that burneth incense, he blessed an idol" (Isaiah 66:3, Hebrews)
4. The teacher of the Church. He was "that deep sea of wisdom which God ordained to send forth rivers and fountains of all Divine and human knowledge to all nations, to all ages;" he was "one of those select secretaries whose hand it pleased the Almighty to employ in three pieces of the Divine monuments of sacred Scriptures" (Bp. Hall). He is fallen, but his writings stand. He still preaches to others, though himself a castaway. There have been authors whose pestilent writings go on corrupting and destroying souls for ages after they have ceased to speak. But Solomon's is in some respects a sadder case than theirs. His writings have taught and blessed the world for nigh three thousand years after he himself fell into "utter wretchlessness of most unclean living."
5. A man who warned others. It is only when we study his fall in the light of his prayer and proverbs, with their many admonitions, that we realize how great a wreck he became and how appalling is the lesson of his fall "Since the first man, Adam, the world hath not yielded either so great an example of wisdom or so fearful an example of apostasy, as Solomon" (Hall).
III. But WHEN was it, let us now ask, that Solomon fell into this deadly sin? At what period of his reign, and under what circumstances, did he sink to such depths of degradation? Observe ―
1. It was not after sudden or special temptation. We may truly say of him, "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man." No Delilah, no Bathsheba wrought his ruin. It is instructive to compare 1 Kings 4:20-11 with the account of our Lord's temptation (Matthew 4:3). Solomon was not tempted by hunger; his "provision for one day was," etc. The enemy could not offer him "the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them:" he had them already (1 Kings 4:21, 1 Kings 4:24; 1 Kings 10:1. passim); he could only use the common weapon of presumption, of spiritual pride, and it was by this that Solomon was slain.
2. It was not after great trials or adversity. His career, how unlike David's! "Rest on every side." "Neither adversary nor evil occurrence" (1 Kings 5:4). "Eating, drinking, and making merry" (1 Kings 4:20). Compare 1 Samuel chs. 18-30. And yet David stood and Solomon fell. What we call adversity (compare Jacob's "all these things are against me," Genesis 42:36) is often spiritual prosperity. "Tribulation" is a significant word. The tribulum was the threshing sledge which separated the chaff from the grain. It is said by some that wax is necessary for nations to preserve them from corruption and decay; it is certain that peace is not always good for princes. The man of peace and rest, who was "not plagued like other men," has furnished the world with the most terrible example of apostasy. Well may the apostle bid us to "rejoice in tribulation also," to "count it all joy when," etc. (James 1:2).
3. It was "when he was old." St. Paul speaks of "youthful lusts," but old age has its special dangers and temptations. It was in the time of mature experience, when the hot blood of youth should have cooled, when he should have known the world and his wisdom should have been ripest, that his wives turned away his heart. Perhaps he presumed upon his exalted gifts and revelations. With age came selfconfidence. It is thus that many strong cities have been taken. "Praeruptum eoque neglectum" discloses the secret of their fall
4. It was when his riches had increased. The greater his store, the leaner his soul. "It is easier for a camel," etc. (Matthew 19:24). "The deceitfulness of riches" choked the word (Matthew 13:22). The Latin proverb which says that "every rich man is either a knave or the son of a knave" has some truth in it. Happy are those who have "neither poverty nor riches" (Proverbs 30:8); happiest those who can say, "My riches consist, not in the abundance of my possessions, but in the fewness of my wants."
5. It was when his prosperity was at its highest. It was when he "waxed fat" that "Jeshurun kicked." It is when men "have eaten and are full" that they most need to "beware that they forget not the Lord their God" (Deuteronomy 8:10, Deuteronomy 8:11). Observe, it was not until he had reached the very pinnacle of greatness and felicity that Solomon fell. "His prosperity, which even wise men find a constant wear and trial to the spirit, did him more harm than even his wisdom did him good". How appropriate that prayer, "In all time of our wealth good Lord, deliver us." "The food convenient which Agur prayed for is safer than the food abundant which even Solomon was surfeited with" (M. Henry).
6. It was after his wives were multiplied. Polygamy has ever been a snare to rulers. It is said that Scripture nowhere condemns it. If the letter does not, the spirit does. Scripture tells of the misery it has occasioned. Witness the families of Abraham, Jacob, Elkanah, and David. It was the immediate cause of Solomon's ruin. There are few partnerships which are so lightly entered into as the one which lasts for all life. And yet how completely is a man's honour, prosperity, and peace in his wife's keeping. "How many have we known whose heads have been broken by their own rib" (Bp. Hall). It is a quaint but true saying, "If a man would thrive, he must ask his wife." How strange that he who knew the priceless value of one true woman's love (Proverbs 31:10) should surrender himself to immodest and forbidden attachments. Can there be a reference to his thousand wives and concubines in those pessimist words of Ecclesiastes 7:26-21? "If one woman undid all mankind, what marvel is it if many women undid one?" (Hall.) "Thou didst bow thy loins unto women, and by thy body wast thou brought into subjection" (Ecclus. 47:19).
7. It was after repeated warnings. He had had
(1) the standing warning of Scripture (Deuteronomy 17:16 sqq.),
(2) the special warnings of his father David (1 Kings 2:8, 1 Kings 2:4, and especially 1 Chronicles 28:9),
(3) the supernatural warnings of God. (1 Kings 3:14; 1 Kings 6:12, 1Ki 6:13; 1 Kings 9:6, 1 Kings 9:7). And to these may surely be added
(4) the repeated and emphatic warnings which he had himself addressed to others. But all these went for nothing. And so it is too probable his own words (Proverbs 29:1) found a fulfilment in his own person. The saddest consideration of all is that this great preacher has unconsciously predicted his own fall, and passed sentence on himself. "Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee," etc. (Luke 19:22).
HOMILIES BY J.A. MACDONALD
The Fall of a King.
Solomon was a king of men. Not only was he supreme civil ruler of his nation, he was also chief in wisdom and knowledge, and distinguished in the favour of God (Nehemiah 13:26). This moral royalty is open to all. The prize is nobler than that of the most glittering "corruptible crown." From this kingship Solomon fell, though he retained the throne of the nation. The rascal often lurks in the heart that is under an anointed face. Let us consider—
I. THE OCCASION OF THIS DELINQUENCY.
1. Solomon had many wives.
(1) This was an invasion of God's order. That order was exhibited in Eden, when Eve stood singly by the side of Adam. Lamech was the first polygamist (Genesis 4:19). He was, ominously, the fifth in descent from the fratricide Cain.
(2) Moses tolerated polygamy, as he also suffered divorcements, not with approval of these customs, but rather in judgment upon the people for the hardness of their hearts (see Matthew 19:8).
(3) This principle will explain many Mosaic ordinations the observance of which was a burdensome yoke, and from which, by the mercy of Christ, we are happily released (Acts 15:10, Acts 15:11). Note: God's order cannot be invaded with impunity. It is our duty carefully to ascertain it, and faithfully to keep it.
2. His wives were strange women.
(1) Not only were they foreigners, they. were also idolaters. There is no proof that even Pharaoh's daughter was a proselyte. Solomon could have no spiritual sympathy with these without compromising his loyalty to Jehovah.
(2) They were idolaters of those very nations against alliances with which the law of God was express (see 1 Kings 11:2; Exodus 34:12-2; Deuteronomy 7:8, Deuteronomy 7:4). The sin was therefore most flagrant.
(3) The spirit of this inhibition still binds (see 1 Corinthians 7:39; 2 Corinthians 6:14). The reason for it is in the nature of things and must abide. Note: Many a man has had his heart pierced and his head broken by his own rib.
3. David had too many wives.
(1) The example of David may have injuriously influenced Solomon. A large harem may have been a sign of grandeur; but these kings ought to have been superior to such fashions (see Deuteronomy 17:17).
(2) The evils in the examples of good men are especially mischievous, for they are liable to be condoned into harmlessness; the more readily so when to follow them is agreeable to natural inclination.
(3) They are liable to be carried farther. If David had many wives, Solomon had very many. David's wives were chiefly daughters of Israel, but Solomon's were daughters of foreign idolaters. Amongst his 700 wives and 300 concubines, not one was good (see Ecclesiastes 7:28). Note: Good men should be especially watchful over their influence—parents, ministers, Sunday school teachers, professors of religion.
II. THE PROGRESS OF THE EVIL.
1. First the heart is set against the head.
(1) The earliest record here is that Solomon's heart was turned away. His head at first seems to have been clear, as Adam's also was, who, though in the transgression, yet was "not deceived" (1 Timothy 2:14). But his heart, like that of Adam, was fatally susceptible to female influence.
(2) It is a foolish thing in a wise man to trust his head when he gives his heart to evil. "Man at his best is vanity."
2. Then the heart rules the head.
(1) This is the next stage and inevitable. This may be disputed long, but will assert itself in time. Observe well that when Solomon was "old" he so far yielded to the influence of his wives as to encourage and join in their idolatry.
(2) Probably his vices made him prematurely old. Calmer supposes him to have been eighteen years old when he came to the throne, and he reigned forty years (1 Kings 11:42). Thus he could be only fifty-eight at his death.
3. Finally the wise man becomes a fool.
(1) Behold this wisest of men trying to solve the impossible problem of serving Jehovah and Ashtaroth! He went not fully after the Lord his God as did David his father.
(2) David indeed fell into grievous sin, but his offence was more directly against man; indirectly against God. Even then the offence as against God was the venom of his crimes (Psalms 51:4). But the sin of Solomon was against God directly. Note: Offences against society are denounced without mercy by men, while the mental rebellion of the unbeliever against God is even glorified as "honest doubt!" but the Bible is explicit that "He that believeth not shall be damned."
(3) Behold this wise man further building a temple to Molech, the murderer, the devil, on the Mount of Olives, over against the temple of the Lord, the glorious work of his royal youth! Could folly go farther?
(4) The mischief of Solomon's idolatry remained to the times of Josiah (see 2 Kings 23:13). Who can say that it terminated even then? Eternity will declare.—M.
The Anger of God.
This is the inevitable consequence of sin. Had God expressed no displeasure against Solomon, what mischief might not his example have wrought? The terrible judgments of the great day will have a most salutary effect upon the order and stability of the whole moral universe. If men sufficiently considered these things they would hesitate before they plunged into vices. Let us be admonished from this history as to—
I. How THE ANGER OF GOD IS PROVOKED. It is provoked—
1. By the turning, away of the heart from Him.
(1) And justly so, for to do this is to outrage the highest propriety. God is everything that should engage the affections of an intelligent creature—"the perfection of beauty;" "the altogether lovely."
(2) For to do this is the straight road to the deepest demoralization. Man is made in the image of God expressly that his nature may have its perfection in union and communion with Him. To turn away from God must lead to depravation evermore. This, in other words, is everlasting damnation.
(3) Then let us keep our hearts (Proverbs 4:23). No diligence should be spared. Our life is in it.
2. By doing this wantonly.
(1) It was an aggravation of Solomon's sin that God had appeared to him. Review the circumstances of the vision he witnessed before he set about the building of the temple (see 1 Kings 3:5). He could not have been wholly ignorant of the glorious character of God.
(2) It was a further aggravation that God had appeared to him twice (1 Kings 11:9). Review the circumstances of the vision after the work of the temple was finished (see 1 Kings 9:1). Note: Privileges imply corresponding responsibilities. Note further: God keeps account of His favours conferred upon us, though we may forget them. He will remind us of them all in the great day of judgment.
(3) It was an additional aggravation that he had been forewarned of the very evils into which he fell. And the promises of God to him had been so remarkably verified that he had the best reason to accept the truth of His admonitions. How slow of heart are the men to believe the inflexibility of Divine justice!
(4) A king who exacts obedience from subjects, or a master who claims the obedience of servants, should be the last to forget his duty to God. Consider—
II. How THE ANGER OF GOD IS EXPRESSED. It is expressed—
1. In the severity of justice.
(1) The kingdom of Solomon was now doomed to be rent. He had divided his affections (between Jehovah and Molech), so are the affections of his subjects now to be divided.
(2) A considerable portion of his kingdom is to be turned over to one of his servants. What a fitness there is in this judgment also! Solomon, the servant of God, rebelled against God; Jeroboam, the servant of Solomon, rebels against Solomon.
(3) What a melancholy reversal! Time was when God loved Solomon (see 2 Samuel 12:24; 1 Kings 10:9; Nehemiah 13:26). Severe is the fall from the height of a throne. From a vastly greater elevation is the fall of one east from the bosom of God.
(4) Behold how sin works ruin! It ruins individuals, families, nations. The anger of God is expressed—
2. With the mitigations of mercy.
(1) For the sake of David his father these judgments were not to come upon Solomon in his day. We little know the benefits or the evils entailed upon us by our forefathers. We should see that we entail not evils but benefits upon our descendants.
(2) "For David's sake!" David, the beloved, was a type of Christ, for whose sake the entail of infinite mischief is cut off from his sons, and they are made heirs of inestimable blessings.
(3) Even Rehoboam was to reap the benefit of the faithfulness of David. One tribe, the most important, was to be retained to him. The promises respecting the true son of David must be fulfilled.
(4) "For Jerusalem's sake," also, mercy must rejoice upon judgment (1 Kings 11:13). The temple was there. The shechinah was there. Kingdoms are spared the severity of judgments in respect to the interests of religion in many ways little dreamed of by statesmen and rulers.—M.
HOMILIES BY J. URQUHART
Solomon's Sin.
I. THE SIN.
1. Its nature. He not only aided his wives to continue their idolatrous worship, he himself participated in it. He went after strange gods, seeking their favour and observing their ordinances. The worship of Jehovah was not discarded, but delight in the true God was gone, and the flame of that loving zeal for God's commandments died away: his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God. The worship now offered in the temple was the lingering tradition of a brighter past, a thing of custom and outward necessity, and the heart was given to baser worships, sensuous and sensual The soul had ceased to drink at the fountain of living waters, and was drinking at the fountain of death. Is our heart perfect with the Lord, our delight in His love, our hunger after His righteousness as deep as in the past? Do we offer a cold and formal worship to Him, while our heart warms into living interest and strong desire only at the world's shrines?
2. Its guilt.
(1) God had given Solomon unparalleled wisdom, wealth, and power, and all were now turned against his Benefactor. All that fame and influence were used to glorify idolatry and lessen zeal for God's service. How often are God's gifts thus turned against Him!
(2) The sin of Solomon became the sin of Israel (1 Kings 11:33). The responsibility of parents in regard to their children's attitude toward God—the responsibility of the leaders of thought and of society, of all of us, as to how we influence men in their attitude toward the things unseen and eternal.
3. Its sadness. It was his last work, the sin not of youth but of old age. The light which God had kindled did not flame out into eternal glory, but went out in eternal night. The seeds of sin and disaster were sown among his people, his life a wreck, his memory not a star to guide the wanderer in the darkness, but a warning beacon on the waste of death! The story of many a life besides: will it be the story of thine?
II. WHAT LED TO IT.
1. Unregulated affections. The wisdom of marrying only in the Lord. The danger of worldly alliances and worldly friendships.
2. The despising of God's commandments (see 1 Kings 11:2, and Deuteronomy 17:16, Deuteronomy 17:17). The counsels of God were lightly esteemed. Many commands of God are today held to be antiquated and are quietly ignored. The directions of Scripture in regard to what are deemed minor things are set aside. The spirit of unbelief is there. For individuals and for churches it must prove a seed of sin and spiritual disaster.
3. The human love displaced the Divine. The spirit of disloyalty needed only a strong enough inducement to go further, and it found it here. To please his wives, altars to their gods were built on Mount Olivet, and then his own soul was taken in the snare of their abominations. The testimony which we are called to lift up in the face of all life away from God is safety for our own soul. It is hard to do it, but there is life in it for ourselves and, it may be, for others also.—U.
God's Anger.
I. SINS ARE SET IN THE LIGHT OF PAST MERCIES.
1. Solomon's idolatry is contrasted with the advantages conferred upon him,
The Lord had appeared to him twice. The reality of God's existence and His personality had been engraven upon Solomon's soul.
2. With the commandment given. The Lord "had commanded him concerning this thing." The rebellion and ingratitude are both marked. Our sins are judged not only in themselves and their effects, but also in the light of what God has done and said to us. There is a baseness and an enmity in sin that will yet crush the sinful heart. Do we weigh sins in this way? Does our repentance read them thus? God's judgment will: "Forasmuch as this is done of thee," etc.
II. THE DIVINE JUDGMENT.
1. Hopes frustrated. Solomon may have excused his sin to himself because it conciliated neighbouring princes and nations and so strengthened his kingdom. But while he fancied himself building up, he was in reality casting down. Forgetfulness of God is forgetfulness of one's own good.
2. Pride abased. The dominion is given to a servant. There is not only loss but shame. There are first that will be last, and last first.
3. Punishment reflects sin. Solomon's rebellion and ingratitude are punished by rebellion and ingratitude. The kingdom is rent from him by a subject, and by one whom he had trusted and advanced (1 Kings 11:28). "Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." As the wicked have shut out God, God will shut out them.
III. THE DIVINE MERCY. In God's chastisements there is ever a gateway of kindness through which we may pass up into His forgiveness and love.
1. The judgment is delayed. It was a heavy judgment that the kingdom should be rent from his son, but it would have been an added bitterness had his own day set in disaster and shame.
2. The whole will not be taken even from his son. His seed will still reign in Jerusalem.
3. There is humbling even in the mercy. It is done for David's sake and for Jerusalem's sake. Pride is crushed beneath God's mercy as well as beneath His judgment. We are pardoned for Christ's sake and His name's sake. In the midst of rebuke for iniquity there is mercy and life for lowly faith.—U.
HOMILIES BY A. ROWLAND
The Downfall of Solomon.
The fall of Solomon has appeared to some commentators incredible. As to the fact itself, however, there can be no doubt. Nor is his fall so exceptional as many suppose. Others beside this king have had pious parentage, a religious education, a promising youth, extraordinary intellectual endowments, frequent warnings of their danger, and yet have failed and come short of the glory of God. Give examples. It is noteworthy that God saw Solomon's danger and warned him of it on the evening of that day upon which his religious devotion appeared most intense. The dedication of the temple was at once the zenith of the nation's glory, and of their king's highest attainments. Describe the Feast of Dedication; the song of the people—"Lift up your heads, O ye gates, etc.;" the prayer of Solomon that this might be so; and the manifestation of the Divine Presence. Contrast this scene with the silence of the following night, in which the message of the Lord came, bidding him beware lest the emotion and resolve of the day should be evanescent (1 Kings 9:2). Our times of religious excitement are not our safest hours. Enthusiasm has its perils as well as its powers. Refer to Peter's eager protestation, and the Lord's word of caution, "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have," etc. (Luke 22:31). The sins which constituted Solomon's decadence—against which, through him, we are warned—appear to have been these:
I. SENSUALITY. His base self indulgence grew upon him, as it does on any man. The life he lived was degrading to his manhood. Love became debased to lust, because it was divorced from purity. Physically, as well as morally, he became a wreck, and though not 60 years of age when he died, he was already weary, broken, and old (1 Kings 11:4). Some light may be thrown upon his downward progress by the books which bear his name, and which, if not written by him, were declarations of the experience he knew. If the Song of Solomon represents his bright youth, when love, though passionate, was undefiled, the book of Ecclesiastes is the outcry of his age, when all seemed "vanity and vexation of spirit," and when he tried once more painfully to lay the old foundation of the shattered fabric of his life (Ecclesiastes 12:13). Compare him with Samson; show how the indulgence of passion destroys kingliness. Even such sin was not beyond pardon. It would have been well for Solomon had he returned to God, as his father had done (see Psalms 51:1.)
II. EVIL COMPANIONSHIP (verse 2). The Israelites were often warned against marriage with the heathen. At times ordinary international intercourse was forbidden. Instances are given in which disobedience to this law of severance brought terrible effects. Some companionship is essential to man. The hermit must be a very imperfect Christian. John the Baptist was in the wilderness, but Christ, whom we follow, was ever found in the haunts and homes of men. Yet under the new dispensation the wise choice of companionship is insisted on, and provided for. The twelve apostles were associated together, as well as separated from others; and in their work they went forth by two and two. The Apostolic Church presents a beautiful picture of fellowship (Acts 2:1.) It is amongst the wise hearted and devout that we are to find our friends. "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers." The importance of this to the young, whose characters are not yet formed. Hence responsibility rests on parents, who can encourage or hinder acquaintances, and on young people themselves. He must have something of Christ's wisdom and strength, and must be animated by His motives, who, like Him, would be safe and useful amongst "the publicans and sinners."
III. EXTRAVAGANCE. The wealth of Solomon was enormous. The treasure saved for him by David seemed inexhaustible, and the tribute from other peoples (1 Kings 10:25), the monopolies granted by the king (1 Kings 10:28, 1 Kings 10:29), the importation of gold from Ophir (1 Kings 9:28), etc; brought immense revenues. The king was proportionately extravagant. See the account given of his palaces, his gardens, and his retinue. No country could long bear such a strain. Increased taxation was necessary, and this was one of the causes of the break up of the kingdom under Rehoboam. Show in modern life the temptations to extravagance and ostentation; the injury caused by these sins to a nation; the moral perils to which the extravagant are exposed; the diminution of help to God's cause and to God's poor.
IV. OPPRESSION. He appears to have copied the Pharaohs not only in magnificence, but in disregard for human suffering. The Canaanites were reduced to the position of helots; multitudes were torn from their homes to fell timber in the forests, or hew stone in the quarries. Even the Israelites had to do forced labour. Kings have responsibility to their people, as well as the people to their kings. God's laws were violated by Solomon (Exodus 22:21; Exodus 23:9). Show from history the Nemesis of oppression. Indicate manifestations of the spirit of tyranny in business, in homes, schools, etc.
V. IDOLATRY. Solomon erected temples to Ashtoreth, Milcom, and Chemosh. Describe the idolatries specified. All idolatry, sternly forbidden. The cultus of these deities hideously cruel, dark, impure. Heathenism degrades man and dis-honours God. Show the steps which led Solomon to the commission of such egregious sin.
(1) He was broad in his views, far advanced from the traditional knowledge of the age, and often conversed with wise men of other creeds. Slowly he lost his sense of the pre-eminence of the truth revealed to him. He saw what was true in other systems, but meantime lost his horror at what was false in them. This one of the special perils of our age; point it out.
(2) He wished all that was connected with him to reflect his own magnificence. It was not enough that his wives and concubines should be at liberty to worship their idols; they must do it splendidly, if at all, for his glory was concerned in their Ac.
(3) He would please and attract surrounding nations. This partly for commercial ends, chiefly for personal glory. Base motives lead to fake policy, and false policy prepares for national ruin.
CONCLUSION.—
1. The possibility of ruin to those whose religious advantages are greatest.
2. The retribution heavier in proportion as the offence is aggravated by neglected warning.—A.R.
HOMILIES BY J. WAITE
Solomon's Fall.
The dark omen that marred the brightness of Solomon's second vision (1 Kings 9:6) has come to be fulfilled. He was forewarned of danger and yet has fallen into it. The splendour of royal circumstance remained the same, but how completely has his true glory departed! "How is the gold become dim and the fine gold changed!" The smile of God that rested as glad sunshine on his head, has turned to "anger." The cause of the change is in the secresy of his own soul. The Scripture narrative is silent about the course of his tuner life, the phases of thought and feeling through which he may have passed; so that this sudden note of discord in the midst of the harmony strikes us with something of sad surprise. Enough, however, is said to show that it was a moral change in the man himself. The Lord God of Israel had not changed in His purpose or method; it is Solomon whose "heart is turned from him." How far this was a fatal change, a real apostasy, we know not. We need not attempt to solve the purely speculative question as to whether he ever recovered from his fall; his later writings suggest at least the hope that it was so. Enough for us now to note the facts, to trace the causes, and learn the lessons. Certain broad principles of moral life are here strikingly illustrated.
I. THE TREACHERY OF HUMAN NATURE. Beneath the fairest exterior there may be latent germs of evil that only need outward incentives to develop themselves into disastrous issues. Even the inspirations of the highest wisdom and the raptures of religious emotion may have underlying them tendencies to the grossest forms of folly and the lowest deeps of sin and shame. Solomon was sincere enough in his earlier piety, but too little alive to the slumbering forces of evil that he bore within him. His moral history confirmed the truth of his own proverb: "He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool" (Proverbs 28:26). An Arab tradition says that in the staff on which he leaned there was a worm which was secretly gnawing it asunder. That worm was the hidden corruption of his moral nature. It is a solemn lesson: "Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall." We can look upon no form of wrong doing in others without being reminded that there is something akin to it in ourselves. Concealed in our own bosoms there is that which might possibly develop into similar issues. Our only security lies in the triumph of that gracious Divine power that can thoroughly purge the fountain of the heart, and destroy there the very germs of evil.
II. THE BASE USES TO WHICH THE HIGHEST ADVANTAGES OF LIFE MAY BE PERVERTED BY THE WAYWARD HEART. Solomon's greatness became the occasion and aggravation of his fall. His royal magnificence fostered "the lust of the eye and the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life." His consciousness of power degenerated into tyranny (1 Kings 12:4; 1 Samuel 8:11). The wealth of his emotional nature took the form of illicit love and boundless self indulgence. His studious interest in Nature induced the dream of occult mysterious powers in material things, and the practice of magic arts. His intercourse with men of other nations led to his catching the infection of their idolatries, until at last the rival temples of Moloch, Chemosh, and Ashtaroth, with all their cruel and abominable rites, frowned darkly upon Olivet, over against the glorious house of the Lord on Mount Moriah. So fatally may the noblest personal endowments and the richest advantages of life foster the evil tendencies of the heart when once it has surrendered itself to their control If it be true that "there is a soul of goodness in things evil," it is equally true that nothing is so good but that the spirit of evil may transform it into an instrument of moral injury. The fascinations of outward life are full of danger when that spirit lurks within. The wealth of a man's intellectual resources, the multitude of his possessions, the range of his influence, do but put into his hands the more abundant means of wrong doing when his heart is not loyal to the good and true.
"The fairest things below the sky
Give but a flattering light;
We must suspect some danger nigh,
Where we possess delight."
This idea is not to be carried too far. Life would be intolerable on the principle of universal suspicion and distrust. The great Father of all would have His children use and enjoy freely the good of every kind that falls to their lot. But let them beware lest the spirit of evil, in some form of outward charm, through some secret avenue of soul or sense, should gain an entrance to the citadel of their heart, and "turn it away" from Him.
III. THE CERTAINTY OF DIVINE RETRIBUTIONS. Solomon cannot sin with impunity. His personal defection involves the throne in dishonour and the whole nation in discord and sorrow. He had been forewarned that it should be so, and the threatenings of God are as sure as His promises. What is God's "anger" but just the reverse side of that faithfulness that secures the purposes of His grace? What are His judgments but the severer methods of His holy love? An inexorable Nemesis tracks the path of the transgressor; not a mere blind fate—not a mere impersonal law of moral sequence—but a Divine will and power, pledged to vindicate the cause of eternal righteousness. It may follow him slowly, as with "leaden foot," but sooner or later it overtakes him. "Whatsoever a man soweth," etc. (Galatians 6:7, Galatians 6:8). And though one only may sow the evil seed, how many, often, are the reapers! "The sins of the fathers are visited on the children," etc. No man can "perish alone in his iniquity." According to the range of his social relations so is the mischief his wrong doing works. When the king falls, how many fall with him! The laws of God
"must work their will,
Whatever human heart may bleed;
And more than they who do the ill
Must suffer for the evil deed."
IV. THE MERCY THAT TEMPERS DIVINE JUDGMENTS. The execution of the sentence is both delayed and modified. Not in Solomon's own reign shall the thing be done; "nor shall the kingdom be wholly torn from his house" (1 Kings 11:12, 1 Kings 11:18). This is partly from tender regard for the sacred memory of David his father, and partly, we may believe, in mercy to himself, that space may be given him for repentance (see Psalms 89:30-19). We have here a type and example of the general method of God's ways. "In wrath he remembers mercy." Something of gracious forbearance is seen in the severest of His judgments. His chastisements are fatherly. And beneath the darkest providences and the sternest retributions there is the steady flow of a loving kindness that endures throughout all generations, the strength of a covenant that shall never be broken.—W.
HOMILIES BY E. DE PRESSENSE
After the consecration of the temple Solomon reached the culminating point of his reign, both in a spiritual and temporal point of view. His fame and his dominion continued to increase. The Queen of Sheba came from the far East to pay him homage. From this summit of glory he had a sudden and shameful fall, and became all but an apostate. This son of David, whose high honour it was to have built and consecrated the temple of Jehovah, this heir of the promises on which hung the salvation of mankind, sank into idolatry. The causes of his fall were—1st, PRIDE: he forgot to give glory to God. 2nd, LUST: strange women enticed him after strange gods (1 Kings 11:8). The fall of Solomon repeats in a manner the features of the first transgression. It began in the desire to be as God, and was consummated in the gratification of the flesh. Its emphatic warning to all God's people is, "Let him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall" (1 Corinthians 10:12). Chastisement from God is the consequence of this fall. God had already warned Solomon that His most glorious promises were contingent on obedience to His commands. "If thou walk in my ways," etc. (1 Kings 3:18, 1 Kings 3:14). God chastens Solomon because He loves him, and does not altogether take His mercy from him, since He still leaves the kingdom of Judah to his descendants. The book of Ecclesiastes, with its blending of bitterness and repentance, is perhaps the ripening fruit of this merciful severity.—E.deP.