“Discerning Between Good And Evil”: Solomon As A New Adam In 1 Kings

By John A. Davies

[John A. Davies is Principal Emeritus of the Presbyterian Theological Centre, Sydney, Australia, where he teaches Biblical Studies. He is a graduate of Westminster Seminary (M.Div.) and the University of Sydney (Ph.D.).]

Is the Solomon we encounter in 1 Kgs 1-11 Israel’s ideal king, presiding over the nearest thing to paradise Israel ever got, or a self-serving tyrant, the chief culprit in Israel’s downfall? Traditionally Solomon’s reign has been perceived largely in positive terms, with negative impressions restricted to ch. 11 or at most (following Noth) chs. 9-11 or some intermediate position.[1] A growing number of scholars, however, see the Solomon portrayed in Kings as a deeply flawed character from the outset,[2] or at least as a character depicted with deliberate textual indeterminacy.[3]

Solomon is David’s successor, endowed with wisdom from God, presiding over a united kingdom unprecedented in its wealth and influence (and cf. later tradition such as Matt 6:29), and above all seeing through to completion the construction of the temple, the central sanctuary of Yahweh, which is considered a primary concern of the writer of Kings. Yet there are sufficient indications in the earlier chapters of 1 Kings that point beyond the congratulatory language of the surface text to the disturbing ways in which Solomon does not measure up to the task of being the leader of God’s people that he could and should be. We need to interrogate the text closely as to the function of its over-the-top language in its depiction of Solomon’s accession and glorious reign throughout 1 Kgs 1-11 and be alert to the use of rhetorical devices such as hyperbole, irony, intertextual allusions, and the subtle innuendos that sound disquieting notes suggesting the need for a more nuanced appraisal.[4]

It has been suggested, for example, by Langlamet, that the discordant notes sounded within the Solomon narrative are to be explained by a pro-Solomonic redaction of an earlier anti-Solomonic matrix.[5] It is equally possible that the material in 1 Kings that is seemingly more enthusiastic about Solomon may derive from a source which did seek to celebrate Solomon’s glory days (perhaps the Acts of Solomon, 1 Kgs 11:41, and cf. the very positive treatment of Solomon in 2 Chr 1-9), but that the Deuteronomistic historian has radically reworked this material and stamped it with his own theological appraisal through his careful crafting of the account in order to cast Solomon’s reign in a rather different light. Seibert, for example, detects subversive elements worked into a pro-Solomonic propagandistic document.[6]

This article will not be concerned with the redactional history, but with the shape of the final form of the text. A fruitful way of doing justice to the complex data the book of Kings provides on Solomon is to see him as an Adam figure who on the one hand typifies a fulfillment of aspirations for a restored Eden, while on the other hand being responsible, through his disobedience, for a second expulsion from the sanctuary-land and the end of the monarchy—that is, the loss of Yahweh’s visible rule and protection, and of Israel’s dignity among the nations. Through such a portrayal, the writer keeps alive the prospect of a new Adam in a new creation beyond the covenant failure presided over by Solomon.

I. Solomon As Adam

It is widely perceived that the OT shows very little interest in the Garden of Eden and the first human couple beyond the opening chapters of Genesis. The narrative of the writer of Kings, it is here argued, ought to be seen as an echo of Gen 1-3 in its casting of Solomon as a new Adam figure.[7] In this section, I will simply outline the main contours of the argument to be fleshed out in more detail in subsequent sections.

The first echo of an Edenic setting is heard when we learn that Solomon is acclaimed as king at Gihon (1 Kgs 1:33, 38, 45), a water source on the slope below Jerusalem that bears the same name as one of the primeval rivers of Gen 2:13. Given the writer’s penchant for including place names in part for their connotational value,[8] we are probably intended to reflect on the associations of this name, just as we are on the name of the rock where Solomon’s rival Adonijah chose to stage his abortive coronation: Zoheleth, suggestive of the word “serpent” (whatever its real etymology may be: 1 Kgs 1:9).[9] There is undoubtedly in other sections of the Hebrew Scriptures an ideological link between the Zion tradition and primeval geography (e.g., Ps 46:4 [Heb 46:5]).[10]

One of the primary responsibilities entrusted to Adam is to “work” (עבד) the ground (Gen 2:15). The word is chosen for its double entendre, pointing to the “worship” (עבדה) that Israel is to render to God as his “servant” (עבד), and Solomon echoes this in his prayer of dedication (1 Kgs 8:23).[11] The word used for God’s action of placing Adam in the Garden is more literally “granted rest” (hiphil of נוח). Using the same word, Solomon recognizes God’s granting of rest to him (1 Kgs 5:4 [Heb 5:18]) and even (despite the heavy burden of their forced labor!) the whole of Israel (1 Kgs 8:56). Similarly, Solomon’s reign (echoing his name) was a time of peace (שלום: 1 Kgs 4:24). Peace, or well-being, while not a word used in Gen 1-3, is elsewhere in Scripture used with creational associations (Lev 26:6; Isa 45:7; Ezek 37:26).

Solomon is urged to “be / become a man [איש], and keep [שמר] the charge of Yahweh your God” (1 Kgs 2:2-3). The association of these terms suggests a link with Gen 2:15 where the first to be called “man” (איש; Gen 2:23) is charged with “keeping” (שמר) the Garden sanctuary as a priest keeps or guards the tabernacle (Num 3:32; 2 Kgs 12:9 [Heb 12:10]).

The Solomon narrative is redolent with garden imagery. Solomon is depicted as being intimately acquainted with trees and garden plants of all sorts as well as “animals, birds, creeping things and fish” (1 Kgs 4:33 [Heb 5:13]) in language reminiscent of the categorization of life-forms in Gen 1 and of Adam’s naming role in Gen 2:19-20. Solomon is a new Adam exercising his dominion over creation by his understanding of flora and fauna and their relationships to humanity (e.g., his knowledge of timbers will be put to use in his construction projects). Under his rule, Israel enjoyed something of the bounty and variety of the Garden of Eden, including peacocks and monkeys, animals that might be expected to inhabit a royal garden (1 Kgs 4:22-23 [Heb 5:2-3]; 10:22). His table boasted stall-fed and pasture-fed cattle, sheep, deer, gazelles, roebucks, and poultry as well as enormous quantities of grain products (1 Kgs 4:22, 23 [Heb 5:2-3]). The gold and precious stones that adorn this microcosm (1 Kgs 10:10-11, 21) recall those of the idyllic world of Gen 2:12. In the words of Meyers, “The whole creation was thus contained within the center of creation.”[12] I leave to a later point a discussion of the garden symbolism of Solomon’s temple.

But all is not roses in Solomon’s “paradise.” Right at the outset, his mother, Bathsheba, utters these ominous words: “It will come to pass, when my lord the king sleeps with his ancestors, that my son Solomon and I will be offenders” (1 Kgs 1:21). In context, Bathsheba means that if Adonijah’s claim to the throne goes unchallenged, she and Solomon could be regarded as traitorous rivals. The wording (smoothed over in English translations) is however quite stark and no contingency is stated, nor is it specified by whom she and Solomon might be regarded as “offenders” after David’s death. The word “offenders” (חטאים) is the word normally used for “sinners” against God, so the astute reader is alerted to what is quite possibly the author’s (veiled at this stage) appraisal of Solomon. Do we in fact get a catalogue of some of Solomon’s sins (one at least also involving Bathsheba) in the slaughter and expulsion of Adonijah and his closest supporters in a bloody chapter most frequently glossed over in considerations of the account of Solomon’s glorious reign (1 Kgs 2)?[13] The evidence can be interpreted in different ways, but there is certainly a case for seeing some editorial disquiet at injustices perpetrated in Solomon’s political interests.[14]

The first word addressed to Solomon is “live” (1 Kgs 1:34). While it is the form of the conventional salutation to a king (in English idiom, “long live the king”), given the other parallels being adduced here, the summons to life might subtly recall the reference in Genesis to humanity being granted the breath of life and becoming a living being (Gen 2:7). The prospect of life is held out to Solomon, conditional on his obedience to divine command (1 Kgs 3:14; 6:12; 9:4, 6; 11:10) just as it was to Adam (Gen 2:16; 3:11, 17), symbolized by the tree of life (Gen 2:9). Solomon must live and reign in submission to God as his vice-regent for this blessing to be realized. The consequence of covenant unfaithfulness on the part of Solomon and his successors would be the death of separation from God’s sanctuary land (1 Kgs 9:7) just as for Adam it was the death of expulsion from the garden sanctuary (Gen 2:17; 3:23-24). As the divine speeches remind us (1 Kgs 6:12-13; 9:6-9), the actions of one representative man have consequences far beyond himself (cf. Rom 5:12).

In Gen 1:22, 28 humanity is blessed by God, and in Gen 5:1, 2 this divine blessing is brought into more specific connection with Adam and his offspring. In 1 Kgs 8:66, Solomon is the one blessed, but it is by “the people.” Nowhere do we read that Solomon was blessed by God, a rather striking omission in view of his unprecedented wealth and success.

The brief depiction of Adam in Gen 2 exemplifies something of what it means for humanity to be in the image of God (Gen 1:26). Kline has proposed that we can fruitfully consider the notion of the image of God from the perspectives of its prophetic and priestly as well as royal (including judicial) character, so it might be a useful exercise to consider Solomon under such categories.[15] Ordinarily the offices of prophet, priest, and king in Israel are not all held by one individual. We do catch occasional glimpses of a restoration of the full image-bearing role of humanity in such characters as Abraham, Moses, and David. Abraham is the patriarchal leader of a sizeable community, able to wage war (Gen 14:14-16), as well as a prophet (Gen 20:7) and cultic functionary (Gen 12:7, 8; 13:4, 18; 22:9). Moses functions as the civil leader under God of the wilderness generation of Israel. As well, he was the one who had access to the counsels of God, particularly in association with the “tent of meeting” (Exod 33:7-11) and was the great prophetic revealer of the divine mind regarding the way Israel should relate to Yahweh (Deut 18:15; 34:10). His “priestly” role may be explicitly identified at Ps 99:6, and, while priestly functions devolved onto his brother Aaron and his sons, Moses was the one who consecrated them and who, as initiator of the elaborate tabernacle cult under God, exercised a meta-priestly role. David is not only king, but also in a sense a prophet. The psalms that bear his name are prophecy in the broad sense and the NT grants him the designation “prophet” (Acts 2:30). He also exercises some “priestly” functions (2 Sam 24:25). However, David’s prophetic and priestly roles are not highlighted and David was one who (in contrast to Solomon) himself needed prophetic intervention by others, principally Nathan (2 Sam 7; 12:1-14) and Gad (1 Sam 22:5; 24:11-19).

In Adam we see the image-bearing roles being held together, at least in rudimentary form. He is of course a king in that he exercises dominion. He is also an archetypal priest in that he is granted the privilege of access to God’s sanctuary garden; indeed he is its custodian prior to his replacement by the cherubs. He is also a prophet in that he enjoys a face-to-face encounter with God and receives his direct revelation. Can the same be said of Solomon?

II. Solomon As Prophet

The idea of Solomon as a prophet may appear startling at first (other than to Muslims who have long honored “Prophet Suleiman”). He is nowhere identified in Scripture by the title נביא (“prophet”) or any of the other terms roughly synonymous with it. Yet the writer of 1 Kings does in a sense cast a prophetic mantle over Solomon.[16] The first thing to observe is that no-one designated as a prophet appears on the scene during Solomon’s reign.[17] This is a remarkable fact, given that his reign is treated at greater length than any other in Kings, and there is no shortage of issues on which a prophet might have confronted Solomon for his deviation from the covenant with Yahweh, a key prophetic role in relation to Israelite and Judean kings. Solomon’s reign is bookended by the appearance of the prophets Nathan in 1 Kgs 1 and Ahijah in 1 Kgs 11, but Nathan is David’s prophet, while Ahijah appears on the scene to announce to Jeroboam (not Solomon) the dissolution of Solomon’s united kingdom. In ch. 1, while we are constantly reminded that Nathan is “the prophet Nathan,” he utters no word from the Lord and disappears from view as soon as Solomon is acclaimed king. Moreover, when a list of Solomon’s officials is given in 1 Kgs 4, no prophet is to be found among them, though Nathan had been at the center of the court intrigue that brought Solomon to power, while Gad is described as “David’s seer” (2 Sam 24:11) implying an official role. A thoughtful reader ought at least to wonder why the prophetic voice that had been necessary and prominent during the reign of David, despite the high regard the writer has for him, now appears to fall silent during the reign of his son and heir.

When we look more closely at the way God relates to Solomon, we discern a possible reason why this might be. Solomon himself is the direct recipient of prophetic revelation. The writer of Kings makes the point three times that Yahweh “appeared” to Solomon (on two occasions), using the niphal of the verb ראה “to see” (1 Kgs 3:5; 9:2; 11:9). The verb ראה is elsewhere used in the qal active participle form substantivally to denote a “seer,” that is, one who experiences prophetic visions (e.g., 1 Sam 9:9). The only other occurrence (beside 1 Kgs 11:9) of the phrase “Yahweh . . . who had appeared to him” (with the niphal of ראה) in the Hebrew Bible occurs at Gen 12:7, referring to Abraham (who, as noted, is then identified as a “prophet” at Gen 20:7). Because of the stress placed on the “seeing” of Yahweh, we must understand this as a visual experience which goes beyond the verbal revelation (remarkable in itself) Solomon experienced at other times; the divine words of 1 Kgs 6:11-13 and 11:11-13, for example, lie outside of the two appearances to which reference has just been made in v. 9. Adam was pre-eminently the one who enjoyed such intimacy with God in the Garden prior to his expulsion. If the fundamental prerogative of a prophet is a face-to-face encounter with God (Deut 34:10; 1 Kgs 22:19; Isa 6:1; Amos 9:1), Adam was the prototypical prophet in his experience of God’s presence. Adam’s and Eve’s hiding from the “face” of God (Gen 3:8) suggests that to that point they had been privileged to see his face.

At 1 Kgs 6:11 we read that “the word of Yahweh came to Solomon,” a standard formula of prophetic revelation. Its only uses in the Deuteronomistic History (Joshua to Kings) to this point have been with reference to the prophets Samuel (1 Sam 15:10), Nathan (2 Sam 7:4), and Gad (2 Sam 24:11). Nowhere else in 1 Kings is a king said to be the direct recipient of such divine revelation. The verbal revelation that both Adam and Solomon receive focuses on God’s commandment. The point of emphasizing the express divine command in Solomon’s case is to present him as being without excuse. Like Adam, he has nowhere to hide.

Also noteworthy is the way Solomon’s dedication of the temple, with its intercessory prayer regarding the future of Israel, is cast in 1 Kgs 8.[18] Solomon’s role as intercessor on behalf of his people is in marked contrast to the depiction of Jeroboam as one who needs to plead for the intercession of a “man of God” on his own behalf (1 Kgs 13:6). With great insight, Solomon proclaims that the highest heaven cannot contain God, let alone the temple he has built (1 Kgs 8:27). The more immediate intertextual links for much of this prayer are with the language of Deuteronomy when it envisages the apostasy, repentance, and restoration of Israel (see, e.g., Deut 4).[19] Solomon as prophet identifies in advance the causes of Israel’s exile and punishment and holds out the prospect of a future return (1 Kgs 8:31-53). While we ought not simply identify the viewpoint of Solomon with that of the narrator or implied author, there are indications that the overall perspective of the work is a positive one of looking beyond the events of 597 b.c. and the ensuing decades to a time when a united Israel might once again experience God’s blessing in the land (see, e.g., 1 Kgs 8:34; 2 Kgs 25:27-30).[20]

Following Solomon’s prayer of dedication of the temple, he directly exhorts the people in the manner of a new Moses (cf. 1 Kgs 8:56): “Therefore devote yourselves wholeheartedly to Yahweh our God, walking in his statutes and keeping his commandments, as at this day” (1 Kgs 8:61). Is Solomon the promised prophetic successor to Moses (Deut 18:15)? The phrase “devote yourselves wholeheartedly” is more literally “may your heart be perfect” where “perfect” is the word שלם from the same root as Solomon’s name. The reader cannot help wondering if Solomon’s own heart will live up to his name. Prophet-like, and via the genre of intercessory prayer, he summons Israel to “repentance” with its corollary covenant blessing of “return” to the land (שוב: 1 Kgs 8:33, 34, 35, 47, 48). However, ironically, the root שוב (“turn, return, repent”) occurs seven times in the Solomon narrative in association with the temple dedication. The final two are in 1 Kgs 9:6 in the negative sense of turning away from Yahweh. Here, in a sequel to the prayer of dedication, God’s second revelation to Solomon (1 Kgs 9:1-9) focuses on the prospect of the covenant unfaithfulness of Solomon and his successors, a programmatic statement for the Deuteronomistic historian in which he unmistakably attributes the destruction of the temple and the exile to Solomon’s failures.

This section in part echoes the account of the covenant with David recorded in 2 Sam 7:12-16 which anticipates the shortcomings of David’s “seed” (a text surely written with Solomon in mind). Back beyond the covenant curse of exile in Deuteronomy lies the programmatic depiction in Gen 3 of the expulsion from God’s presence, and it is this that the writer has in mind when Yahweh declares in response to Solomon’s dedication and prayer:

If you turn aside from following me, you or your sons, and do not keep my commandments and my statutes that I have set before you, but go and serve other gods and worship them, then I will cut Israel off from the face of the ground that I have given them; and the house that I have consecrated for my name I will expel from my presence; and Israel will become a proverb and a taunt among all peoples. (1 Kgs 9:6, 7)

Here the phrase “from the face of the ground” (using דמה) where ארץ “land, country” might be expected) has strong creational overtones (Gen 2:6; cf. Ezek 38:20), bearing in mind too the intrinsic connection of “humanity” (אדם) with the “ground” (Gen 2:5, 7, 19; 3:17). Once before humanity had been “cut off” from the earth in an act of creation reversal (Gen 9:11). Moreover, the judgment “I will expel from my presence” uses the same verb used of God expelling humanity from the Garden of Eden (Gen 3:23).

In 1 Kgs 10:3 we learn that Solomon answered all the hard questions of the Queen of Sheba. The text reads דברה-כל-לה שלמה את-ויגד which could be interpreted more literally as “Solomon declared to her all her words / thoughts / matters.” While probably not intended on the surface, could this be read at a secondary level to imply that Solomon was possessed of prophetic insight, that is, knew and revealed the queen’s inner thought-processes before she herself articulated them (cf. Dan 2:25-30; John 4:29)?

The mode of God’s twofold appearance to Solomon (1 Kgs 3:5; 9:2) is a dream theophany, and at least in the case of the first, one which he may have deliberately sought, following the practice of ancient kings sleeping at a sanctuary (“incubation”) in the expectation of receiving such a dream revelation.[21]

Contrary to our way of thinking, a dream could at times be regarded as a real and legitimate form of divine revelation rather than an illusion (we have only to think of the Jacob or Joseph dream accounts). It is following a divinely induced sleep that Adam has insight into and gives expression to the divine plan (Gen 2:23). But Deuteronomy sounds a negative note about prophets receiving their revelation in this manner: “You must not heed the words of those prophets or those who divine by dreams; for Yahweh your God is testing you, to know whether you indeed love Yahweh your God with all your heart and soul” (Deut 13:3).

While most prophets who speak truly in the name of Yahweh are portrayed positively and sympathetically in Scripture, the writer of Kings in particular notes the weaknesses of the prophets he portrays. Thus Nathan comes across as scheming (1 Kgs 1:11-14); the old prophet from Bethel, despite ultimately speaking truly, is deceptive (1 Kgs 13:18); the “man of God” from Judah, despite faithfully delivering God’s message, is disobedient (1 Kgs 13:21-22) with fatal consequences; and even Elijah, despite his unquestioned zeal, speaks without apparent divine authorization (1 Kgs 17:1), runs away in fear (1 Kgs 19:3), and fails to carry out all of the commissions he is given in 1 Kgs 19:16.[22]

Thus there is nothing inconsistent with seeing Solomon portrayed as a bearer of the prophetic image of God, acting in a sense as a prophetic mouthpiece, while at the same time noting his depiction as a flawed individual, who does not in fact put into practice, or perhaps truly believe, the message he proclaims. As a prophet, Solomon is particularly ineffective. His words of intercession in 1 Kgs 8 regarding the role of the temple as the focus of prayer in the life of Israel, and ultimately the world, seem to be largely ignored throughout the rest of the work. Though he repeatedly utters the remedy that Israel, its king, and even foreigners should pray “toward this house,” we are hard pressed to find anyone in the rest of the Kings account availing themselves of the provision Solomon envisages (the one major exception being Hezekiah: 2 Kgs 19:14-19).[23] The point is made time after time that it was precisely in breach of such a provision that Israel set up alternative shrines, or prayed to alternative gods, or, even where genuine prayer to Yahweh is offered, the temple, as the place where Yahweh has chosen to put his name, simply does not figure in the narrative. A foreigner is even given permission by an Israelite prophet to bow down in the house of Rimmon (2 Kgs 5:18), precisely the area of aberrant behavior for which Solomon is condemned.

III. Solomon As Priest

In general, kings in the ancient world were regarded as the chief priest of the cult of the national or city deity. In Israel, this was modified by the institution of the Aaronic priesthood, such that kingly and priestly functions were ideally to be spread over two offices. However, with the establishment of the house of David in Jerusalem, where Yahweh worship replaced the older local Jebusite cult of El, and in particular with Solomon’s construction of the temple, which functioned as a royal chapel, the role of the king as the patron and director of the cult was strengthened.[24]

Just as prophets are absent in the Solomon narrative, so priests are given a decidedly low-key role. The independence of the priests was seriously compromised under Solomon by the fact that they were now in the employ of the crown rather than being directly supported by the people through tithes and offerings. Solomon simply removed a priest he did not want (1 Kgs 2:26-27) and promoted a priest of his own choosing (1 Kgs 2:35), paving the way for Jeroboam’s unauthorized priesthood (1 Kgs 12:31-32).

At the high point of the dedication of the temple, we observe that the priests do nothing other than transport the ark, and it is recorded that they were unable to perform any other priestly duties (1 Kgs 8:3, 4, 6, 10, 11). It is Solomon we observe in the priestly role of blessing the assembled congregation (1 Kgs 8:14; cf. Lev 9:22-23; Num 6:23-27; 1 Chr 23:13). The subject of the verb “sacrifice” is Solomon and the whole congregation of Israel (1 Kgs 8:5, 62) or Solomon alone (1 Kgs 8:63; cf. 3:4, 15; 10:5). It is Solomon who sanctifies the temple court (1 Kgs 8:64) whereas in Lev 21:23 it is Yahweh himself who sanctifies the tabernacle and everything associated with it. No priest is mentioned as having an involvement in the innumerable sacrifices or the sanctification ritual. This is not to say they took no part, but if they did, the writer of Kings seems to wish to minimize their role. He wants the figure of Solomon to loom large as the cultic functionary.

It is hard not to make the comparison with Adam as the representative human functioning within the sanctuary space of the Garden, of which the temple is a stylized replica. The temple decorations enhance the royal garden theme. Pomegranates (the flowers or the fruit; 1 Kgs 7:18, 20, 42) were a popular form of decoration in the ancient Near East, and were used in adorning the priestly garments for the tabernacle service (Exod 28:33-34). They are listed as part of the produce of the Promised Land (Deut 8:8), and hence represent the fruits of the restored Eden in this microcosm. Similarly lotus-shaped designs (traditionally “lilies”; 1 Kgs 7:19, 22, 26), garlands (1 Kgs 7:29, 30, 36), open flowers (1 Kgs 6:18, 29, 32, 35), gourd-shaped reliefs (1 Kgs 6:18; 7:24), palm trees (1 Kgs 6:29, 32, 35, 7:36), a bud-shaped implement (ladle? 1 Kgs 7:49), lions (1 Kgs 7:29, 36), and oxen (1 Kgs 7:25, 29, 44) embellish the temple and its furnishings. The temple also had cherub figures (composite animal forms), not merely in more decorative contexts (1 Kgs 6:32, 35; 7:29, 36). In a more specific reference to the guardians of the Garden following the expulsion of the first humans, Solomon installs cherubs to guard the access to the throne of God (1 Kgs 6:23-29; 8:6, 7).

If Solomon is portrayed as a cultic functionary, he is a highly irregular one in terms of Deuteronomic legislation. While the ark is present in Jerusalem (1 Kgs 3:15) prior to the construction of the temple, Solomon comes under the standard (here muted) censure directed at later Kings not only for tolerating worship at the high places (1 Kgs 3:2), but for himself performing sacrifices at them (1 Kgs 3:3), particularly at the chief high place, Gibeon (1 Kgs 3:4). While the same could technically be said of any cultic activity not performed at the tabernacle or temple, for example, with reference to the activity of Samuel or Elijah, no negative remark is made in their cases, whereas the particle רק (“yet”) in 1 Kgs 3:2, 3 clearly implies a negative evaluation.

As a priestly figure, Solomon leaves a lot to be desired. As Cheung has demonstrated, the priest is to typify redeemed humanity, exalted to the privileged position of access to the presence of God, for which the essential attribute is holiness.[25] Priests must first undergo a process of consecration to render them fit for any form of sanctuary service or approach to Yahweh (Exod 19:22; 28:41; Lev 8:12), but the text is silent with regard to Solomon’s personal or ritual holiness. Solomon’s prayer of dedication makes sevenfold reference to “sin” and its remedy (1 Kgs 8:31, 33, 35, 46 [2x], 47, 50) but despite the hints that Solomon himself falls into this category (1 Kgs 1:21; 8:46), there is no record of his availing himself of the means of restoration. The final verdict on Solomon is that he has chosen the path of “evil” (1 Kgs 11:6). This is the ultimate indictment, which, in the manner of the sin of the high priest (Lev 4:3) brings guilt upon the whole people and results in the loss of the kingdom.

IV. Solomon As King

It is as king, of course, that Solomon is principally remembered. He receives his full title “King Solomon” no fewer than thirty-five times in 1 Kings, sometimes twice in the same verse (1 Kgs 1:51, 53).[26] The extent of his rule (1 Kgs 4:21, 24 [Heb 5:1, 4]), the military resources he has at his command (1 Kgs 4:26 [Heb 5:6]; 9:19, 20, 26) and the vastness of his wealth and prestige from trade and tribute (1 Kgs 4:21-34 [Heb 5:1-14]; 7:1-51; 10:14-29) represent the pinnacle of Israel’s power, the envy of the world. Solomon’s rule over “all the kingdoms from the Euphrates to the land of the Philistines, even to the border of Egypt” (1 Kgs 4:21 [Heb 5:1]) is a fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant promise (Gen 15:18; Deut 1:7; Josh 1:4) and serves as a benchmark against which the subsequent progressive loss of the kingdom can be tracked. More importantly for our purposes, in 1 Kgs 4:24 [Heb 5:4] Solomon is said to “have dominion” over the entire region west of the Euphrates. The choice of the word “dominion” (רדה) is not an obvious one to describe political sovereignty. It is the word used in Gen 1:26, 28 of the dominion humanity is to exercise over all creation, while the Euphrates is of course another of the rivers mentioned in the Garden pericope (Gen 2:14). But even in Solomon’s time, there are indications that in part the dominion envisaged over much of this territory may have been more of an ideal than a reality (1 Kgs 9:16), perhaps little more than a series of trading alliances, such as that with Tyre.[27] The fact that Pharaoh captures (and burns!) what ought to be an Israelite town, Gezer (1 Kgs 9:16), to give it as a “going away present” to his daughter married to Solomon raises serious questions about the glowing language used of the extent of Solomon’s “empire” when he cannot control his own territory. The mention of the manpower and military technology essential to maintaining a position of influence—horsemen, horses, and chariots (1 Kgs 4:26 [Heb 5:6]; 9:19, 22; 10:26, 28, 29)—while impressive at one level, represents a violation of the law of the king in Deut 17:16 (cf. Ps 20:7; Isa 2:7; 22:18; 31:1; Mic 5:10).

Solomon’s wealth is measured particularly in gold, silver being so abundant it was considered of little value (1 Kgs 9:14, 28; 10:2, 10, 11, 14, 21, 22). While much of the text on the surface reads like a glorification of Solomon’s reign as representing the pinnacle of Israelite prestige, with the wealth of the nations streaming into it (cf. Isa 45:14; 60:5, 11; Hag 2:7; Matt 6:29), the astute reader of 1 Kings cannot fail to note the intertextual link to Deut 17:17: “also silver and gold he must not acquire in great quantity for himself.” Moreover, the administrative infrastructure of monarchy and the extensive provisioning required for its upkeep of which we read in 1 Kgs 4 looks very much like the problem of which Israel is warned in 1 Sam 8:11-18.

One of the chief prerogatives of royalty in the ancient world (closely allied to the priestly role of the king) was the construction of a temple for his patron god, at the god’s behest, thus bestowing on the king great honor in its design and execution.[28] The account of Solomon’s temple construction process in 1 Kgs 5-7, while on the surface presented as a masterpiece of logistics and its result as an object of universal admiration, is told in such a manner as to leave sufficient indications that the writer has concerns with what he records. Whatever the date of the source used for this section, the editing and publication of the final form of the text postdates the destruction of the temple and town (2 Kgs 25:9), and is possibly considerably later, so we are not looking here at a glorified tourist brochure! The gold in the temple is subject to the general condemnation of the acquisition of vast wealth. The cedar, so prominent in the account (20 references), is cast in a negative light in God’s reaction to David’s temple-building proposal (2 Sam 7:7). We are not allowed to lose sight of the central concern of the writer.

The whole point is God’s dwelling with his people, and that is contingent on obedience. The book of Kings can be viewed from one perspective as the story of the progressive stripping away of superficial glitter of the temple and its contents (1 Kgs 14:26; 2 Kgs 16:17; 18:16; 24:13; 25:9) because such obedience was not forthcoming. Without the presence of Yahweh the temple is an empty shell, and while Yahweh does grace it with his glory (1 Kgs 8:10, 11) in the manner of an Eden restored, we have already had numerous intimations that this will not last. In his own way, the writer of Kings exhibits a similar reserved assessment of the temple to that found when the prophets confront Israel’s smug cultic complacency (Jer 7:4; Zeph 3:11; cf. Mark 13:1). The writer knows full well that what he describes in such detail is a now-departed glory and we will need to reflect on whether he is indulging in nostalgia in his lengthy descriptions of the temple, or has some deeper purpose. There are enough indications that Solomon made the construction of his own palace a priority; it is mentioned ahead of the temple in 1 Kings 3:1, took nearly twice as long to build, and may have delayed the completion of the temple project. Whereas the Chronicler incorporates a tradition that Solomon (like Moses with the tabernacle) received a mandate for the construction of the temple as is expected in ancient Near Eastern sanctuary construction narratives (1 Chr 28:11-19), the writer of Kings is either unaware of the tradition or chooses not to mention it. The fact that Solomon is a son of David (and Nathan’s oracle in 2 Sam 7 had assigned the role of temple building to an unnamed son of David) falls short of giving Solomon a specific mandate (2 Sam 7:13; 1 Kgs 5:5 [Heb 5:19]). In fact, nowhere in Kings (cf. 1 Chr 28:5) is Solomon said to be Yahweh’s choice for David’s successor, though the law of the king had specified Yahweh’s choice as an essential qualification for kingship (Deut 17:15). Bathsheba’s protestations to the feeble David, prompted by Nathan and involving a recollected oath in the name of Yahweh (1 Kgs 1:13, 17), whether true or not, do not establish Yahweh’s choice of Solomon.

Solomon’s foreign alliances come under some scrutiny. The treaty with Hiram, essential for the resourcing and construction of the temple and palace complex (1 Kgs 5:1-12 [Heb 5:15-26]), appears to be of great benefit to Solomon and Israel until we look more closely at its terms—the enormous cost of supplying Hiram’s court (1 Kgs 5:11 [Heb 5:25]) and ultimately the ceding of some inalienable Israelite territory (1 Kgs 9:11). The words of Naboth with reference to a much smaller property issue apply with greater measure to this betrayal of the citizens of Galilee: “Yahweh forbid that I should give you the inheritance of my fathers” (1 Kgs 21:3). The result of course is that a non-Israelite is now invited to rule over these Israelites, another violation of the kingship law of Deut 17:15.[29] The heavy involvement of foreigners in the temple’s design and logistics raises further issues. The incorporation of bull images, albeit on the periphery of the temple complex (1 Kgs 7:25), sets a precedent for Jeroboam’s incorporation of his bovine idols more prominently in Israel’s worship at Dan and Bethel (1 Kgs 12:28).

Early in the narrative, mention is made of the marriage alliance with Pharaoh’s daughter (1 Kgs 3:1-3),[30] and its close connection with notification regarding sacrifice at the high places is not accidental. The redundant expression “Pharaoh king of Egypt” is probably intended as a device to remind the reader of the specific warning given to the Israelite king regarding dalliance with Egypt (Deut 17:16). The mention at the conclusion of the account of Solomon’s reign (1 Kgs 11:1-8) of other marriages (the proverbial 700 wives and 300 concubines rounding out to 1000) forms an inclusio with the earlier mention of Pharaoh’s daughter and thus provides the reader with an interpretive framework for reading all that is thereby encompassed. Olley persuasively argues that the mention of the building of a house for Pharaoh’s daughter is so positioned (1 Kgs 7:8b) as to be the pivot of the whole Solomon account.[31] At one level, the mention of the marriages to foreign princesses, particularly the Pharaoh’s daughter, is an indication that Israel under Solomon has arrived on the world stage. But at another level, Solomon’s rule over the people of God is seen to be far from ideal and his devotion to Yahweh seriously compromised by these forbidden alliances (cf. Deut 7:3-4).

At first the criticism of Solomon’s kingship is muted, suggesting that the reader should read between the lines, but a cumulative impression is formed to the point in 1 Kgs 10:11-29, following the account of the visit of the queen of Sheba, where the catalog of breaches of the law of the king (Deut 17:14-20) is unmistakable. The subsequent narrative of 1-2 Kings will underscore the folly of Solomon’s assisting, through trade, Hittite and Aramean military expansion. First Kings 11 then, with its openly negative image of Solomon, represents not so much a jarring discordant note or latter-day lapse, but a summary of what has been true all along, though the full force of the verdict has been held back until now. By the end of his account, the writer wants us to see that Solomon’s covenantal failure has been a pervasive problem and determinative of later historical developments. The “love” Solomon had for his many women (1 Kgs 11:1) is spoken of in Deuteronomic terms as detracting from the exclusive “love” that is to be Yahweh’s (Deut 13:3). Just as the indictment on Adam is that he listened to his wife (Gen 3:17) and followed her into disobedience, so we learn that Solomon’s wives “turned his heart” (1 Kgs 11:3) to worship their gods. The driving concern of the book of Deuteronomy is the orientation of the “heart” of Israel and of the one designated to lead the nation (Deut 6:5; 10:12; 13:3; 17:17; 29:18; 30:17). While Solomon had prayed (literally) for a “listening heart” (1 Kgs 3:9), the question hangs over the Solomon narrative, to whom will Solomon’s heart listen? In the end he outdoes Adam by listening not to one woman but a thousand. What may have been regarded as private demonstrations of courtesy as he built shrines for his multitudinous wives later became ruthless public policy at the hands of another foreign princess, Jezebel (1 Kgs 18:4), and the writer of Kings intends us to see this connection. The blame for Jezebel’s ruthless excesses is to be laid at Solomon’s door.

Closely associated with his royal prestige is Solomon’s proverbial wisdom. Wisdom is a particularly royal pursuit (Prov 20:26; 25:2; 31:1; Eccl 1:1) and Solomon was second to none in his endowment with this attribute (1 Kgs 3:28; 4:29-34 [Heb 5:9-14]; 5:12 [Heb 5:26]). But what is the purpose of the narrative of the granting of wisdom to Solomon in 1 Kgs 3:4-15? In context it would seem it is to “underscore Solomon’s great culpability for his later apostasy.”[32] Solomon declares that he lacks knowledge (ידע; 1 Kgs 3:7), the attribute perceived to be lacking in Adam and Eve and the desire for which formed the basis of their temptation (Gen 3:5, 7, 22).

The wisdom Solomon is granted is contingent on his obedience to God (1 Kgs 2:3; 3:12-14). The purpose of covenant keeping is stated as “in order that you may succeed” or “in order that you may be wise” (1 Kgs 2:3), using the same term used for the anticipated outcome of eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Gen 3:6). In a clear echo of Adamic language, Solomon is “to discern between good and evil” (1 Kgs 3:9). While discernment is a desirable quality, particularly in leaders, and Solomon is commended for requesting it, the wording here evokes the serpent’s words in Gen 3:5: “your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (cf. Gen 3:22).[33] Will the discernment Solomon displays be entirely that which comes from Yahweh, or will it be perverted by an autonomous “wisdom” of the type that led to the eating of the forbidden fruit, the type evident in the wider wisdom movement of the ancient Near East (Gen 3:6)? It is precisely with this non-covenantal wisdom of “the wisdom of all the people of the east, and all the wisdom of Egypt” that Solomon’s wisdom is compared (1 Kgs 4:30).

Ezekiel develops the wisdom theme associated with Adam in his satirical depiction of the king of Tyre as an Adam figure in language that has affinities with the depiction of Solomon in 1 Kings:

Thus says the Lord Yahweh: Your heart is proud and you have said, “I am a god; I sit in the seat of the gods, in the heart of the seas,” though you are a mere mortal, and no god, yet you compare your mind with the mind of a god. You are indeed wiser than Daniel; no secret is hidden from you; by your wisdom and your understanding you have heaped up wealth for yourself, and have gathered gold and silver into your treasuries. By your great wisdom in trade you have increased your wealth, and your heart has become proud in your wealth. (Ezek 28:2-5)

In Solomon’s case, we should note the intrinsic connection between the wisdom sought and the royal task of ruling. The writer of Kings plays on the words “rule” (משל; 1 Kgs 4:21 [Heb 5:1]) and “proverb, wisdom utterance” (משל; 1 Kgs 4:32 [Heb 5:12]). In the end, the great proverb maker was unable to rule even himself. We find no suggestion in the narrative that Solomon’s wisdom was an outworking of the fear of Yahweh, the essential foundation for wisdom (Deut 17:19; Prov 1:7; 9:10).

For the discerning reader, even the two stories that most demonstrate Solomon’s royal wisdom both contain innuendos that all is not well. First, the famous story of the two prostitutes and the dead child (1 Kgs 3:16-28) seems on the surface a simple depiction of insight into maternal instincts. Yet the way the story is told, we are left with some uncertainty as to exactly what happened, leaving us to fill in some gaps. Is the plaintiff of v. 17 the same as the compassionate mother of the living child of v. 26? And who in the end gets the child? Does Solomon, as we might expect, reward compassion, or (in an echo of his own character displayed in 1 Kgs 2) ruthlessness? Our English translations smooth over what in Hebrew is unclear. We think we know, but the writer perhaps deliberately leaves us to ponder the real value of Solomon’s wisdom and the character of his rule, such that even if we end up adopting a traditional reading, we have had at least momentary cause to doubt its certainty.[34]

Nor should we overlook the detail that the two women are openly engaged in the practice of prostitution. The Proverbs which bear Solomon’s name speak of the alluring words of the prostitute (Prov 7:21) and in the mind of the writer there is probably a symbolic value in the reference to prostitutes and their deceptive words, for prostitution served as a metaphor for the allure of following other gods and marrying into foreign families (Exod 34:15-16). What Solomon was able to see through at one level, he was blinded to at another. This is thus a possible further hint of a negative evaluation of Solomon’s rule, even at the point of his most celebrated quality.

Secondly, the account of the visit of the Queen of Sheba (1 Kgs 10:1-10) is on the surface a simple foil for the demonstration of Solomon’s grandeur and wisdom. If the queen thinks of it as a contest, she comes off second best. But the queen’s words that “Yahweh . . . has made you king to administer justice and righteousness” (1 Kgs 10:9), while perhaps innocent enough on her lips, seem to be included as an editorial comment, the nearest thing Solomon receives to a prophetic rebuke, that he has been neglecting such kingly concerns in the interests of his own prestige. Have “justice and righteousness” been flourishing in a kingdom where prostitution goes unremarked upon, for example? Is Solomon wise to be flaunting his wealth in the way he does and, in his desire to impress, giving the queen “every desire that she expressed” (1 Kgs 10:13)?

The Deuteronomic law of the king has as its climactic words the following instruction:

When he has taken the throne of his kingdom, he is to have a copy of this law written for him in the presence of the levitical priests. It is to remain with him and he is to read from it all the days of his life, so that he may learn to fear Yahweh his God, diligently observing all the words of this law and these statutes, neither exalting himself above other members of the community nor turning aside from the commandment, either to the right or to the left, so that he and his descendants may reign long over his kingdom in Israel. (Deut 17:18-20)

Unlike Josiah (2 Kgs 23:2), Solomon has no recorded reading of the law and there is no evidence of any royal decision emanating from him being based on the law despite divine reminders of its centrality (1 Kgs 3:14; 6:12; 9:4, 6). The symbolism may be there as the ark, housing the tablets of the law, is transported into the “oracle room” at the heart of the temple (1 Kgs 8:6-9), but what about the reality?

The one royal figure to whom Solomon is subtly but continually compared is the Pharaoh of Egypt, into whose family, we are not allowed to forget, he has married (1 Kgs 3:1; 7:8; 9:16, 24; 11:1).[35] The Israelites come to “fear” Solomon (1 Kgs 3:28) as once they had feared Pharaoh (Exod 14:10). Solomon is the only Israelite king, like Pharaoh, said to have cupbearers (1 Kgs 10:5; cf. Gen 40:1). In contravention of specific divine instruction to the king (Deut 17:16), Solomon imported horses from Egypt (1 Kgs 10:28). Like Pharaoh, Solomon builds “storage-towns” presumably for military purposes (1 Kgs 9:19; cf. Exod 1:11), and his “forced labor” (1 Kgs 4:6; 5:14 [Heb 5:28]) recalls that which Pharaoh imposed on the Israelites (Exod 1:11). Even the choice of language such as the fact that Solomon “let the people go” after the dedication of the temple (1 Kgs 8:66) has echoes of Pharaoh’s ambivalent stance with regard to Israel (Exod 5:1, 2; 8:8 [Heb 8:4]) and there are probably intertextual connections between Solomon’s request for a “listening heart” (1 Kgs 3:9) and Pharaoh’s negative response to Yahweh’s demands where the same two words are used (Exod 7:22), along with Pharaoh’s “hardening” (כבד) and the “heavy” (כבד) responsibility that the people are for Solomon (1 Kgs 3:9; cf. Exod 8:15). The shine is taken off the “glory” (כבוד; 1 Kgs 3:13), and the final assessment of Solomon’s reign is that it involved the imposition of a “heavy” (כבד; 1 Kgs 12:4) yoke. The construction of the temple marked the climax of the exodus from Egypt (1 Kgs 6:1), but we are left wondering just how far Israel has really come in its quest for liberation from oppression.

Solomon’s kingship, with all of its promise and despite the divine warnings, exhibits many of the hallmarks of ancient Near Eastern kingship that stem from and manifest the spirit of autonomy which characterized Adam’s fallen rebellious stance in the Garden.

V. Conclusion

Many of the observations made above are subtle (and that is a feature of the literary artistry of the Kings narrative) and points of comparison could be made, of course, between Adam and many other biblical characters, particularly its kings, any of whom could aspire to represent the promised royal seed of Gen 3:15.[36] However, the cumulative effect seems unmistakable: Solomon, like Adam, had everything going for him—unprecedented (and unrepeated) dominion, lavish resources, personal divine revelation and instruction, and the prospect of life to the full lived in obedient dependence on God’s wisdom. As with Adam, a lot rested on his shoulders. His obedience or disobedience affected not just himself but was to have far-reaching implications for the people of God. With Solomon on the throne, the exodus could be perceived to be complete and the promised rest for God’s people ushered in. A restored humanity in all their created dignity could be discerned in the figure of Solomon. We look for him to exercise his God-given privileges and functions and to mediate these to the people through his wisdom-inspired rule. His direct access to God’s revelation and his role in facilitating the restoration and access of others through the restored Eden of the temple all point to the glory of what it is to be the image of God. The writer wants us at one level to be impressed, as were Solomon’s contemporaries. In his combination of the creational roles of prophet, priest, and king in a way not observed before or after in the OT, Solomon was greater than all who were before him or who came after him in the estimation of the writer of Kings (1 Kgs 3:12). We perceive Solomon as the nearest we come to an ideal ruler and mediator conceived in human terms. Solomon’s greatness, and that of his kingdom, outstrips that of his illustrious father in most respects.

But if Solomon is the new Adam, then he has followed the primal man in his failure to live as those invited to share God’s space must live. He has set his own appetites and his autonomous wisdom above God’s revealed purposes for him and his people. I have not argued that Solomon experiences a “Fall” at a specific moment,[37] though the organization of the material warrants us in seeing a gathering pace of the negative evaluation as the account spirals down to its nadir. Rather, through much of the account, the paradise ideal (and it always is an unrealized ideal) of his reign and the sober reality are held in tension. Solomon’s is a tragically marred greatness, lacking precisely the attribute of covenant faithfulness seen in his father, David, of which the writer of Kings constantly reminds us—his unswerving devotion to Yahweh (1 Kgs 3:6, 14; 9:4; 11:4, 6, 33, 34, 38). The whole account concerning Solomon seems designed to typify what a leader of God’s people ought to look like, while at the same time reminding us of the fact that we will need “one greater than Solomon” (Matt 12:42) to fill these roles. Through his failures, Solomon is presented in Kings as the chief architect of the dissolution of the kingdom, while at the same time being the one who points us beyond that dissolution, exile, and destruction of the temple to a restoration grounded in the character of God and his covenant commitment to his people despite their unfaithfulness.[38] The Solomon we meet in Kings is viewed in the light of the Davidic covenant and the prophecies of Deuteronomy that lie behind this commitment. These prophecies have at their center the prospect of a renewed heart that God promises to grant to his people, enabling their obedience and the blessing of life beyond the death of exile and alienation (Deut 30:6). Solomon, through his dedicatory prayer, gives voice to this hope, most notably in his seventh and final petition (1 Kgs 8:33-34; 46-53).[39]

The word “good” (טוב), a key word for the Davidic covenant blessing,[40] occurs seven times in the account of Solomon’s reign (1 Kgs 3:9; 8:18; 8:36; 8:56; 8:66 [2x]; 10:7), echoing perhaps the sevenfold “good” of Gen 1 (Gen 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31). Solomon’s words and actions point us beyond the immediate apostasy that (in terms of 2 Sam 7:15-16) cannot override the sure hope of abiding blessing through a Davidic king. Behind all of this are God’s ineradicable creational “good” and the hints of a reversal of the expulsion from Eden (Gen 3:14-24). With each subsequent prophet, priest, and, above all, king in the book of Kings, we look expectantly to see if this one will be the one who brings about the reversal to which Solomon points us, a true repentance and restoration of covenant faithfulness, but none of these leaders measures up to the challenge of bringing about the heart-transformation of Israel that is required if the covenant promises are to be fulfilled.

Thankfully, the story does not end with the OT, but continues to a fulfillment for which the writer of Kings could only hope and long. From the “portico of Solomon” Jesus answered his interrogators’ question about whether he was that ideal leader who was to come by assuring them that his achievements, done in his Father’s name, are sufficient testimony. His transforming work is being manifestly effected and is eternally secure in the lives of his people who respond in faith (John 10:22-30). In Solomon as he is portrayed in Kings, we have a flawed foreshadowing of the ideal royal, priestly, and prophetic ministry of the Lord Jesus, the true second Adam (Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45).

Notes

1. M. Noth, The Deuteronomistic History (JSOTSup 15; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981 [1957]), 60-62; cf. Helen A. Kenik, Design for Kingship: The Deuteronomistic Narrative Technique in 1 Kings 3:4-15 (SBLDS; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1983); Amos Frisch, “Structure and Significance: The Narrative of Solomon’s Reign (1 Kings 1-12:24),” JSOT 51 (1991): 3-14; K. I. Parker, “Solomon as Philosopher King? The Nexus of Law and Wisdom in 1 Kings 1-11,” JSOT 53 (1992): 75-91; Marc Brettler, “The Structure of 1 Kings 1-11,” JSOT 49 (1991): 87-97 (90-95); Gary N. Knoppers, Two Nations under God: The Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and the Dual Monarchies (2 vols.; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993-1994), 1:57-134; Pauline A. Viviano, “Glory Lost: The Reign of Solomon in the Deuteronomistic History,” in The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium (ed. Lowell K. Handy; Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East 11; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1997), 336-47. Jobling sees a Golden Age in chs. 3-10 framed by a negative evaluation: David Jobling, “‘Forced Labor’: Solomon’s Golden Age and the Question of Literary Representation,” Semeia 54 (1992): 57-76.
2. See Jerome T. Walsh, “The Characterization of Solomon in 1 Kings 1-5,” CBQ 57 (1995): 471-93; Amos Frisch, “The Exodus Motif in 1 Kings 1-14,” JSOT 87 (2000): 3-21; M. A. Sweeney, “The Critique of Solomon in the Josianic Edition of the Deuteronomistic History,” JBL 114 (1995): 607-22; Sweeney, “Synchronic and Diachronic Considerations in the DtrH Portrayal of the Demise of Solomon’s Kingdom,” in Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and Postbiblical Judaism Presented to Shalom M. Paul on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday (ed. Chaim Cohen et al.; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2008), 175-89; J. D. Hays, “Has the Narrator Come to Praise Solomon or to Bury Him? Narrative Subtlety in 1 Kings 1-11,” JSOT 28 (2003): 149-74; John W. Olley, “Pharaoh’s Daughter, Solomon’s Palace, and the Temple: Another Look at the Structure of 1 Kings 1-11,” JSOT 27 (2003): 355-69; Michael Avioz, “The Characterization of Solomon in Solomon’s Prayer (1 Kings 8),” BN 126 (2005): 18-28. Evangelicals have been slower to entertain a generally negative or at least nuanced appraisal of Solomon in Kings for harmonistic reasons—it would widen the gulf between the Kings and the Chronicles characterizations of Solomon. One of the most positive appraisals of Solomon amongst evangelical commentators is Dale R. Davis, The Wisdom and the Folly: An Exposition of the First Book of Kings (Ross-shire, U.K.: Christian Focus, 2002), while a more nuanced assessment is offered by Iain W. Provan, 1 and 2 Kings (New International Biblical Commentary; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1995). The position adopted here is that we must allow each biblical writer his own voice.
3. Stuart Lasine, “The King of Desire: Indeterminacy, Audience, and the Solomon Narrative,” Semeia 71 (1995): 85-118.
4. On the use of hyperbole in particular in ANE royal accounts, see K. Lawson Younger, Jr., “The Figurative Aspect and the Contextual Method in the Evaluation of the Solomonic Empire (1 Kings 1-11),” in The Bible in Three Dimensions: Essays in Celebration of Forty Years of Biblical Studies in the University of Sheffield (ed. David J. A. Clines, Stephen E. Fowl, and Stanley E. Porter; JSOTSup 87; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 157-75.
5. F. Langlamet, “Pour ou contre Salomon? La rédaction prosolomonienne de I Rois 1-2,” RB 83 (1976): 321-79, 481-528.
6. Eric A. Seibert, Subversive Scribes and the Solomonic Narrative: A Rereading of 1 Kings 1-11 (Library of Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Studies 436; London: T&T Clark, 2006). He writes, “The presence and activity of subversive scribes actually causes us to expect the production of highly ambiguous texts open to multiple readings simultaneously” (102; Seibert’s emphasis).
7. Burke Long has also noted the congruence of aspects of the Solomon narrative with Gen 1-11, though to different effect: Burke O. Long, “A Darkness between Brothers: Solomon and Adonijah,” JSOT 19 (1981): 79-94.
8. See Jerome T. Walsh, 1 Kings (Berit Olam; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1996), 228; I. H. Eybers, “The Use of Proper Names as a Stylistic Device,” Semitics 2 (1971-1972), 82-92.
9. Cf. Jon D. Levenson, Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1985), 130-34; Richard Elliott Friedman, “Solomon and the Great Histories,” in Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period (ed. Andrew G. Vaughn and Ann E. Killebrew; Atlanta: Society for Biblical Literature, 2003), 171-80 (176).
10. Robert P. Gordon, Holy Land, Holy City: Sacred Geography and the Interpretation of the Bible (Carlisle, U.K.: Paternoster, 2004), 67.
11. See G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God (New Studies in Biblical Theology 17; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2004), 66-70; J. H. Walton, “Eden, Garden of,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch (ed. T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2003), 202-7.
12. Carol L. Meyers, “The Israelite Empire: In Defense of King Solomon,” Michigan Quarterly Review 22 (1983): 412-28 (422).
13. Gray, for example, sees the real account of Solomon’s reign beginning at 1 Kgs 3:4: John Gray, I and II Kings: A Commentary (rev. ed.; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970), 22-23.
14. E.g., Sweeney, “The Critique of Solomon,” 618. For a contrary viewpoint, see Knoppers, Two Nations under God, 1:71-77; Peter J. Leithart, 1 & 2 Kings (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2006), 39-41.
15. Meredith G. Kline, Images of the Spirit (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980). Beale emphasizes the priestly and kingly aspects: The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 81-121.
16. The tradition of Solomon as prophet is developed in Pss. Sol. 2:24-35 (22-31) and Tg. Neb.1 Kgs 5:13.
17. Cf. L. Kalugila, The Wise King: Studies in Royal Wisdom as Divine Revelation in the Old Testament and Its Environment (ConBOT 15; Lund: Gleerup, 1980), 115; Stephen Fuchs, “Solomon: The King without a Prophet,” BRev 3 (1987): 46-47.
18. For treatments of the prayer, see Lyle Eslinger, Into the Hands of the Living God (Bible and Literature Series 24; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1989) 123-81; Avioz, “Characterization.”
19. Knoppers, Two Nations under God, 1:103-12.
20. See Walter Brueggemann, “The Kerygma of the Deuteronomist Historian,” Int 22 (1968): 387-402.
21. For a study of this dream and its interpretation, see D. M. Carr, From D to Q: A Study of Early Jewish Interpretation of Solomon’s Dream at Gibeon (SBLMS 44; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991).
22. Olley presents a nuanced characterization of Elijah as a flawed prophet from the outset: John W. Olley, “YHWH and His Zealous Prophet: The Presentation of Elijah in 1 and 2 Kings,” JSOT 80 (1998): 25-51.
23. See Robert Fyall, “A Curious Silence: The Temple in 1 and 2 Kings,” in Heaven on Earth (ed. T. Desmond Alexander and Simon Gathercole; Carlisle, U.K.: Paternoster, 2004), 49-58.
24. See, e.g., Kalugila, The Wise King, 108. Many OT scholars might prefer to say that the cult of Yahweh was superimposed upon existing Jebusite patterns of worship, whether or not Zadok is regarded as a Jebusite priest; e.g., George E. Mendenhall, “The Monarchy,” Int 29 (1975): 155-70; John D. Day, “The Canaanite Inheritance of the Israelite Monarchy,” in King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar (ed. John Day; JSOTSup 270; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 72-90.
25. Alex T. M. Cheung, “The Priest as the Redeemed Man: A Biblical-Theological Study of the Priesthood,” JETS 29 (1986): 265-75.
26. Omitting 1 Kgs 11:27 where the phrase is split over the internal verse division marked by athnach; note the multiple of seven.
27. See L. K. Handy, “Solomon,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Historical Books (ed. Bill T. Arnold and H. G. M. Williamson; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2005), 921-29.
28. Victor Hurowitz, I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in the Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings (JSOTSup 115; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 32-105.
29. Sweeney, “The Critique of Solomon,” 617.
30. Walsh points out that the word used for the marriage alliance (התחטן) elsewhere always has negative implications; Walsh, “Characterization,” 486.
31. John W. Olley, “Pharaoh’s Daughter,” 355-69.
32. Hays, “Has the Narrator Come to Praise Solomon or to Bury Him?,” 164.
33. Eslinger, Into the Hands, 135-36.
34. For fuller treatments of the ambiguities, see Stuart Lasine, “The Riddle of Solomon’s Judgment and the Riddle of Human Nature in the Hebrew Bible,” JSOT 45 (1989): 61-86; Walsh, “Characterization,” 488-89; E. van Wolde, “‘Who Guides Whom?’ Embeddedness and Perspective in Biblical Hebrew and in 1 Kings 3:16-18,” JBL 114 (1995): 623-42; G. Rendsburg, “The Guilty Party in 1 Kings iii 16-28,” VT 48 (1998): 534-41; M. Garsiel, “Revealing and Concealing as a Narrative Strategy in Solomon’s Judgment (1 Kings 3:16-28),” CBQ 64 (2002): 229-47.
35. See M. D. Oblath, “Of Pharaohs and Kings: Whence the Exodus?,” JSOT 87 (2000): 23-42; Amos Frisch, “The Exodus Motif,” 3-21.
36. T. Desmond Alexander, “Royal Expectations in Genesis to Kings: Their Importance for Biblical Theology,” TynBul 49 (1998): 191-212.
37. For a more traditional approach to a Solomonic “fall,” or significant change of character, see Frisch, “Structure and Significance,” JSOT 51 (1991): 3-14; Knoppers, Two Nations under God, 1:135-68; Parker, “Solomon,” 83-86.
38. On the overall message of hope in the book of Kings, cf. Brueggemann, “Kerygma”; Jon D. Levenson, “The Last Four Verses in Kings,” JBL 103 (1984): 353-61; J. G. McConville, “Narrative and Meaning in the Books of Kings,” Bib 70 (1989): 31-49; Gershon Galil, “The Message of the Book of Kings in Relation to Deuteronomy and Jeremiah,” BSac 158 (2001): 406-14; Peter J. Leithart, “Counterfeit Davids: Davidic Restoration and the Architecture of 1-2 Kings,” TynBul 56 (2005): 19-33.
39. J. G. McConville, “1 Kings 8:46-53 and the Deuteronomic Hope,” VT 42 (1992): 67-79; Iain W. Provan, “The Messiah in the Books of Kings,” in The Lord’s Anointed: Interpretation of Old Testament Messianic Texts (ed. Philip E. Satterthwaite, Richard S. Hess, and Gordon J. Wenham; Carlisle, U.K.: Paternoster Press, 1995), 67-85.
40. Brueggemann, “Kerygma,” 401-2.