Prayer Tents Bible References - Prayer Tents

SOLOMON

(Heb. šĕlōmōh)

Six-chambered gate and casement wall at Gezer, representative of Solomon’s extensive building activity. The pillared storehouse in the background dates to the Omride dynasty (L. T. Geraty)

The third king of Israel, son of David and Bathsheba. He was one of the major figures of biblical history and tradition, renowned for his wisdom, wealth, and construction of the First Temple. Understanding his legacy involves coming to grips with how biblical writers, early interpreters, and modern scholars have construed his reign.

Kings

That the authors of both Kings and Chronicles devote considerable attention to Solomon is not accidental. The portrayal of Solomon in both histories is critical to understanding the attitude of each work to the monarchy in general and to the division in particular. In Kings Solomon’s reign falls into two distinct periods: one glorious (1 Kgs. 1–10), the other ruinous (ch. 11). Solomon’s ascent to power occurs during David’s decline. Following David’s affair with Bathsheba, the prophet Nathan declares that the sword will never leave David’s house (2 Sam. 12:7-12); David spends the rest of his years battling domestic and foreign foes (2 Sam. 13–20) and faces a state of near anarchy in his last years (1 Kgs. 1:1ff.). Ironically, as one of David’s youngest sons, Solomon benefits from this turmoil. He does not actively seek the throne, yet is blessed with it. Bathsheba and Nathan convince David to ignore primogeniture and appoint Solomon as his successor (1 Kgs. 1:15-35). Having been instructed by his father (1 Kgs. 2:2-9) and anointed by Zadok and Nathan (1:39-40), Solomon moves quickly to suppress all dissent (2:12-46). Solomon is then able to focus his talents on trading ventures, administrative reorganization, military fortifications, and construction of the temple (1 Kgs. 3–10).

The Deuteronomist depicts the first period of Solomon’s reign as a progression: accession and consolidation, efficient administration and judicious diplomacy, temple and palace construction, international commendation and untrammeled prosperity. Solomon’s dream at Gibeon introduces these themes. When asked by the Lord what he desires, Solomon humbly requests “an understanding mind to govern your people, able to discern between good and evil” (1 Kgs. 3:8-9). Not only does God fulfill Solomon’s wish, he decrees that Solomon’s “wise and discerning mind” will be unique among his predecessors and successors (1 Kgs. 3:12). Moreover, God is so pleased that Solomon did not ask for long life, riches, or the life of his enemies, that he decrees to Solomon unprecedented riches and glory as well (1 Kgs. 3:13).

In Kings, Solomon’s wisdom takes many forms. The tale of the two prostitutes confirms Solomon’s juridical talent (1 Kgs. 3:28), while his national reorganization (ch. 4) reveals his administrative talents. Other statements depict Solomon’s wisdom as encyclopedic or natural (1 Kgs. 4:29-34[MT 5:9-14]). However many dimensions Solomon’s wisdom has, they cumulatively enhance his unique reputation both within Israel and beyond (1 Kgs. 4:30, 34[5:10, 14]). Royal wisdom also contributes to the well-being of society. 1 Kgs. 4:20-25(5:5) pictures Israel in idyllic terms. Solomon rules over a vast empire, while his people live in security and prosperity (1 Kgs. 4:20; cf. v. 25[5:5]). The peace Israel experiences under Solomon fulfills one of the divine promises made to David, namely that Israel will enjoy “rest from all your enemies” (2 Sam. 7:10-11; 1 Kgs. 5:3-4[17-18]).

The rest God gives Israel, in turn, creates the requisite conditions for the fulfillment of another Davidic promise: the building of the temple. Solomon, like many other ancient Near Eastern kings, capitalizes on the fortunate conditions of his reign by embarking on major building projects. Because the author considers temple building as a major achievement in Israelite history, he devotes much attention to its construction, furnishings, and dedication (1 Kgs. 6:1–9:9). In Deuteronomistic perspective, the temple is the final resting place for the venerable ark (1 Kgs. 8:1-13). Solomon’s prayer at the dedication, one of the major speeches in the Deuteronomistic history, presents the temple as a unifying symbol in Israelite life, a place to which people can turn to God in all kinds of predicaments (1 Kgs. 8:22-53). Not only does the author link the temple’s completion to the Davidic promises, but also to the law of Moses. As an inducement to piety, the temple is also an inducement toward obedience to torah (1 Kgs. 8:58-60). Considering the ancient Near Eastern association of temples with the kings who built them, it is not surprising that the completion of the Jerusalem temple elicits heightened international admiration of Solomon (1 Kgs. 10:1-10). The summary of Solomon’s accomplishments in 1 Kgs. 10:23-24 explicitly confirms his incomparability. As the Gibeon dream promises Solomon unparalleled wisdom, wealth, and glory, so this promise became reality.

The author’s depiction of a new and negative phase in Solomon’s rule sets the stage for his entire history of the dual monarchies. Solomon abandons the good precedent set by his father by building high places for his many wives, worshipping at these high places, and worshipping other gods (1 Kgs. 11:1-8). Solomon’s misdeeds infuriate Yahweh, who ends Solomon’s peace by raising up a series of foreign adversaries against him (1 Kgs. 11:14-25). More important, Yahweh decrees the secession of the northern tribes and commends the formation of a (northern) Israelite kingdom under Solomon’s servant Jeroboam (1 Kgs. 11:11-13, 29-38; 12:15). The disaster is, however, not total. Because of the promises he made to David (2 Sam. 7:1-16), Yahweh restrains his wrath and leaves Judah under Davidic rule (1 Kgs. 12:1-24). The negative course set in play by Solomon’s sins remains unresolved for centuries. Only with the reforms of King Josiah (2 Kgs. 23:4-20) are Solomon’s sins finally reversed.

Chronicles

The Chronicler draws heavily upon the portrayal of Solomon in Kings. Nevertheless, he creates his own distinctive presentation by means of omissions, rewriting, and additions. First, he depicts the transition from David to Solomon as completely smooth and well planned. There is no turmoil in David’s latter years. Solomon is not only elect by David, but also by God (1 Chr. 28:6). David grooms his son for succession, furnishes him with a national administration, and provides him with a plan for the temple (1 Chr. 22–29). Second, the Chronicler does not emphasize Solomon’s wisdom as much as the Deuteronomist does. Third, he does not depict a second, regressive phase in Solomon’s reign. This means that Solomon enjoys a uniformly productive and unblemished reign.

In Chronicles the consolidation of Israel’s major institutions occurs during the United Monarchy. Solomon is the perfect complement to David. David unites Israel, consolidates the kingdom, organizes a national administration of Solomon’s use, and plans for the construction of the temple. As David’s designated successor, Solomon brings these hopes and designs to fruition. He focuses much of his energy on building, equipping, and staffing the temple (2 Chr. 2–4). As in Kings, the temple becomes the focal point of national life. Like the Deuteronomist, the Chronicler affirms centralization of the Yahwistic cultus and the abolition of all other cults (Deut. 12). Sacrifices are to be carried out only at the Jerusalem temple and prayers are to be offered at or toward this site (2 Chr. 5:5–6:42). For his part, God pledges that his eyes will be open and his ears attentive to the prayers offered at the temple (2 Chr. 7:15).

Following the temple’s dedication, Solomon’s reign is all glorious. Any information that would potentially tarnish his reputation is omitted (e.g., 1 Kgs. 9:11-16; 11:1-38). Solomon ends his reign presiding over a unified, prosperous people, accepting tribute from the nations, and receiving veneration from foreign kings (2 Chr. 8–9). Solomon’s tenure is untainted by sin or misadventure. He succeeds in all of the tasks that his father assigned to him (1 Chr. 22:7-16; 28:6-10, 20-21). By idealizing Solomon’s reign, the Chronicler heightens the great benefit Davidic leadership and the temple can have for the people. Conversely, because all Israelites flourish under David and Solomon, those who might deviate from this norm will be suspect. Hence, the secession of the north is viewed by the Chronicler as rebellious from the outset. The Chronicler exonerates Solomon and blames Jeroboam (largely) and Rehoboam (somewhat) for the secession (2 Chr. 10–13). The Davidic promises continue to pertain to all 12 tribes (2 Chr. 13:4-12; cf. 1 Kgs. 11:11-13, 29-38). Although he still regards the northern kingdom as Israelite, the Chronicler does not record its independent history. The normative institutions established or confirmed in Solomon’s reign — the temple, the priests and Levites, and the Davidic dynasty — find their continuity in Judah and Benjamin (2 Chr. 11:1-4).

Early Interpreters

Just as David, “the sweet singer of Israel,” is already associated in antiquity with the composition of the psalms, so Solomon, the incomparable sage, is associated with the composition of wisdom literature. This image is already found in the Hebrew Scriptures. Diverse wisdom works such as Proverbs (Prov. 1:1), Song of Songs (Cant. 1:1), and Ecclesiastes (Eccl. 1:1) are all associated with Solomon. Solomon’s wisdom is advanced by early Jewish, Christian, and Muslim interpreters (Sir. 47:14-17; Tg. Eccl. 2:4-6; Matt. 12:42; Luke 11:31; Qurʾan 27:15, 16, 81, 82; 31:11), although some also acclaimed the splendor of Solomon’s reign (1 Esdr. 1:15; Matt. 6:29; Luke 12:27). In at least one source, prophetic activity is ascribed to Solomon. Solomon prophesied both about the house of David and about the natural world, the beasts and the birds (Tg. 1 Kgs. 5:13). Early commentators took a deep interest in the Solomonic temple — its dimensions, construction, and symbolic importance (Sir. 47:13; Sanh. 104b). Some also took note of Solomon’s fall in Kings, ascribing it to the influence of his foreign wives (Neh. 13:25-27; Sir. 47:19-21; Sanh. 2b, 20c, 21a; Tg. 1 Kgs. 11:4). Solomon’s decline thus became an argument against intermarriage. But the dominant image of Solomon’s legacy among early interpreters is that of a preeminent sage and a worthy successor to David.

History

Until quite recently, most modern scholars viewed Solomon’s reign as one of the most secure periods in Israelite history for historical reconstruction. They associated the kingdom of Solomon with a number of developments in the material culture of ancient Canaan. Historians also made a series of correlations between passages in Samuel-Kings and international developments known from other ancient Near Eastern sources. Neither Saul nor David is depicted as embarking on many building projects, but Solomon is. Public works, most notably the temple and its furnishings, comprise a sizeable portion of Solomon’s reign (1 Kgs. 5:13[27]–7:51; 9:15-19, 24; 11:27; cf. 2 Chr. 3:1-17; 4:1–5:1; 8:1, 4, 6, 11). But, according to 1 Kgs. 9:15-19, Solomon also initiated a number of other public works — the millôʾ, the wall of Jerusalem, Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer. He also (re)built Lower Beth-horon, Baalath, and Ta(d)mor (1 Kgs. 9:18; 2 Chr. 8:4). Other public works included garrison cities, chariot cities, cavalry cities, and sites in Jerusalem, the Lebanon, and throughout his domain (1 Kgs. 9:17-19).

Archaeologists associated such building activities with the rise of monumental architecture in the 10th century b.c.e. Excavations at three of the cities rebuilt by Solomon — Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer (1 Kgs. 9:15-17) — revealed that the defense systems at these sites seemed to exhibit nearly identical fortification patterns. Scholars also pointed to a general pattern of urbanization in the Iron Age — the rebuilding and expansion of old towns and the establishment of new ones. Whereas Iron I is characterized by a low level of planning and a general absence of public buildings and fortifications, the construction of numerous walled cities, public buildings, and fortifications is considered to be a characteristic feature of Iron II material culture.

If descriptions of Solomon’s building activity in Kings seemed to correlate to material evidence, the same can be said for descriptions of Solomon’s diplomatic relations in Kings and epigraphic remains from this period. One such correlation was the possibility of a strong regional Davidic-Solomonic state itself. The decline of major states, such as Egypt and ³atti, made it possible for minor states to emerge or assert themselves. Studies attempting to situate Solomon’s reign more specifically in context of international events centered on Egypt, a state that figures prominently in Solomon’s reign (1 Kgs. 4:21, 30[5:1, 10]; 8:51, 53, 65; 11:17-22, 40). Some attempted to corroborate the description of Solomon’s marriage to a daughter of the pharaoh (1 Kgs. 3:1; 7:8; 9:16, 24; 11:1) with evidence from epigraphy that diplomatic marriages between members of the Egyptian royal family and the royal families of other states were more common than scholars had recognized. By no means least important of all the comparisons made with Egyptian history is the evidence pertaining to the invasion of Shishak provided by epigraphic sources and archaeological excavations. The fragmentary stela at Megiddo, the fragmentary temple inscription at Karnak, and the destruction of various sites near the end of the 10th century were thought to dovetail with the notices of Shishak’s invasion in 1 Kgs. 14:25-26; 2 Chr. 12:1-12. The success of Shishak’s invasion was thought to confirm a decline in the fortunes of Israel and Judah.

In recent years, however, some commentators have challenged the tenability of this general reconstruction by questioning the 10th-century date of some of the relevant fortifications at Gezer, Hazor, and Megiddo. Others have challenged the links made between epigraphy and the Bible. For instance, the lack of mention of Jerusalem and a number of other Judahite sites in the Karnak relief is cited as proof that Judah was not a state in the 10th century. It is uncertain what long-term effect this new discussion will have on historical reconstruction. At the very least, it indicates that Solomon’s legacy will continue to elicit a lively debate.

Bibliography. L. K. Handy, ed., The Age of Solomon. SHANE 11 (Leiden, 1997).

Gary N. Knoppers

Prayer Tents Bible References - Prayer Tents

SOLOMON

Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (2000)