1 Kings 11:14

While Solomon kept closely to God and to his duty there was no adversary nor evil occurrent (Kg1 5:4), nothing to create him any disturbance or uneasiness in the least; but here we have an account of two adversaries that appeared against him, inconsiderable, and that could not have done any thing worth taking notice of if Solomon had not first made God his enemy. What hurt could Hadad or Rezon have done to so great and powerful a king as Solomon was if he had not, by sin, made himself mean and weak? And then those little people menace and insult him. If God be on our side, we need not fear the greatest adversary; but, if he be against us, he can made us fear the least, and the very grasshopper shall be a burden. Observe,

I. Both these adversaries God stirred up, Kg1 11:14, Kg1 11:23. Though they themselves were moved by principles of ambition or revenge, God made use of them to serve his design of correcting Solomon. The principal judgment threatened was deferred, namely, the rending of the kingdom from him, but he himself was made to fee the smart of the rod, for his greater humiliation. Note, Whoever are, in any way, adversaries to us, we must take notice of the hand of God stirring them up to be so, as he bade Shimei curse David; we must look through the instruments of our trouble to the author of it and hear the Lord's controversy in it.

II. Both these adversaries had the origin of their enmity to Solomon and Israel laid in David's time, and in his conquests of their respective countries, Kg1 11:15, Kg1 11:24. Solomon had the benefit and advantage of his father's successes both in the enlargement of his dominion and the increase of his treasure, and would never have known any thing but the benefit of them if he had kept closely to God; but now he finds evils to balance the advantages, and that David had made himself enemies, who were thorns in his sides. Those that are too free in giving provocation ought to consider that perhaps it may be remembered in time to come and returned with interest to theirs after them; having so few friends in this world, it is our wisdom not to make ourselves more enemies than we needs must.

1. Hadad, an Edomite, was an adversary to Solomon. We are not told what he did against him, nor which way he gave him disturbance, only, in general, that he was an adversary to him: but we are told, (1.) What induced him to bear Solomon a grudge. David had conquered Edom, Sa2 8:14. Joab put all the males to the sword, Kg1 11:15, Kg1 11:16. A terrible execution he made, avenging on Edom their old enmity to Israel, yet perhaps with too great a severity. From this general slaughter, while Joab was burying the slain (for he left not any alive of their own people to bury them, and buried they must be, or they would be an annoyance to the country, Eze 39:12), Hadad, a branch of the royal family, then a little child, was taken and preserved by some of the king's servants, and conveyed to Egypt, Kg1 11:17. They halted by the way, in Midian first, and then in Paran, where they furnished themselves with men, not to fight for them or force their passage, but to attend them, that their young master might go into Egypt with an equipage agreeable to his quality. There he was kindly sheltered and entertained by Pharaoh, as a distressed prince, as well provided for, and so recommended himself that, in process of time, he married the queen's sister (Kg1 11:19), and by her had a child, which the queen herself conceived such a kindness for that she brought him up in Pharaoh's house, among the king's children. (2.) What enabled him to do Solomon a mischief. Upon the death of David and Joab, he returned to his own country, in which, it should seem, he settled and remained quiet while Solomon continued wise and watchful for the public good, but from which he had opportunity of making inroads upon Israel when Solomon, having sinned away his wisdom as Samson did his strength (and in the same way), grew careless of public affairs, was off his guard himself, and had forfeited the divine protection. What vexation Hadad gave to Solomon we are not here told, but only how loth Pharaoh was to part with him and how earnestly he solicited his stay (Kg1 11:22): What hast thou lacked with me? "Nothing," says Hadad; "but let me go to my own country, my native air, my native soil." Peter Martyr has a pious reflection upon this: "Heaven is our home, and we ought to keep up a holy affection to that, and desire towards it, even when the world, the place of our banishment, smiles most upon us." Does it ask, What have you lacked, that you are so willing to be gone? We may answer, "Nothing that the world can do for us; but still let us go thither, where our hope, and honour, and treasure are."

2. Rezon, a Syrian, was another adversary to Solomon. When David conquered the Syrians, he headed the remains, lived at large by spoil and rapine, till Solomon grew careless, and then he got possession of Damascus, reigned there (Kg1 11:24) and over the country about (Kg1 11:25), and he created troubles to Israel, probably in conjunction with Hadad, all the days of Solomon (namely, after his apostasy), or he was an enemy to Israel during all Solomon's reign, and upon all occasions vented his then impotent malice against them, but till Solomon's revolt, when his defence had departed from him, he could not do them any mischief. It is said of him that he abhorred Israel. Other princes loved and admired Israel and Solomon, and courted their friendship, but here was one that abhorred them. The greatest and best of princes and people, however much they may in general be respected, will yet perhaps be hated and abhorred by some.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

SOLOMON'S ADVERSARIES. (1Ki. 11:14-40)

the Lord stirred up an adversary--that is, permitted him, through the impulse of his own ambition, or revenge, to attack Israel. During the war of extermination, which Joab carried on in Edom (Sa2 8:13), this Hadad, of the royal family, a mere boy when rescued from the sword of the ruthless conqueror, was carried into Egypt, hospitably entertained, and became allied with the house of the Egyptian king. In after years, the thought of his native land and his lost kingdom taking possession of his mind, he, on learning the death of David and Joab, renounced the ease, possessions, and glory of his Egyptian residence, to return to Edom and attempt the recovery of his ancestral throne. The movements of this prince seem to have given much annoyance to the Hebrew government; but as he was defeated by the numerous and strong garrisons planted throughout the Edomite territory, Hadad seems to have offered his services to Rezon, another of Solomon's adversaries (Kg1 11:23-25). This man, who had been general of Hadadezer and, on the defeat of that great king, had successfully withdrawn a large force, went into the wilderness, led a predatory life, like Jephthah, David, and others, on the borders of the Syrian and Arabian deserts. Then, having acquired great power, he at length became king in Damascus, threw off the yoke, and was "the adversary of Israel all the days of Solomon." He was succeeded by Hadad, whose successors took the official title of Ben-hadad from him, the illustrious founder of the powerful kingdom of Damascene-Syria. These hostile neighbors, who had been long kept in check by the traditional fame of David's victories, took courage; and breaking out towards the latter end of Solomon's reign, they must have not only disturbed his kingdom by their inroads, but greatly crippled his revenue by stopping his lucrative traffic with Tadmor and the Euphrates.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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

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

“ Ante obitum felix supremaque funera nemo. ”

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

{a} Lib. vii. cap. 47.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Ki_11:14-22

And the Lord stirred up an adversary unto Solomon.

Divine impulses

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

Hark! they whisper: angels say--

Sister spirit, come away.

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

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

SOLOMON’S ADVERSARIES, 1Ki_11:14-40.

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

14. Hadad the Edomite — Probably a grandson, or at least not a remote descendant, of the Hadad (or Hadar) of 1Ch_1:50. The name seems to have been common among the kings of Edom. Compare Gen_36:35.

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

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CHAPTER 11:14-43.

SOLOMON"S ADVERSARIES. As the historian has collected together in chs. 6., 7., 8. all the information he can convey respecting the temple, and in chs. 9., 10. all the scattered notices respecting Solomon"s power and greatness, so here he arranges in one section the history of Solomon"s adversaries. It must not be supposed that the following records stand in due chronological order. The enmities here mentioned did not date from the delivery of the message of which we have just heard; on the contrary, the hatred and opposition of Hadad and Rezon began at an early period, though not the earliest, (1Ki_5:4) of Solomon"s reign. It was only in his later life, however, that they materially affected his position and rule; hence it is that they are brought before us at this stage of the history, and also because they are manifestly regarded as chastisements for Solomon"s sin.

And the Lord stirred up an adversary unto Solomon, Hadad in ver. 17 written Adad, dda Apparently this, like Pharaoh, was a title rather than a name. And, like Pharaoh, it is said to mean the sun. It was borne by a king of Edom in very early times, Gen_25:15 Gen_36:35, 39 (in the latter verse, as in Gen_25:15, Hadar is probably a clerical error for Hadad, as the name stands in, 1Ch_1:30, 1Ch_1:50, d and r being so very much alike. Gesenius, however, contends that Hadar is the true reading and was also a favourite name with the kings of Syria, especially in the forms Benhadad, Hadadezer the Edomite: he was of the king"s seed in Edom.

HOMILIES BY J.A. MACDONALD. Vers. 14-25.

Premonitions of Wrath.

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

I GOD STIRRED UP ADVERSARIES AGAINST HIM.

1. In themselves these were inconsiderable.

(1) Hadad the Edomite! What can he do? He is indeed of the seed royal of Edom, but then Edom is tributary to Solomon, and Hadad in an exile in Egypt.

(2) Rezon the Syrian! What can he do? He was only a captain under Hadadezer, king of Zobah, whom David defeated, and who fled with his men, over whom he seems to have acted as a chief of banditti.

2. But they have been quietly acquiring influence.

(1) Hadad, who was a lad when he fled from David, has now attained to man"s estate; is in high favour with Pharaoh, and has become brother-in-law to the monarch of the Nile.

(2) Rezon also, taking advantage of the apathy of Solomon, who is too much engaged in the seraglio to pay close attention to the affairs of his distant provinces, is already in Damascus and on the throne of Syria.

3. With God behind them they are now formidable.

(1) The fly is a feeble creature, but let God send it forth as a plague, and Egypt is in agony. So Hadad, again amongst his Edomites, is by a competent Providence enabled to work "mischief" even to Solomon!

(2) Rezon also is in a position to gratify his abhorrence of Israel "all the days of Solomon," or to the end of those days.

(3) Let us see the hand of God in all the events of life. Let the discernment of symptoms of His displeasure lead us to repentance and reformation. Let us never despise the day of small things, for the great hand of God may be in it. It is difficult to distinguish the trifling from the momentous.

II HE STIRRED UP THOSE ADVERSARIES BY MEANS.

1. They were reminded of the sufferings of their people.

(1) When David conquered Edom there was a fearful carnage. For six months Joab was engaged in cutting off all the males, until, no natives surviving, Israel had to bury the slain (vers. 15, 16). This slaughter was sufficiently dreadful, though it may only have extended to those old enough to bear arms. Hadad was not an infant then, but (fq rn) a little boy of sufficient age to see what was going on and make his escape with the servants. Rezon was of an age and in a position to estimate the miseries which the Syrians suffered when "David slew" them, which sufficiently accounts for the manner in which he "abhorred Israel." Wars are the cradles of resentments.

(2) These terrible massacres have their justification in the sins of the people who suffered them. In executing the wrath of God upon Edom, David fulfilled the famous prophecy of Balaam. (see Num_24:17-19) But in this David was the type of Christ, the true Star of Jacob and Prince of Israel, whose anger will sweep His enemies to extermination.

2. They were persuaded that the opportunity was ripe for revenge.

(1) They heard that the warriors were dead (ver. 21). They were no longer paralyzed by the sound of the once terrible names of David and Joab.

(2) As for Solomon, he never was a warrior. And now he is stupefied by idolatry, and enervated in the harem.

(3) Consequently they put on a bold front, and from different points harassed and distracted Solomon, apparently with impunity. For the king of Israel knew that God was angry, and "conscience makes cowards of us all.

Who can afford to have God for his enemy? Solomon could not afford it. Can we? Who would not make peace with such an antagonist? He proposes His own terms. Why do we not repent and believe the gospel? M.

HOMILIES BY J. URQUHART Vers. 14-25.

The Divine Chastisements.

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

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

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

II OUR ENEMIES ARE GOD"S INSTRUMENTS.

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

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

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

HOMILETICS OF 1Ki_11:14-40

THE AGENTS OF DIVINE RETRIBUTION

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

II. Often accomplish their mission by gratifying personal revenge and ambition (1Ki_11:14-17; 1Ki_11:25-26). The Edomite prince, who escaped when a child, the desolating slaughter of David (2 Samuel 8), dreamed of recovering the lost throne of his father. He dreamed of vengeance for the blood of his countrymen; and “dreams grow realities to earnest men.” Rezon was influenced in all his plottings against Israel by a spirit of bitter and ungovernable hatred (1Ki_11:25), and lost no opportunity of inflicting injury on Solomon. Jeroboam, endowed with unquestioned ability, and evidently conscious of it, was eagerly ambitious of place and power. While these men pursued their several selfish ends, Jehovah used them as agents for the punishing of wrong-doing. History is full of examples of this Divine procedure. The Lord can make the wrath of men His servant, and to minister to His praise (Psa_76:10). His hand is on all the springs of being. All the forces of the universe are His obedient instruments in scattering blessings, or in accomplishing the sterner missions of justice.

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

IV. Are limited and restrained by the Divine will (1Ki_11:34; 1Ki_11:39). The Power which has directed the migrations and limited the wars of nations, fixed the boundaries of the ocean, and adjusted the force of gravitation, also interferes in moderating and defining the degree of punishment for sin. “I will for this afflict the seed of David; but not for ever” (1Ki_11:39). Here breaks in another ray of promise to the House of David, whose sons, though chastened and smitten with the rod of men (2Sa_7:14), were to be the human line of fathers to that Great Son who shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of whose kingdom there shall be no end. The very anger of God is more constructive than destructive. The worst enemies can do the church no damage beyond what the will of God permits.

V. Cannot be defeated in their purpose by human malice (1Ki_11:40). “Solomon thought therefore to kill Jeroboam.” Murder has ever been the ghastly policy of the tyrant, the idolized weapon of the coward, the sport of the brutal, the sanguinary carnival of monsters. Solomon’s relations to Jeroboam were strikingly similar to those of Saul to David. Solomon, like Saul, drew down upon himself by disobedience the anger of heaven; and to him, as to Saul, the words of the Lord announced judgments that darkened all his future. Like Saul, he knew and sought to kill his rival. The beginning of his reign, like that of Saul’s, was popular and auspicious, but its end was sad and dark. The rage of man is impotent to frustrate the ultimate designs of God.

LESSONS:—

1. The prosperous have always many enemies.

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

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

4. Gilded sins entail dismal retributions.

GERM NOTES ON THE VERSES

1Ki_11:14. The certainty of punishment for sin.

1. Is here directly attributed to Jehovah.

2. May be effected by human agencies.

3. Is a warning to evil doers.

4. Vindicates the righteousness of the Divine law.

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

1Ki_11:14-40. Solomon’s enemies.

1. They are roused against him by God, so that he may know and confess what heart-suffering it brings to forsake the fear of the Lord his God (Jer_2:19). So marvellously does God bring it about, that he who will not fear Him must needs fear his fellow-men. Once the man of rest and the prince of peace, now he is pressed sore by enemies from the north, from the south, and from his midst. They are the scourges with which the Lord chastises him. When foes and opponents rise against thee and cause thee care and anguish, then think, the Lord has summoned them on account of thy sins and unfaithfulness. The hostility of man is a sermon of repentance from thy God to thee.

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

1Ki_11:14-25. The power of the little to annoy the great. Solomon’s last years were not suffered to pass without heavy troubles, which must have brought down his kingly pride very low. Enemies, one after another, appeared, who had in his early years been kept down by the memory of David’s victories, and by the show of substantial strength which his own government presented. At length, however, they ventured to try its texture, and finding it more vulnerable than even they had suspected, that there was nothing very terrible to resolute men in its showy greatness; and having found that the king had really no power to make any effectual opposition to their assaults, far less to put them down, they were emboldened to take further measures, until some established their independence, while others offered the passive resistance of withholding their tributes—so that his power became shorn at the borders, and eventually shaken at home, where the discontinuance of many outer supplies of revenue, and probably the interruption of his various lines of trade, no longer in his undisputed possession, urged him, not to economy and retrenchment, but to make good the deficiency by the taxation of his native subjects.—Kitto.

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

1Ki_11:14-22. The fate of Hadad is recounted to us not so much on his own account as on our own, in order that we may learn to regard the ways of God with man, and order our ways by Him who is ever mercy and wisdom (Psa_25:10). If God brought back the heathen Hadad by mysterious ways to his native land, how much more will he lead those who keep his covenant and testimony to the true native land, and to the eternal rest, how dark and inscrutable soever may be the ways by which He leads them.—Lange.

1Ki_11:21-22. The love of fatherland.

1. Is deeply implanted in humanity.

2. Creates irrepressible yearnings in the heart of the exile.

3. Becomes intensified under a sense of oppression and wrong.

4. Fires the soul with bravery in its defence.

5. Is a faint image of the love we should feel for the heavenly fatherland—to go to heaven is to go home again.

1Ki_11:22. The secresy of revenge.

1. The fierceness of revenge is fanned by the rehearsal of past injuries.

2. Is cherished in the midst of peace and plenty.

3. Is hidden from the dearest friend and benefactor.

4. Is intensified by its secresy.

O that the slave had forty thousand lives;

One is too poor, too weak for my revenge!

Arise, black vengeance, from thy hollow cell!

Yield up, O love, thy crown and hearted throne,

To tyrannous hate! Swell, bosom, with thy freight,

For ‘tis of aspics’ tongues!—Othello.

1Ki_11:23-25. Though vanquished and east down, tyranny and ambition do not forget. They think perpetually of vengeance, and seek to satisfy it, now by rough means, now by subtle ones, whenever an opportunity offers. Therefore warns the apostle so earnestly against those secret and mighty motives in the natural heart of man (Rom_12:19).

1Ki_11:26. Solomon’s servant, but unthankful and disloyal, such as was Ahithophel to David, Brutus to Cæsar, Phocas to Mauritius, Frederick III.’s courtiers and creatures to him, Biron to Henry IV. of France. That king had made him of a common soldier a captain, of a captain a knight, of a knight Duke of Biron, Marshal of France, Governor of Burgundy, &c. Yet all this and more could not keep him from conspiring the death of his king, queen, and prince, that the kingdom might be transferred to others, and the Huguenots rooted out.

1Ki_11:26-40. The dangerous glitter of a crown.

1. Infatuates the ambitions.

2. Has allured many to their ruin.

3. Hides the misery and care of the unhappy wearer.

4. Should be guarded and fenced by a strict moral obedience to the law of God (1Ki_11:38).

—The disruption of the kingdom was not the work of a day, but the growth of centuries. To the house of Joseph—that is, to Ephraim, with its adjacent tribes of Benjamin and Manasseh—had belonged, down to the time of David, all the chief rulers of Israel: Joshua, the conqueror; Deborah, the one prophetic, Gideon, the one regal, spirit of the judges; Abimelech and Saul, the first kings; Samuel, the restorer of the state after the fall of Shiloh. It was natural that, with such an inheritance of glory, Ephraim always chafed under any rival supremacy. Even against the impartial sway of its own Joshua, or of its kindred heroes, Gideon or Jephthah, its proud spirit was always in revolt, how much more when the blessing of Joseph seemed to be altogether merged in the blessing of the rival and obscure Judah; when the Lord “refused the tabernacle of Joseph, and chose not the tribe of Ephraim, but chose the tribe of Judah, Mount Zion which he had loved (Psa_78:67). All these embers of dissatisfaction, which had well nigh burst into a general conflagration in the revolt of Sheba, were still glowing; it needed but a breath to blow it into a flame. There was one man who, by his office and character, had long ago been indicated as the natural successor of Joshua. This was Jeroboam.—Stanley.

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

1Ki_11:26-28. God is wont to chastise the rebellion of princes against His will by means of the rebellion of their own subjects; as Solomon raised his hand against Jehovah, so did his servant Jeroboam against him. Destruction from above unites with ruin from below. Whatever Solomon undertook after his fall was deprived of God’s blessing. By the building of Millo he intended still further to strengthen his dominion over all his enemies, and to render impregnable his dwelling-place; but this very building was the cause why his throne began to totter, and why he lost the greater part of his kingdom. Here applies Psa_127:1. It was by Divine decree that Solomon himself, without his own will or knowledge, should raise from the dust to high places the very man appointed by God to abase him and to dismember his kingdom. Conspiracies and rebellions are chiefly led by those who have to complain least of injustice or oppression, but have been pampered and favoured until ambition incites them to suppress every feeling of gratitude (Joh_13:18).—Lange.

1Ki_11:28. The man of industry.

1. Improves the powers he already possesses.

2. Attracts the notice of the great.

3. Is intrusted with important undertakings.

4. Acquires a position of honour and influence.

1Ki_11:29. Here we meet with another representative of that interesting order of men—Divine messengers—who appear so often and so prominently during the time of the Hebrew monarchy. Ahijah seems to have been to Jeroboam very much what Samuel was to Saul, and Nathan was to David. He, too, probably, announced to Solomon the word of the Lord as recorded in 1Ki_11:11-13. His two genuine and authentic prophecies, each of great importance to the kingdom of Israel, are recorded here, 1Ki_11:29-39, and chap. 1Ki_14:6-16. Ahijah’s oracles seem like a voice from that olden, sacred past—the voice of the God of Joshua and of Eli—still proclaiming blessings on the obedient, and penal woes on them that forget His name.—Whedon.

1Ki_11:30. Here we find the first instance of that mode of delivering a Divine message which became so common in later times, and which has been called “acted parable.” Generally the mode was adopted upon express Divine command (see Jer_13:1-11; Jer_19:1-10; Jer_27:2-11; Eze_3:1-3; Eze_4:1; Eze_5:1). In this instance we may trace a connection between the type selected and the words of the announcement to Solomon, in 1Ki_11:11-13—“I will surely rend the kingdom from thee”—where the kingdom is likened unto a glorious’ mantle upon the king’s shoulders, as in 1Sa_15:28.

1Ki_11:31. All the world must confess, upon beholding the abasement of the house of David and the elevation of Jeroboam, that the Most High has power over the kingdoms of men, and bestows them on whom He will (Dan_4:29; 1Sa_2:7-8; Luk_1:52).

1Ki_11:36. Even in the midst of His just anger the Lord is merciful, and the inconstancy of man can never shake His fidelity. The fulfilment of 2Sa_7:14-15, is seen in Solomon’s history. The house of David remained a light for “ever,” until that Son of David came who is the Light of the world, which lighteth all men who come into the world (Joh_1:9; Rom_15:12).—Lange.

1Ki_11:39. The severity and tenderness of God.

1. God will punish the evil-doer.

2. God will punish with awful severity.

3. God will temper justice with mercy.

4. The severity of God does not destroy His tenderness (Rom_11:22).

—“But not for ever.” for some kings of Judah—as Asa, Hezekiah, Josiah—grew very great. But especially is this to be understood of Christ, in whom the glory was restored to David’s house, such as never any mortal king had.—Trapp.

—In no case—not even if Jeroboam and his seed continued faithful, serving God as David had served Him—was the seed of David to be afflicted for ever. David had been distinctly promised that God should never fail his seed, whatever their short-comings (Psa_89:28-37). The fulfilment of these promises was seen, partly in the providence which maintained David’s family in a royal position till Zerubbabel, but mainly in the preservation of his seed to the time fixed for the coming of Christ and the birth of Christ—the Eternal King—from one of David’s descendants.—Speaker’s comm.

Verse.

40. Fickle humanity.

1. Solomon at one time promotes Jeroboam to honour, at another seeks to murder him.

2. Jeroboam at one time is the faithful and diligent servant of Solomon, at another his vexatious and rebellious foe.

3. Unhappy subject whose sovereign is so fickle, unhappy sovereign whose subject is so faithless.

—From the time when they furnished to their nation the great conquering leader who settled Israel in the possession of Palestine (Num_13:8), the tribe of Ephraim, already encouraged to hope for high things by the blessing of Jacob (Gen_48:17-22; Gen_49:22-26), had claimed, and, in the main, enjoyed, a preeminence above their brethren. But the transfer of power to the rival tribe of Judah involved in the elevation of David, and the loss of prestige both by Shiloh and Shechem through the concentration at Jerusalem of both the temporal and the ecclesiastical, must have been bitterly felt by the Ephraimites. When David boasted that God refused the tabernacle of Joseph, and chose not the tribe of Ephraim, but chose the tribe of Judah, he touched a sore place in the hearts of his Ephraimite subjects. They felt themselves the “strength” of Israel, while Judah was the “lawgiver” (Psa_60:7; Psa_108:8). The military glory of David’s reign, and the splendour of his son’s in its earlier portion, had prevented the discontent of the Ephraimites from gathering to a head. But as Solomon’s lustre faded, as his oppression became greater and its object more selfish, and as a prospect of deliverance arose from the personal qualities of Jeroboam, the tribe, it is possible, again aspired after its old position. Jeroboam, active, energetic, and ambitious, placed himself at their head, and, encouraged by the prophet’s words, commenced a rebellion (1Ki_11:26). The step proved premature. The power of Solomon was too firmly fixed to be shaken; and the hopes of the Ephraimites had to be deferred till a fitter season. Speaker’s Comm.

—Rebellion.

1. Is easily fomented where conscious wrong exists.

2. Is the opportunity of the ambitious.

3. Is often ill-timed in its movements.

4. Is always attended with great risks.

5. Is powerless in frustrating Divine arrangements.

6. Is vigilant and impatient to accomplish its purpose.

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

Solomon's Opponents. - Although the punishment with which Solomon was threatened for his apostasy was not to be inflicted till after his death, the Lord raised up several adversaries even during his lifetime, who endangered the peace of his kingdom, and were to serve as constant reminders that he owed his throne and his peaceable rule over the whole of the kingdom inherited from his father solely to the mercy, the fidelity, and the long-suffering of God. - The rising up of Hadad and Rezon took place even before the commencement of Solomon's idolatry, but it is brought by יהוה ויּקם (Kg1 11:14) into logical connection with the punishment with which he is threatened in consequence of that idolatry, because it was not till a later period that it produced any perceptible effect upon his government, yet it ought from the very first to have preserved him from self-security.

Kg1 11:14-22

The first adversary was Hadad the Edomite, a man of royal birth. The name הדד (אדד in Kg1 11:17, according to an interchange of ה and א which is by no means rare) was also borne by a prae-Mosaic king of Edom (Gen 36:35), from which we may see that it was not an uncommon name in the royal family of the Edomites. But the conjecture of Ewald and Thenius, that our Hadad was a grandson of Hadar, the last of the kings mentioned there, is quite a groundless one, since it rests upon the false assumption that Hadar (called Hadad in the Chronicles by mistake) reigned in the time of David (see the Comm. on Gen 36:31.). הוּא before בּאדום stands in the place of the relative אשׁר: "of royal seed he = who was of the royal seed in Edom" (cf. Ewald, 332, a.).

Kg1 11:15-17

When David had to do with the Edomites, ... Hadad fled. את היה is analogous to עם היה, to have to do with any one, though in a hostile sense, as in the phrase to go to war with (את) a person, whereas עם היה generally means to be upon the side of any one. The correctness of the reading בּהיוה is confirmed by all the ancient versions, which have simply paraphrased the meaning in different ways. For Bttcher has already shown that the lxx did not read בּהכּות, as Thenius supposes. The words from בּעלות to the end of Kg1 11:16 form explanatory circumstantial clauses. On the circumstance itself, compare Sa2 8:13-14, with the explanation given there. "The slain," whom Joab went to bury, were probably not the Israelites who had fallen in the battle in the Salt valley (Sa2 8:13), but those who had been slain on the invasion of the land by the Edomites, and still remained unburied. After their burial Joab defeated the Edomites in the valley of Salt, and remained six months in Edom till he had cut off every male. "All Israel" is the whole of the Israelitish army. "Every male" is of course only the men capable of bearing arms, who fell into the hands of the Israelites; for "Hadad and others fled, and the whole of the Idumaean race was not extinct" (Clericus). Then Hadad fled, while yet a little boy, with some of his father's Edomitish servants, to go to Egypt, going first of all to Midian and thence to Paran. The country of Midian cannot be more precisely defined, inasmuch as we meet with Midianites sometimes in the peninsula of Sinai on the eastern side of the Elanitic Gulf, where Edrisi and Abulfeda mention a city of Madian (see at Exo 2:15), and sometimes on the east of the Moabitish territory (see at Num 22:4 and Jdg 6:1). Here, at any rate, we must think of the neighbourhood of the Elanitic Gulf, though not necessarily of the city of Madian, five days' journey to the south of Aela; and probably of the country to which Moses fled from Egypt. Paran is the desert of that name between the mountains of Sinai and the south of Canaan (see at Num 10:12), through which the Haj route from Egypt by Elath to Mecca still runs. Hadad would be obliged to take the road by Elath in order to go to Egypt, even if he had taken refuge with the Midianites on the east of Moab and Edom.

Kg1 11:18-20

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

Kg1 11:21-22

When Hadad heard in Egypt of the death of David and Joab, he asked permission of Pharaoh to return to his own country. Pharaoh replied, "What is there lacking to thee with me?" This answer was a pure expression of love and attachment to Hadad, and involved the request that he would remain. But Hadad answered, "No, but let me go." We are not told that Pharaoh then let him go, but this must be supplied; just as in Num 10:32 we are not told what Hobab eventually did in consequence of Moses' request, but it has to be supplied from the context. The return of Hadad to his native land is clearly to be inferred from the fact that, according to Kg1 11:14, Kg1 11:25, he rose up as an adversary of Solomon.

(Note: The lxx have supplied what is missing e conjectura: καὶ ἀνέστρεψεν Ἄδερ (i.e., Hadad) εἰς τὴν γῆν αὐτοῦ· αὑτὴ ἡ κακία ἥν ἐποίησεν Ἄδερ· καὶ ἐβαρυθύμησεν Ἰσραήλ, καὶ ἐβασίλευσεν ἐν γῇ Ἐδώμ. Thenius proposes to alter the Hebrew text accordingly, and draws this conclusion, that "shortly after the accession of Solomon, Hadad, having returned from Egypt, wrested from the power of the Israelites the greatest part of Edom, probably the true mountain-land of Edom, so that certain places situated in the plain, particularly Ezion-geber, remained in the hands of the Israelites, and intercourse could be maintained with that port through the Arabah, even though not quite without disturbance." This conclusion, which is described as "historical," is indeed at variance with Kg1 22:48, according to which Edom had no king even in the time of Jehoshaphat, but only a vicegerent, and also with Kg2 8:20, according to which it was not till the reign of Jehoshaphat's son Joram that Edom fell away from Judah. But this discrepancy Thenius sets aside by the remark at Kg1 22:48, that in Jehoshaphat's time the family of Hadad had probably died out, and Jehoshaphat prudently availed himself of the disputes which arose concerning the succession to enforce Judah's right of supremacy over Edom, and to appoint first a vicegerent and then a new king, though perhaps one not absolutely dependent upon him. But this conjecture as to the relation in which Jehoshaphat stood to Edom is proved to be an imaginary fiction by the fact that, although this history does indeed mention a revolt of the Edomites from Judah (2 Chron 20; see at Kg1 22:48), it not only says nothing whatever about the dying out of the royal family of Hadad or about disputes concerning the succession, but it does not even hint at them. - But with regard to the additions made to this passage by the lxx, to which even Ewald (Gesch. iii. p. 276) attributes historical worth, though without building upon them such confident historical combinations as Thenius, we may easily convince ourselves of their critical worthlessness, if we only pass our eye over the whole section (Kg1 11:14-25), instead of merely singling out those readings of the lxx which support our preconceived opinions, and overlooking all the rest, after the thoroughly unscientific mode of criticism adopted by a Thenius or Bttcher. For example, the lxx have connected together the two accounts respecting the adversaries Hadad and Rezon who rose up against Solomon (Kg1 11:14 and Kg1 11:23), which are separated in the Hebrew text, and have interpolated what is sated concerning Rezon in Kg1 11:23 and Kg1 11:24 after האדמי in Kg1 11:14, and consequently have been obliged to alter וגו שׂטן ויהי in Kg1 11:25 into καὶ ἦσαν Σατάν, because they had previously cited Hadad and Rezon as adversaries, whereas in the Hebrew text these words apply to Rezon alone. But the rest of Kg1 11:25, namely the words from ואת־רעה onwards, they have not given till the close of Kg1 11:22 (lxx); and in order to connect this with what precedes, they have interpolated the words καὶ ἀνέστρεψεν Ἄδερ εἰς τὴν γῆν αὐτοῦ. The Alexandrians were induced to resort to this intertwining of the accounts concerning Hadad and Rezon, which are kept separate in the Hebrew text, partly by the fact that Hadad and Rezon are introduced as adversaries of Solomon with the very same words (Kg1 11:14 and Kg1 11:23), but more especially by the fact that in Kg1 11:25 of the Hebrew text the injury done to Solomon by Hadad is merely referred to in a supplementary manner in connection with Rezon's enterprise, and indeed is inserted parenthetically within the account of the latter. The Alexandrian translators did not know what to make of this, because they did not understand ואת־הרעה and took ואת for זאת, αὕτη ἡ κακία. With this reading ויּקץ which follows was necessarily understood as referring to Hadad; and as Hadad was an Edomite, על־ארם ויּמלך had to be altered into ἐβασίλευσεν ἐν γῇ Ἐδώμ. Consequently all the alterations of the lxx in this section are simply the result of an arbitrary treatment of the Hebrew text, which they did not really understand, and consist of a collocation of all that is homogeneous, as every reader of this translation who is acquainted with the original text must see so clearly even at the very beginning of the chapter, where the number of Solomon's wives is taken from Kg1 11:3 of the Hebrew text and interpolated into Kg1 11:1, that, as Thenius observes, "the true state of the case can only be overlooked from superficiality of observation or from preconceived opinion.")

Kg1 11:23-25

A second adversary of Solomon was Rezon, the son of Eliadah (for the name see at Kg1 15:18), who had fled from his lord Hadadezer, king of Zobah, and who became the captain of a warlike troop (גּדוּד), when David smote them (אתם), i.e., the troops of his lord (Sa2 8:3-4). Rezon probably fled from his lord for some reason which is not assigned, when the latter was engaged in war with David, before his complete overthrow, and collected together a company from the fugitives, with which he afterwards marched to Damascus, and having taken possession of that city, made himself king over it. This probably did not take place till towards the close of David's reign, or even after his death, though it was at the very beginning of Solomon's reign; for "he became an adversary to Israel all the days of Solomon (i.e., during the whole of his reign), and that with (beside) the mischief which Hadad did, and he abhorred Israel (i.e., became disgusted with the Israelitish rule), and became king over Aram." הדד אשׁר is an abbreviated expression, to which עשׂה may easily be supplied, as it has been by the lxx (vid., Ewald, 292, b., Anm.). It is impossible to gather from these few words in what the mischief done by Hadad to Solomon consisted.

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

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

(Note: Compare Ewald, Gesch. iii. p. 276. It is true that more could be inferred from Ch2 8:3, if the conquest of the city of Hamath by Solomon were really recorded in that passage, as Bertheau supposes. But although על הזק is used to signify the conquest of tribes or countries, we cannot infer the conquest of the city of Hamath from the words, "Solomon went to Hamath Zobah עליה ויּחזק and built Tadmor," etc., since all that עליה יחזק distinctly expresses is the establishment of his power over the land of Hamath Zobah. And this Solomon could have done by placing fortifications in that province, because he was afraid of rebellion, even if Hamath Zobah had not actually fallen away from his power.)

Kg1 11:26-28

Attempted rebellion of Jeroboam the Ephraimite. - Hadad and Rezon are simply described as adversaries (שׂטן) of Solomon; but in the case of Jeroboam it is stated that "he lifted up his hand against the king," i.e., he stirred up a tumult or rebellion. בּ יד נשׂא is synonymous with בּ יד נשׂא in Sa2 18:28; Sa2 20:21. It is not on account of this rebellion, which was quickly suppressed by Solomon, but on account of the later enterprise of Jeroboam, that his personal history is so minutely detailed. Jeroboam was an Ephraimite (אפרתי, as in Sa1 1:1; Jdg 12:5) of Zereda, i.e., Zarthan, in the Jordan valley (see Kg1 7:46), son of a widow, and עבד, i.e., not a subject (Then.), but an officer, of Solomon. All that is related of his rebellion against the king is the circumstances under which it took place. אשׁר הדּבר יד, this is how it stands with, as in Jos 5:4. Solomon built Millo (Kg1 9:15), and closed the rent (the defile?) in the city of David. פּרץ, ruptura, cannot be a rent or breach in the wall of the city of David, inasmuch as חומה is not added, and since the fortification of the city by David (Sa2 5:9) no hostile attack had ever been made upon Jerusalem; but in all probability it denotes the ravine which separated Zion from Moriah and Ophel, the future Tyropoeon, through the closing of which the temple mountain was brought within the city wall, and the fortification of the city of David was completed (Thenius, Ewald, Gesch. iii. p. 330). Compare מפרץ, a gap in the coast, a bay. On the occasion of this building, Jeroboam proved himself a חיל גּבּור, i.e., a very able and energetic man; so that when Solomon saw the young man, that he was doing work, i.e., urging it forward, he committed to him the oversight over all the heavy work of the house of Joseph. It must have been while occupying this post that he attempted a rebellion against Solomon. This is indicated by וגו הדּבר יד in v. 27. According to Kg1 12:4, the reason for the rebellion is to be sought for in the appointment of the Ephraimites to heavy works. This awakened afresh the old antipathy of that tribe to Judah, and Jeroboam availed himself of this to instigate a rebellion.

Kg1 11:29-36

At that time the prophet Ahijah met him in the field and disclosed to him the word of the Lord, that he should become king over Israel. ההיא בּעת: at that time, viz., the time when Jeroboam had become overseer over the heavy works, and not after he had already stirred up the rebellion. For the whole of the account in Kg1 11:29-39 forms part of the explanation of בּמּלך יד הרים which commences with Kg1 11:27, so that ההיא בּעת ויהי is closely connected with אתו ויּפקד in Kg1 11:28, and there is no such gap in the history as is supposed by Thenius, who builds upon this opinion most untenable conjectures as to the intertwining of different sources. At that time, as Jeroboam was one day going out of Jerusalem, the prophet Ahijah of Shilo (Seilun) met him by the way (בּדּרך), with a new upper garment wrapped around him; and when they were alone, he rent the new garment, that is to say, his own, not Jeroboam's, as Ewald (Gesch. iii. p. 388) erroneously supposes, into twelve pieces, and said to Jeroboam, "Take thee ten pieces, for Jehovah saith, I will rend the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and give thee ten tribes; and one tribe shall remain to him (Solomon) for David's sake," etc. The new שׂלמה wen ehT . was probably only a large four-cornered cloth, which was thrown over the shoulders like the Heik of the Arabs, and enveloped the whole of the upper portion of the body (see my bibl. Archol. ii. pp. 36, 37). By the tearing of the new garment into twelve pieces, of which Jeroboam was to take ten for himself, the prophetic announcement was symbolized in a very emphatic manner. This symbolical action made the promise a completed fact. "As the garment as torn in pieces and lay before the eyes of Jeroboam, so had the division of the kingdom already taken place in the counsel of God" (O. v. Gerlach). There was something significant also in the circumstance that it was a new garment, which is stated twice, and indicates the newness, i.e., the still young and vigorous condition, of the kingdom (Thenius).

In the word of God explaining the action it is striking that Jeroboam was to receive ten tribes, and the one tribe was to remain to Solomon (Kg1 11:31, Kg1 11:32, Kg1 11:35, Kg1 11:36, as in Kg1 11:13). The nation consisted of twelve tribes, and Ahijah had torn his garment into twelve pieces, of which Jeroboam was to take ten; so that there were two remaining. It is evident at once from this, that the numbers are intended to be understood symbolically and not arithmetically. Ten as the number of completeness and totality is placed in contrast with one, to indicate that all Israel was to be torn away from the house of David, as is stated in Kg1 12:20, "they made Jeroboam king over all Israel," and only one single fragment was to be left to the house of Solomon out of divine compassion. This one tribe, however, is not Benjamin, the one tribe beside Judah, as Hupfeld (on Ps 80), C. a Lap., Mich., and others suppose, but, according to the distinct statement in Kg1 12:20, "the tribe of Judah only." Nevertheless Benjamin belonged to Judah; for, according to Kg1 12:21, Rehoboam gathered together the whole house of Judah and the tribe of Benjamin to fight against the house of Israel (which had fallen away), and to bring the kingdom again to himself. And so also in Ch2 11:3 and Ch2 11:23 Judah and Benjamin are reckoned as belonging to the kingdom of Rehoboam. This distinct prominence given to Benjamin by the side of Judah overthrows the explanation suggested by Seb. Schmidt and others, namely, that the description of the portion left to Rehoboam as one tribe is to be explained from the fact that Judah and Benjamin, on the border of which Jerusalem was situated, were regarded in a certain sense as one, and that the little Benjamin was hardly taken into consideration at all by the side of the great Judah. For if Ahijah had regarded Benjamin as one with Judah, he would not have torn his garment into twelve pieces, inasmuch as if Benjamin was to be merged in Judah, or was not to be counted along with it as a distinct tribe, the whole nation could only be reckoned as eleven tribes. Moreover the twelve tribes did not so divide themselves, that Jeroboam really received ten tribes and Rehoboam only one or only two. In reality there were three tribes that fell to the kingdom of Judah, and only nine to the kingdom of Israel, Ephraim and Manasseh being reckoned as two tribes, since the tribe of Levi was not counted in the political classification. The kingdom of Judah included, beside the tribe of Judah, both the tribe of Benjamin and also the tribe of Simeon, the territory of which, according to Jos 19:1-9, was within the tribe-territory of Judah and completely surrounded by it, so that the Simeonites would have been obliged to emigrate and give up their tribe-land altogether, if they desired to attach themselves to the kingdom of Israel. But it cannot be inferred from Ch2 15:9 and Ch2 34:6 that an emigration of the whole tribe had taken place (see also at Kg1 12:17). On the other hand, whilst the northern border of the tribe of Benjamin, with the cities of Bethel, Ramah, and Jericho, fell to the kingdom of Jeroboam (Kg1 12:29; Kg1 15:17, Kg1 15:21; Kg1 16:34), several of the cities of the tribe of Dan were included in the kingdom of Judah, namely, Ziklag, which Achish had presented to David, and also Zorea and Ajalon (Ch2 11:10; Ch2 28:18), in which Judah obtained compensation for the cities of Benjamin of which it had been deprived.

(Note: On the other hand, the fact that in Psa 80:2 Benjamin is placed between Ephraim and Manasseh is no proof that it belonged to the kingdom of Israel; for can this be inferred from the fact that Benjamin, as the tribe to which Saul belonged, at the earlier split among the tribes took the side of those which were opposed to David, and that at a still later period a rebellion originated with Benjamin. For in Psa 80:2 the exposition is disputed, and the jealousy of Benjamin towards Judah appears to have become extinct with the dying out of the royal house of Saul. Again, the explanation suggested by Oehler (Herzog's Cycl.) of the repeated statement that the house of David was to receive only one tribe, namely, that there was not a single whole tribe belonging to the southern kingdom beside Judah, is by no means satisfactory. For it cannot be proved that any portion of the tribe of Simeon ever belonged to the kingdom of Israel, although the number ten was not complete without it. And it cannot be inferred from Ch2 15:9 that Simeonites had settled outside their tribe-territory. And, as a rule, single families or households that may have emigrated cannot be taken into consideration as having any bearing upon the question before us, since, according to the very same passage of the Chronicles, many members of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh had emigrated to the kingdom of Judah.)

Consequently there only remained nine tribes for the northern kingdom. For וגו עבדּי למען see at Kg1 11:13. For Kg1 11:33 compare Kg1 11:4-8. The plurals עזבוּני, ישׁתּחווּ, and הלכוּ are not open to critical objection, but are used in accordance with the fact, since Solomon did not practise idolatry alone, but many in the nation forsook the Lord along with him. צדנין, with a Chaldaic ending (see Ges. 87, 1, a.). In Kg1 11:34-36 there follows a more precise explanation: Solomon himself is not to lose the kingdom, but to remain prince all his life, and his son is to retain one tribe; both out of regard to David (vid., Kg1 11:12, Kg1 11:13). אשׁתנּוּ נשׂיא כּי, "but I will set him for prince," inasmuch as leaving him upon the throne was not merely a divine permission, but a divine act. "That there may be a light to my servant David always before me in Jerusalem." This phrase, which is repeated in Kg1 15:4; Kg2 8:19; Ch2 21:7, is to be explained from Sa2 21:17, where David's regal rule is called the light which God's grace had kindled for Israel, and affirms that David was never to want a successor upon the throne.

Kg1 11:37-39

The condition on which the kingdom of Jeroboam was to last was the same as that on which Solomon had also been promised the continuance of his throne in Kg1 3:14; Kg1 6:12; Kg1 9:4, namely, faithful observance of the commandments of God. The expression, "be king over all that thy soul desireth," is explained in what follows by "all Israel." It is evident from this that Jeroboam had aspired after the throne. On the condition named, the Lord would build him a lasting house, as He had done for David (see at Sa2 7:16). In the case of Jeroboam, however, there is no allusion to a lasting duration of the ממלכה (kingdom) such as had been ensured to David; for the division of the kingdom was not to last for ever, but the seed of David was simply to be chastised. זאת למען, for this, i.e., because of the apostasy already mentioned; "only not all the days," i.e., not for ever. ואענּה is explanatory so far as the sense is concerned: "for I will humble." Jeroboam did not fulfil this condition, and therefore his house was extirpated at the death of his son (Kg1 15:28.).

Kg1 11:40

Kg1 11:40 is a continuation of בּמּלך יד ויּרם in Kg1 11:26; for Kg1 11:27-39 contain simply an explanation of Jeroboam's lifting up his hand against Solomon. It is obvious from this that Jeroboam had organized a rebellion against Solomon; and also, as Kg1 11:29 is closely connected with Kg1 11:28, that this did not take place till after the prophet had foretold his reigning over ten tribes after Solomon's death. But this did not justify Jeroboam's attempt; nor was Ahijah's announcement an inducement or authority to rebel. Ahijah's conduct as perfectly analogous to that of Samuel in the case of Saul, and is no more to be attributed to selfish motives than his was, as though the prophetic order desired to exalt itself above the human sovereign (Ewald; see, on the other hand, Oehler's article in Herzog's Cycl.). For Ahijah expressly declared to Jeroboam that Jehovah would let Solomon remain prince over Israel during the remainder of his life. This deprived Jeroboam of every pretext for rebellion. Moreover the prophet's announcement, even without this restriction, gave him no right to seize with his own hand and by means of rebellion upon that throne which God intended to give to him. Jeroboam might have learned how he ought to act under these circumstances from the example of David, who had far more ground, according to human opinion, for rebelling against Saul, his persecutor and mortal foe, and who nevertheless, even when God had delivered his enemy into his hand, so that he might have slain him, did not venture to lay his hand upon the anointed of the Lord, but waited in pious submission to the leadings of his God, till the Lord opened the way to the throne through the death of Saul. By the side of David's behaviour towards Saul the attempt of Jeroboam has all the appearance of a criminal rebellion, so that Solomon would have been perfectly justified in putting him to death, if Jeroboam had not escaped from his hands by a flight into Egypt. - On Shishak see at Kg1 14:25.

Keil & Delitzsch — Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament (1861–1891) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API. (Old Testament only.)

Solomon’s Adversaries and Death

B.— 1Ki_11:14-43

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

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

26And Jeroboam the son of Nebat, an Ephrathite of Zereda, Solomon’s servant, whose mother’s name was Zeruah, a widow woman, even he lifted up his hand 27against the king. And this was the cause that he lifted up his hand against the king: Solomon built Millo, and repaired the breaches of the city of David his father. 28And the man Jeroboam was a mighty man of valor: and Solomon seeing the young man that he was industrious, he made him ruler over all the charge of the house of Joseph. 29And it came to pass at that time when Jeroboam went out of Jerusalem, that the prophet Ahijah the Shilonite found him in the way; and he had clad himself with a new garment; and they two were alone in the field10: 30and Ahijah caught the new garment that was on him, and rent it in twelve pieces: 31and he said to Jeroboam, Take thee ten pieces: for thus saith the Lord [Jehovah], the God of Israel, Behold, I will rend the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and will give ten tribes to thee: 32(but he shall have one11 tribe for my servant David’s sake, and for Jerusalem’s sake, the city which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel:) 33because that they have forsaken me, and have worshipped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians,12 Chemosh the god of the Moabites, and Milcom13 the god of the children of Ammon, and have not walked in my ways, to do that which is right in mine eyes, and to keep my statutes 34and my judgments, as did David his father. Howbeit, I will not take the whole kingdom out of his hand: but I will make him prince all the days of his life for David my servant’s sake, whom I chose, because he kept my commandments and my statutes: 35but I will take the kingdom out of his son’s hand, and will give it unto thee, even ten tribes. 36And unto his son will I give one tribe, that David my servant may have a light alway before me in Jerusalem, the city which I have chosen me to put my name there. 37And I will take thee, and thou shalt reign according to all that thy soul desireth, and shalt be king over Israel. 38And it shall be, if thou wilt hearken unto all that I command thee, and wilt walk in my ways, and do that is right in my sight, to keep my statutes and my commandments, as David my servant did; that I will be with thee, and build 39thee a sure house, as I built for David,14 and will give Israel unto thee. And I will for this afflict the seed of David, but not fore1 Kings 1Ki_11:40 Solomon sought therefore15 to kill Jeroboam. And Jeroboam arose, and fled into Egypt, unto Shi-shak king of Egypt, and was in Egypt until the death of Solomon. 41And the rest of the acts of Solomon, and all that he did, and his wisdom, are they not written in the book of the acts of Solomon? 42And the time that Solomon reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel was forty years. 43And Solomon slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David his father: and Rehoboam his son reigned in his stead.

Exegetical and Critical

1Ki_11:14. And the Lord stirred up an adversary unto Solomon, &c. It is clear and beyond dispute that the whole section, from 1Ki_11:14-40, which treats of the different adversaries that God raised up against Solomon, is intimately connected with the immediately preceding account of his fall, and of the impending and threatened division of the kingdom. The latter was not to occur till after Solomon’s death; but the presages of it were already appearing. The peace of the kingdom hitherto undisturbed was endangered from that time on, both by internal and by external adversaries. The two external ones, Hadad and Rezon, had, indeed, always been foes to Israel and Solomon, but they had never ventured to show their animosity in open deed, inasmuch as the kingdom had become powerful and respected under Solomon. But Solomon, in permitting the idolatrous worship, gave great dissatisfaction to all the faithful servants of Jehovah, and with his own hands he shook the foundations of the kingdom. Other measures also, more or less connected with the former, caused him to lose, more and more, the esteem and confidence of his subjects; and then the long pent-up hatred of his old foes began to show itself more; their courage grew, and though they did not proceed to formal attack or to open rebellion (of which our narrative says nothing) Solomon had occasion to fear them more than ever before; the tranquillity and peace of his kingdom was endangered, and the time of prosperity past. Every one will admit that this is what the author meant to convey. But recent criticism reckons him a “later worker-up of Deuteronomy,” and accuses him of a shifting of the historical facts. According to Ewald (Gesch. Isr. III. s. 274–281), uproar and rebellion did not first break out towards the end of Solomon’s reign, but immediately after the death of David and of his formidable army-chief, Joab, in the beginning of the reign of the young and inexperienced king, both in the south (Edom) and in the north (Syria), as depicted by Solomon himself in the second Psalm With the divine courage and the admonition supported by prophetic assurance, which this Psalm expresses, together with wonderful firmness of spirit, Solomon met the storm of rebellion, and deprived his foes of their chief weapon of attack by his alliance with Egypt. Against the northern insurgents he himself marched, and stormed Hamath. Thus were the ragings of the people stilled, and in a brief space he became master of the situation. This view has been reiterated in several books (cf. for instance Eisenlohr, das Volk Isr. II. s. 47 and 57; Duncker, Gesch. des Alt. I. s. 387), and has been accepted as a matter of course; although there are the strongest reasons for rejecting it. (a) Our historical book says repeatedly how, and that the kingdom of Solomon became established (1Ki_2:12; 1Ki_2:46), without making the remotest allusion to rebellion having broken out in the lands David had conquered, and being put down by Solomon; yet this would especially have tended to establish his throne and increase the esteem in which he was held. Even in the chapter we are considering, no mention is made of actual rebellion, but only of adversaries; therefore to say there were certainly such, is not writing history, but making history. (b) The rebellion of whole nations which, like Edom, lived far off, could have been put down only by force of arms, and not by “reproof” or “strength of mind;” but the history says nothing of Solomon’s marching into Edom. He went indeed to Hamath, but not to conquer it, only to “fortify” it (חזק cf. 2Ch_11:11-12; 2Ch_26:9), as the short notice stands in 2Ch_8:3, in the middle of the details of the different city-buildings. In fact we do not hear of a single warlike enterprise of Solomon’s; he was, as his name denotes, the king of peace, the “man of rest,” in distinction from David, the man of war (1Ch_22:9); and his reign was distinguished by works of peace (building, commerce, intellectual culture), above that of all other kings. (c) The 2d Psalm does not contain a history, and our narrative cannot be completed, much less contradicted or corrected by it. It is a mere unproven hypothesis that this psalm was composed by Solomon, and that the rebellion alluded to in it took place during his reign, not in the last years of it, but in the first. What is here said of Hadad and Rezon certainly occurred at an earlier period, but is repeated, “because its influence only began to be felt in the latter part of Solomon’s reign, and should have guarded him from over-security from the beginning” (Keil).

1Ki_11:14-22. Hadad, the Edomite. He is called Ahad [the English version does not distinguish] in 1Ki_11:17. A Hadad is mentioned among the Edomite kings as early as Gen_36:35; who evidently belonged to an earlier period. It is quite uncertain whether our Hadad was the grandson of the last king of Edom, whom 1Ch_1:50 wrongly calls Hadad instead of Hadar (Gen_36:39) (Ewald, Thenius). Details of his former fortunes are no doubt designed to show how firmly he clung to his native land, and therefore how much more he was to be dreaded. For David’s war with the Edomites cf.Sam. 1Ki_8:13 sq. “The slain, whom Joab came out to bury, cannot be the Israelites who fell in the battle of the valley of salt, but those killed on the invasion of the country by the Edomites, and who lay yet unburied. After performing this act Joab defeated the Edomites in the valley of salt, and dwelt six months in Edom, till he had extirpated all the males (i. e., all those capable of bearing arms that fell into his hands, and especially those of royal blood”) (Keil). Midian, 1Ki_11:18, cannot certainly be the town Madian mentioned by Arabian geographers, but a district; it is not very well defined, but it must have been between Edom and the desert, south-west of Palestine, Paran (Num_13:3; Num_13:27; Num_10:12); the road from Egypt still leads across the latter, through Aila to Mecca. The people whom the followers of Hadad took from Paran with them, were to lead the way across the desert. The Pharaoh who entertained the fugitives with such friendliness, and not only supported Hadad himself, but gave land to those with him, could scarcely be Solomon’s father-in-law, but his predecessor. His consort is here named הגְּבִירָה, the Queen-mother’s usual appellation (1Ki_15:13; 2Ch_15:16); but it does not always necessarily mean that; and consequently we are not obliged to accept Hitzig’s and Thenius’ reading of הַגְּדוֹלָה, i. e., the elder. The weaning of a child (1Ki_11:20) usually took place the second or third year (2Ma_7:27), and was observed as a family feast (Gen_21:8). Genubath was thus adopted among the royal children, and brought up with them (Winer, R.-W.-B., I. s. 657). Hadad’s petition (1Ki_11:21) was not so much because he had now no longer any fear for his life, but because he, as a royal prince, hoped to ascend the throne, and free his land from the Israelitish yoke; this was the only reason why he is named an adversary. Pharaoh’s question, 1Ki_11:22, contains the counsel to remain where he was, where he was well off, rather than undertake a dangerous and uncertain enterprise. This advice of his near relative was well meant, and did not spring from the policy of seeking to acquire or keep Solomon’s friendship. Hadad, however, remained firm in his resolve; we are not told of his actual departure, but it is to be understood; so that the Sept. addition, καὶ ἀνέστρεφεν ‛Αδερ εἰς τὴν γῆν αὐτοῦ, considered as original by Thenius, is unnecessary. It appears from 1Ki_9:26 sq.;1Ki_10:11, that Hadad was not able to carry out his plans at once, but, the fire smouldered under the ashes, and threatened to break out as soon as Solomon began to be less respected. Ewald continues Hadad’s history further. He says the Egyptian king received him in so friendly a manner, “evidently intending to make use of him in the future against the growing power of Israel.” Genubath must have “acted an important part in Asia, later, or he would otherwise not have been named at all.” When the feeling of the Egyptian court changed towards Israel’s kings, “an evasive answer” was returned to the Idumæan prince; he would “not be detained, however, but fled secretly to his ancestral mountains, was there acknowledged by many of his people as king, and caused Solomon much perplexity, though he was never completely victorious.” Every one who can read may see that there is not a single word of all this in the text, and yet Eisenlohr has blindly followed the writer l. c., s. 58). Cf. also on 1Ki_22:48.

1Ki_11:23-25. And God stirred him up.… Rezon … the son of Eliadah, &c. 1Ki_11:23. 2Sa_8:3 sq. mentions that David smote Hadadezer, king of Zobah, in Syria, whereupon Rezon forsook his master, gathered together an army from the remains of the Syrian host, and proceeded later to Damascus, settled there, and usurped the chief power. This may have occurred in David’s time, or in the beginning of Solomon’s reign. It is nowhere said that he rebelled on Solomon’s accession, and was conquered by him, and there is nothing to show “that he was at least twenty or thirty years older than Solomon” (Ewald). It is not impossible that he survived Solomon, for had he died sooner it could not be, as in 1Ki_11:25, that “he was an adversary to Israel all the days of Solomon.” He did not undertake any enterprise against the powerful king, but is he had always entertained hostile feelings to him, he now became a more dangerous and open enemy, as the power and fame of Solomon were declining. The words וְאֶת־הָרָעָה אֲשֶׂר הֲדָד are difficult, but can be translated only as many old translators give them, and among the recent ones, De Wette, Gesenius, Keil, Philippson; and “beside the mischief that Hadad (did).” וְאֶת is as in 1Ki_11:1 and Exo_1:14. We are not told what the mischief that Hadad did really was; the writer only means that Rezon’s enmity was added to that of Hadad. This view, which suits the context, relieves the following sentence of all difficulty: “and he (Rezon) abhorred Israel, and reigned over Syria.” Whilst Hadad agitated the south, Rezon rebelled from Solomon in the north, and took the supreme power. The Sept. translates as if it read זֹאת instead of ואת and אֱדֹם instead of ארם: Αὕτη ἡκακία ἥν ἐποίησεν ’Αὁάρ. καὶ . . . ἐβασίλευσε ἑν γῇ ’Εδώμ, i. e., this is the mischief which Hadad did; he abhorred Israel and was king in Edom. Thenius asserts that this was the original text. But in this case the whole sentence could not be here, where the question is about the second adversary, Rezon, but should have followed 1Ki_11:22. It is incomparably less probable that it was there passed over by the oversight of a copyist (Thenius), and inserted here, than that the Sept. misunderstood the ואת, &c., and translated wrongly as it so often does, and was then obliged to change ארם to אדם because it did not suit Hadad. The Sept. has arbitrarily mixed the two accounts of the adversaries together (it puts 1Ki_11:23-24 into 1Ki_11:14), so that we should be very foolish to follow it in this case. Ewald translates, “as for the mischief which Hadad did, he was hostile to Israel and reigned over Edom;” but then the sentence should be back of 1Ki_11:22 and not here. It is not right to change ארם into אדם, because the two foregoing verses absolutely require that Rezon should be considered as subject to וַיָּקָץ. Cf. Keil on the place.

1Ki_11:26-27. Jeroboam the son of Nebat. Hadad and Rezon were dangerous “adversaries” to Solomon, but Jeroboam, though a subject and servant of Solomon, lifted up his hand against the king, i. e., he actually rebelled. His personal circumstances are given more at length because of his vastly greater importance. Zereda is not Zarthan, as Keil thinks (1Ki_7:46); the latter is not in Ephraim; but Zereda is Zerira in the mountains of Ephraim (cf. Thenius on 1Ki_12:2). The second half of 1Ki_11:27 says, like 1Ki_9:15 : “to build Millo and the walls of Jerusalem;” there is, therefore, no question here of stopping “a gap in the city of David” (Luther), but of the closing up of a ravine (Vulgate, vorago) in the city, which was done by walls. By פֶּרֶץ is meant the once very deep ravine of what was subsequently the Tyropœon, which separated Zion from Moriah and Ophel. This ravine became part of the interior of the city through these walls, and was made inaccessible to enemies (Thenius). The words, he made him ruler over all the charge of the house of Joseph, are not in contradiction with 1Ki_9:22; for slave-levy is not spoken of here (מַס־עֹבֵד), but that of the Israelites (מַם מִכָּל־יִשְׂרָאֵל) 1Ki_5:13, who worked alternately. It is not, therefore, necessary to suppose that the “house of Joseph,” i. e., the Ephraimites (Jos_17:17) were obliged to work at Millo, as a punishment for their rebellion under Sheba (2 Samuel 20). But the Ephraimites, who had an old and irrepressible jealousy of Judah, submitted very reluctantly to labor in the king’s citadel and the royal city of Judah; their compulsory work increased their dislike to hatred, so that it was easy to fan the flame of insurrection among them.

1Ki_11:29. And it came to pass at that time,i. e., not at the time Jeroboam made the insurrection, but—taken with 1Ki_11:28—the time when he entered upon the office of superintendent over all the Ephraimite levy; therefore, before he lifted his hand against the king, and proceeded to acts, but still he was brooding over insurrection. The notion that 1Ki_11:29-39 is a section taken from another source and inserted here (Thenius) is, to say the least, unnecessary; it contains an explanatory and needful account, which is closely connected with 1Ki_11:28. Jeroboam’s banishment from Jerusalem was probably the occasion for preparations of rebellion. The prophet Ahijah was of the same tribe as Jeroboam, for Shiloh was in the tribe of Ephraim, north of Bethel, south of Lebonah (Jdg_21:19), and was the seat of the tabernacle from Joshua to Eli (Jos_18:1; 1Sa_21:3). They no doubt knew each other well. The Sept. adds to the words in the way (for explanation): καὶ ἀπἐστησεν αὐτὸν ἐκ τῆς ὁδοῦ.

1Ki_11:30-39. Ahijah caught the new garment.שַׂלְמָה (for שִׂמְלָה) is “probably similar to the Arabian burnou; a large square piece of cloth, thrown over the shoulders and almost covering the whole person in the daytime, and used at night for a coverlet” (Keil). Hess wrongly imagines it to have been a “new mantle which Jeroboam had on;” and Ewald thinks it was his “new and splendid official uniform.” It was the prophet’s own cloak, as 1Ki_11:30 plainly says. The prophet himself explains the meaning of this symbolic act. Le Clerc says that the repetition of the word new shows that the prophet did what he did, non temere. Thenius thinks the new garment denoted the young and powerful kingdom; but both these explanations are strained. A new garment is one that is whole and complete, integer, without a rent or hole; the kingdom was hitherto without split or division, but was now to be torn and divided. קָרַע is usually applied to tearing the garments in sign of mourning (Gen_37:29; Gen_44:13; 2Sa_13:21; 2Ki_18:37), i. e., of inward rending. Now when the prophet tore the cloak into twelve pieces, and gave Jeroboam only ten pieces instead of eleven, we must of course infer that neither Benjamin nor Judah alone was meant here, or in 1Ki_11:13, by “one tribe,” but both together (cf. 1Ki_12:20-21; 2 Chron. 11:3; 12:23). Little Benjamin, over against Judah, came scarcely into consideration; and as, besides, the capital of the kingdom (Jerusalem) lay on the borders of both tribes, they might very well be reckoned as one. If, as Keil says, the number ten represents the total sum here, in distinction to the one part (all Israel fell away from the house of David, only a single portion remained to it), the prophet would have torn off only one small piece. For 1Ki_11:32 see above on 1Ki_11:12-13; and for 1Ki_11:33 see on 1Ki_11:5-8. The plural in 1Ki_11:33 is remarkable (all translations, except the Chaldee, have the singular, which we expect here); perhaps it only means our vague word “one;” it is plain, however, that Israelites had already abandoned themselves to the licensed heathen worship. In the words in 1Ki_11:36, that David may have a light always before me, “light” is not a symbol of prosperity (Keil), and ניר certainly does not mean breaking forth afresh (Hitzig), but it means simply the continuance of his race, as in 1Ki_15:4; 2Ki_8:19; 2Ch_21:7. As a house (dwelling) is dark (uninhabitable) without a light, so also is a house (family, race) without posterity; this is why we speak of the dying out of a race, at the present day, as its extinction. The same expression, 1Ki_11:37 : and thou shalt reign according to all, &c., is used in 2Sa_3:21, about David; it does not mean pro lubitu tuo imperabis Israelitis (Dathe), but, thou shalt have the dominion thou now strivest for, &c., &c. 1Ki_11:38. Jeroboam’s dominion then was connected with the condition upon which all dominion in Israel was based.

1Ki_11:40-42. Solomon sought therefore to kill Jeroboam. The immediate connection of these words with Ahijah’s address can scarcely mean otherwise than this: that Solomon heard of it, and sought to get Jeroboam out of the way by some means. Jeroboam could but know of this, and he lifted up his hand against the king, i. e., he proceeded to actual rebellion (1Ki_11:26-27). But not succeeding, he fled to Egypt. The king then reigning was not, of course, Solomon’s father-in-law, nor Sesostris, as older commentators think, but was probably Seconchis or Sesonchusis, the first king of the twenty-second dynasty (cf. Winer, R.-W.-B. s. v. Sishak). The reception he gave Jeroboam shows his feeling towards Solomon. 1Ki_14:21 sq. speaks of his open hostility to the kingdom of Judah.

1Ki_11:43. Solomon slept with his fathers, at about sixty years of age, as he very early succeeded to the throne (1Ki_3:7). Josephus thinks he was eighty or even ninety-four years old, but this is quite wrong, and was caused, probably, by confusion of the ciphers. All copies and translations give forty. Our author gives, in a general way, the “book of the acts of Solomon,” as the original source of his history; but 2Ch_9:29 names, with more exactness, the “book (דִּבְרֵי) of Nathan the prophet, the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and the visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam.” But it does not follow that these three writings are only extracts from one historical one (Bertheau), but it certainly does appear that each one wrote down his own experience. When Solomon fell away, and Ahijah appeared, Nathan must have been dead. Cf. the Introduction, § 2. Rehoboam was not a son of the first and real consort of Solomon, the Egyptian princess (1Ki_3:1; 1Ki_9:24; 1Ki_7:8), but the son of the Naamah the Ammonitess (1Ki_14:21; 1Ki_14:31). He appears to have been the only living son, as no children, especially sons, of Solomon are named (though he had so many wives), except the two daughters mentioned, 1Ki_4:11; 1Ki_4:15; and no brothers disputed the succession of Rehoboam, which was the case with Solomon. For his age at his accession see on 1Ki_14:21.

Historical and Ethical

1. The appearance of the various adversaries of Solomon seems to have been a special act of divine retributive justice; God is named as the direct agent. He is said not only to have permitted them, but to have “stirred them up,” called them to it. The word הֵקִים means, as here, the stirring up of enemies and rebels, also of deliverers, helpers, prophets (Jdg_2:18; Deu_18:15; Deu_18:18; 1Sa_2:35; Eze_34:23; Jer_29:15), where there is no allusion to mere permission. It is not indeed the absolutely Holy One who excites hatred, enmity, and revenge in one man towards another, for he tempts no man to evil (Jam_1:13); but the Almighty Ruler of the world can use the hatred that He sees in the hearts of sinful men, to fulfil, without their knowledge or wish, the purposes of His retributive justice and the chastisements of His love; and in so far, the stirring up is no passive permission, but the act of God. Thus Nathan announces to David, after his grievous sin, this word of the Lord, “behold I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house” (2Sa_12:11), and David himself says of Shimei who was cursing him, “so let him curse, because the Lord hath said unto him” (2Sa_16:10-11). The Assyrian is, without knowing it, the rod of His anger in the hand of Jehovah (Isa_10:1; Isa_10:5), and Solomon’s adversaries also served for instruments of divine justice. This expression of stirring up shows clearly that the appearance of the adversaries did not take place, as recent commentators say, in the beginning of Solomon’s reign, for up to that time Solomon had given no occasion for any act of retribution or discipline. Though he did not lose his throne through them, during his life-time; yet it was very humiliating to him, whose power and splendor had been a spectacle to the world, and whose wisdom people of all nations had come to hear (1Ki_4:14; 1Ki_10:24), to be obliged to fear these men, who were far inferior to him, and whom he had once despised.

2. While Hadad and Rezon did not affect materially the destiny of Israel, the third opponent of Solomon was of vastly greater significance. Jeroboam does not disappear, like them, without leaving a trace in the history of the kingdom. His entrance on the scene was felt profoundly for centuries; the breach and partition of the kingdom take place with and through him; a partition which was no temporary one, but lasted about three hundred years, and ended with the dissolution of the kingdom. In this respect he is one of the most important of the characters in the history of Israel. Witsius, in reference to his whole career says (Decaphylon, p. 307): vir sagax, inquietus et dominandi avidus atque ab ineunte œtate iis eruditus artibus, quibus ingenia ad magnœ fortunœ cultum incitantur. Here where he is first mentioned the question properly arises, how it came to pass that he lifted up his hand against the King. The text certainly says nothing explicit about it, but gives some distinct clues. It says, first of all, he was an Ephraimite, thus being a member of the largest, most powerful, and warlike tribe, that had always vied with Judah for pre-eminence; and that, even when David had subdued them, never renounced their deeply rooted jealousy and love of independence and dominion over the other tribes (2Sa_2:9; 2Sa_20:21). After the division of the kingdom, Ephraim stood at the head of the ten tribes, so that the kingdom of the ten was called Ephraim (Hos_4:17; Hos_5:9; Hos_12:1 sq.; Isa_7:2). Dislike of the supremacy of Judah was in the very blood of so young and powerful a man as Jeroboam, and it needed not much to excite thoughts of rebellion and independence in him. The fact that Solomon employed the Ephraimites not so much in the matter of levy-works as in building Millo, and in stopping up the ravine which served to fortify the city of David and to secure the supremacy of Judah, was calculated to increase the ancient jealousy and dislike to Judah, and to excite discontent and disgust. Recognizing the distinguished ability of young Jeroboam, Solomon made him overseer of his own people; thus feeding the ambition of this man who was born to rule. He now first became conscious of his powers, and soon acquired the confidence of his already discontented tribe by his prudence and energy, so that he could hope to succeed in placing himself at their head, and lifting his hand against the Judah-King. Perhaps he also perceived that the splendor of Solomon had lost its ground through the influence of his wives, the open introduction of idol-worship side by side with that of Jehovah, and the luxurious court life, and that his rule gave great dissatisfaction to the most worthy of the people. When we consider all this we readily conceive that a man like the Ephraimite, Jeroboam, should, without being especially influenced by any one, think of breaking loose from Solomon’s rule. The later critics have therefore no grounds for asserting that “the prophet Ahijah, who appeared at the head of a (discontented) faction,” induced Jeroboam to rebel against the king (Winer, R.-W.-B. I. s. 544). Thenius is quite right when he says, “Ahijah did not incite Jeroboam, but he knew the thoughts he cherished, and when Ahijah addressed him he was about taking steps to realize these thoughts, as 1Ki_11:37 says: the prophet then appeared, for he saw that the deed would infallibly follow the resolve in this case, and recognized in Jeroboam a capable man, knowing also the promise of success under condition of continuance in a God-fearing mind. This relation is quite in the spirit of prophecy, and is totally different from an intentional and forcible introduction.” The text says distinctly that Ahijah met Jeroboam when the latter “went out of Jerusalem” (1Ki_11:29) to lift up his hand against the king.

3. The prophet Ahijah stands in a relation to Solomon and Jeroboam analogous with that of Samuel to Saul and David (1Sa_15:16). “As Saul’s sentence of rejection was accompanied by the calling of David, so the prophetical announcement to Solomon was accompanied by the prophecy to Jeroboam” (v. Gerlach). Ahijah opened to him the same divine decision which he had first made known to Solomon (cf. 1Ki_11:11-13). In doing so he emphasizes two things particularly, and these are worthy of notice; the first is, that Solomon was to remain king of all Israel to the end of his life, and the division of the kingdom was to take place under his son (1Ki_11:31 sq.); the second, that Jeroboam only received dominion over the ten tribes, on the presupposition and condition that he would walk in all the commandments of Jehovah, as David did, and not sin like Solomon (1Ki_11:37 sq.). It is added also that David’s seed was to be humbled, but not forever (1Ki_11:39). We should not overlook the circumstance that the prophet met Jeroboam on the way as he came out of Jerusalem, and was proceeding to carry put his intentions, and that the prophet took him aside (as the Sept. at least has it) so that they “two were alone in the field” (1Ki_11:29). Ahijah’s communication was, therefore, not intended for the public, but was confidential, thus intimating to Jeroboam that he ought not to proceed to rebellion at once, but keep quiet, and wait till it might please the Lord to bring about circumstances to fulfil the purpose He had announced. The prophet, so far from counselling him to rebellion, warned him rather, and recommended patience as long as Solomon lived. But when Jeroboam, nevertheless, lifted up his hand against the king, he committed an inexcusable, sinful deed on his own responsibility, and anticipated divine providence. His conduct was just the opposite of David’s, who, though anointed to be king, and persecuted by Saul, endured every wrong, never revenged himself on the king, though the latter was often in his power, even mourned his death, and had the Amalekite who killed him executed as a traitor (2Sa_1:11-16). He believed that the Lord knew the right hour to fulfil his promise. It cannot, therefore, be accounted a crime in Solomon to strive to kill a man whom he had raised from nothing, and who then rebelled against him. From all this it appears that it is quite erroneous to account for Jeroboam’s appearance by saying that “the ancient prophetical estate wished, by the forcible introduction of a new royal house, to stand directly under the Lord and above the human monarchy;” so that the kingdom of the ten tribes was “the birth of this prophet-power,” and the latter “a retarded error” (Ewald). And it is equally untrue that the rebellion of the ten tribes was “an enterprise which the prophet had encouraged, to bring back the old national constitution, and restore the consideration in which his class was held in Samuel’s time, when he, their founder and representative, deposed a king who disobeyed him, and raised up another in his place” (Menzel, l. c. s. 152). When will men cease to compare the old prophets with modern demagogues and ambitious priests!

4. The symbolic procedure of the rending the garment into twelve pieces preceded the prophecy delivered by the prophet. It could not, therefore, have been intended to make that prophecy clear, but rather inversely, the prophecy explained the transaction. This was the case not only here, but the prophets generally performed a preliminary symbolic action which represented the substance of the meaning of the solemn prophecy which followed; and they performed this act on the impulse of the divine spirit, just as they proclaimed the word following in their divine commission. Cf. Isa_20:2 sq.; Jer_13:1 sq.; Jer_29:1 sq.; Jer_35:2 sq.; Jer_43:9 sq.; Eze_4:1 sq.; Eze_5:1 sq.; Eze_12:3 sq.; Eze_24:2 sq.; Eze_37:15 sq.; Eze_13:15 sq. From these passages we see that the performance of such actions was as much a part of the prophetic calling and office as the proclamation of the word. All revelation of God is in the way of act as well as of word: God’s deeds as well as His words are signs that testify of Him. His acts are also, as it were, speech, i. e., a revealing of Himself. The speaking of God is a sign-language, and therefore a symbol-language. The entire cultus has, hence, symbolic form as the real expression of the divine-human relation. When the prophets, therefore, appeared as such, i. e., as “men of God,” as mediators and instruments of divine revelation, they did not communicate it in words only, but in solemn acts, which were signs; and thus they proved themselves the servants of God, speaking in His language. Their prophetic acts, as well as their prophetic words, were announcements and revelations of the divine purpose. When they anticipate their words by an act commanded by God, this act is not to be viewed as a mere image, according to their own pleasure, but it represents the future which they had to reveal as a fact, as it were, a present deed of God, and therefore as something which would assuredly happen. The action, then, was an assurance and pledge of the fulfilment of the prophecy; and it was entirely natural that it should precede the word explaining and interpreting it. Besides, every thought which is embodied in a deed produces a much greater and more lasting impression than if only expressed in words. Of Christ, in whom all that is prophetic culminates, the disciple says (Luk_24:19): “which was a prophet mighty in deed and word,” thus proving that not words only, but actions also belong to the essence of the calling of the prophet. The people concluded from his deeds that “a great prophet is risen up among us” (Luk_7:16). His prophetic deeds were “signs” (Joh_6:26; Joh_20:20), not mere evidences of power, but of divine authority; and they spoke of divine things as loudly and, if possible, more loudly than His words. He himself says, “Though ye believe not me, believe the works” (Joh_10:38); “the works that I do in my Father’s name they bear witness of me” (Joh_10:25).

5. The rending of the ten tribes appears, in the prophet’s prediction here as in 1Ki_11:11-13, to be a punishment ordained and determined by Jehovah for Solomon’s falling away, not, therefore, as an event merely permitted by God but designed; and therefore announced beforehand. The question arises, in what relation did this partition, determined on by Jehovah, stand to His plans regarding Israel considered as one people composed of twelve tribes? The whole nation was His inheritance, for He had called them from among all nations to be a divine kingdom (Exo_19:5-6), i. e., a theocracy. The one God, Jehovah, was, as the true King and Lord of that people, so also the root and principle of their unity—the bond binding together all the tribes into one whole. The human monarchy afterwards established by the desire of the people did not destroy the theocracy but served rather to sustain and preserve it (see above). But it was not now absolutely necessary that all the tribes should have one head; in fact they might each have had a head, had they only acknowledged Jehovah as the one true king of all Israel, and held fast to the covenant, i. e., the law of God. “It was not contrary to the Mosaic constitution for Jehovah to weaken—not destroy—a royal house that had turned to idolatry; to rend away some tribes from it, and to place them under the government of another king. It was rather the fittest thing to be done; for otherwise the principles that lay in the very nature of the constitution—namely, that disaster should follow idolatry, and prosperity the fear of God, would have been violated. One of these two things must (according to these principles) have come upon David’s house after a lapse into idolatry, viz. either expulsion from the throne (which could not be on account of the promise of perpetual succession), or weakening such as was foretold by Jehovah,.… a falling away of some tribes” (Hess, Von dem Reiche Gottes, I. s. 301). As Jehovah had heretofore governed his people by one king (David and Solomon) he could also do it by two without destroying the theocratic principle. The new kingdom is offered to Jeroboam and continuance is promised to his dynasty on the express condition that he should, “like David,” faithfully adhere to the law; with the explanation, nevertheless (1Ki_11:39), that the humiliation of the house of David would be but temporary. Thus it is indicated that the promise of the everlasting kingdom would not be realized in Jeroboam’s race, “but in that of David” (Oehler). The prediction of Ahijah does not imply a partition of the theocracy or of Israel, but only of the human monarchy under two kings. The double nature of the kingdom was not the cause of the permanence of the division, nor of the commencement of the destruction of the kingdom; these were the results of the continued falling away from the supreme commandment of the theocratic law on the part of the ten tribes.

6. There are no accounts of Solomon’s end, nor of his life and acts from the time of his lapse till his death; all is reduced to the notice that he sought to kill Jeroboam, and that he died and was buried. This is the more remarkable as the life and acts of this king are more minutely narrated than those of any succeeding one, and that the last days and end of David in particular are recorded with such evident care both in our books and in the Chronicles. Had Solomon ended his life like David, who with joyous heart blessed the Lord to the last (1Ch_29:10 sq.), and charged his son and successor most emphatically to remain faithful to Jehovah (1Ki_2:1 sq.), and been anxious that the prosperity of the kingdom should endure on the basis of the covenant with Jehovah (2Sa_23:1 sq.), such a circumstance would not have been passed over. We must therefore conclude, from the entire silence of the history, that Solomon did not die as David died, that he remained in the state of mind into which he had fallen in his later age. The question whether Solomon was finally converted and saved was formerly discussed extensively (Buddeus, Hist. Eccl., II. p. 237 sq.), but we see no occasion to introduce it here. Both Hess and Niemeyer have endeavored to ascertain from Ecclesiastes what Solomon’s state of mind was in his last days; but apart from the mistaken presupposition that this treatise was composed by Solomon, no one could prove his conversion from it; and Niemeyer concludes his character-sketch with these words: “the cheerful peace of his soul was gone. Gloomy was his retrospect of life, and gloomy was his view of the near and of the distant future.” It is worthy of remark, that while Solomon (Suleiman) is held in high honor in the East at the present day, his memory is far less revered among the Jews than that of David, which could not have been the case had his reign ended as gloriously as it began. Bertheau justly remarks that Solomon “did more towards undermining the distinctive peculiarity of his people than any other king.” We are not, however, to seek the cause of this simply in his making a people who were adapted to agriculture, commercial, and in his splendid buildings, his harem, and his court, all hitherto unknown in Israel, but the real specific reason was that by the introduction and the toleration of foreign idolatrous forms of worship he undermined the religion of his people, forth from which religion flowed all the characteristics which distinguished them over against all other peoples; that was the worm at the root of the kingdom and the national life.

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

Homiletical and Practical

1Ki_11:14-40. Solomon’s enemies. 1. They are roused against him by God, so that he may know and confess what heart-suffering it brings to forsake the fear of the Lord his God (Jer_2:19). Cramer: So marvellously does God bring it about, that he who will not fear him, must needs fear his fellow-men. Once the man of rest, and the Prince of Peace (1Ki_5:4), now he is pressed sore by enemies from the north, from the south, and from his midst; they are the scourges with which the Lord chastises him. When foes and opponents rise against thee, and cause thee care and anguish, then think: The Lord has summoned them on account of thy sins, and unfaithfulness. The hostility of men is a sermon of repentance from thy God to thee. 2. They were in God’s hand, and could do no more than he permits; they rebelled, but they were powerless to take from Solomon the throne and kingdom during his lifetime. The Lord commands our foes: So far shalt thou go, and no further.—J. Heermann: If thou speakest the word, they soon become friends: they must needs lay down arms and defences, and stir no finger.—P. Gerhardt: If I am beloved of God, and have the Head for my friend, what can troops of foes and opposers do to me? For he can humble the proud (Dan_4:35). Formerly all kings did homage to Solomon, and brought him gifts, and journeyed from all countries to see and to hear him; his power was as great as his kingdom. But now his power and might are abased before those who hitherto ranked far below him, whom he had regarded as the least of his slaves and vassals. Humiliation coming through weak and inferior means is much more bitter than the same humiliation through strong and powerful means; the latter we can ascribe to men, but in the former we must recognize the will and power of God.

1Ki_11:14-22. The fate of Hadad is recounted to us not so much on his account as on our own, in order that we may learn to regard the ways of God with man, and order our own ways by Him, who is ever mercy and wisdom (Psa_25:10). If God brought back the heathen Hadad by mysterious ways to his native land, how much more will he lead those who keep his covenant and testimony to the true native land, and to the eternal rest, how dark and inscrutable soever may be the ways by which he leads them. 1Ki_11:21. Let me go into mine own country. The power of love of country. Not ubi bene, ibi patria, but ubi patria, ibi bene. Yet must we not in the earthly country forget the heavenly “Fatherland.” 1Ki_11:23-25. Though vanquished and cast down, tyranny and ambition do not forget; they think perpetually of vengeance, and seek to satisfy it, now by rough means now by subtle ones, whenever an opportunity offers. Therefore, warns the apostle so earnestly (Rom_12:19) against those secret and mighty motives in the natural heart of man.

1Ki_11:26-28. God is wont to chastise the rebellion of princes against his will, by means of the rebellion of their own subjects; as Solomon raised his hand against Jehovah, so did his servant Jeroboam against him. Destruction from above unites with ruin from below. Whatever Solomon undertook after his fall, was deprived of God’s blessing. By the building of Millo he intended still further to strengthen his dominion over all his enemies, and to render impregnable his dwelling-place, but this very building was the cause why his throne began to totter, and why he lost the greater part of his kingdom. Here applies Psa_127:1. It was by divine decree that Solomon himself, without his own will or knowledge, should raise from the dust to high places the very man appointed by God to abase him, and to dismember his kingdom. Conspiracies and rebellions are chiefly led by those who have to complain least of injustice or oppression, but have been pampered and favored until ambition incites them to suppress every feeling of gratitude (Joh_13:18).

1Ki_11:29-39. cf. above 1Ki_11:9-13. The prediction of the prophet Ahijah announces 1. the division of the kingdom as a consequence of the going astray to the worship of strange gods (1Ki_11:31-33); 2. the preservation of the kingdom of Judah on account of the promise given to David (1Ki_11:34; 1Ki_11:36; 1Ki_11:39); 3. the choice made of Jeroboam, on condition of inflexible fidelity to Jehovah and to his law (1Ki_11:37-38). 1Ki_11:31. All the world must confess, upon beholding the abasement of the house of David and the elevation of Jeroboam, that the Most High has power over the kingdoms of men, and bestows them upon whom he will (Dan_4:29; 1Sa_2:7-8; Luk_1:52). 1Ki_11:36. Even in the midst of his just anger the Lord is merciful, and the inconstancy of man can never shake His fidelity. The fulfilment of 2Sa_7:14-15, is seen in Solomon’s history. The house of David remained a light “forever,” until that Son of David came who is the light of the world, which lighteth all men who come into the world (Joh_1:9; Rom_15:12).

1Ki_11:40-43. These three truths are nowhere more powerfully exemplified than in the life of Solomon: What availeth it a man, &c., (Mat_16:26); Vanity of vanities, &c. (Ecc_1:2), and The world passeth away, &c. (1Jn_2:17; cf. 1Pe_1:24). 1Ki_11:40. Roos: Sin obscures the soul. He who turns aside from God departs from wisdom; and let those who, instead of bowing and submitting with resignation to the chastisements of God, haughtily strive against them, contemplate the fate of Jeroboam, who, doubtless, stirred up the plot against Solomon, since he afterwards eagerly abetted the desertion of the ten Tribes. Even as Solomon, when he sought to slay Jeroboam, must have felt that in vain he resisted the divine decrees, and was powerless to hinder them, so likewise Jeroboam, compelled to fly to Egypt, must have become conscious that in vain he strove rashly and insolently to anticipate the execution of the divine decrees. We must even make bitter expiation when we haughtily resist and oppose the Lord, or when we strive to hasten his designs, or to appoint time and place for their fulfilment. The life of Solomon closes with the words: Therefore Solomon sought to kill Jeroboam. Instead of seeking forgiveness from Him who forgiveth much, and himself granting forgiveness, he is thinking of murder and vengeance. How great and noble the contrast between this and the Figure of Him who in the face of death upon the cross cried: Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. Let us strive to become like unto his image, and that our last thought in life may be of love and reconciliation, and not of revenge and hatred. Solomon possessed the fairest and noblest crown that mortal can wear, yet it was perishable, not enduring beyond death and the grave. The Lord promises an immortal crown to those who love and follow Him. Be faithful unto death, then He will give thee the crown of life; blessed is he who endureth unto the end.

Footnotes:

[6]1Ki_11:14.—[This name is variously written in the printed Heb. text הֲדַד and אֲדַד; in some MSS. and in the Syr. it is uniformly written הדר. The Sept. has Ἄδερ, and the Vulg. Hadad. The Chald. follows the variations of the Hebrew. After the mention of his name the Vat. Sept. subjoins a summary of 1Ki_11:23-25, omitted in their place.

[7]1Ki_11:15.— Instead of בִּהְיוֹת the Sept ., Syr., and Arab. read בְּהַכּוֹת (when David had slain the Edomites), which Maurer and Thenius consider right. But according to 1Ch_20:5; Gen_14:9 [add Num_20:13], the reading of the text is not to be peremptorily rejected.

[8]1Ki_11:17.—[The Sept., in curious contradiction to 1Ki_11:15-16, has here “all the Edomites,” &c.

[9]1Ki_11:25.—[The Vat. Sept. here resumes the course of the Heb. narrative, but gives quite a different sense: “this is the evil which Hadad did: he abhorred Israel and reigned in Edom.” On the true rendering of the verse see Exeg. Com. In regard to the last word, three MSS., followed by the Sept., Syr., and Arab., have אדם for ארם: but, as pointed out in the Exeg. Com., the true reading must necessarily be that of the text. Our author in his translation, in opposition to his own exegesis, follows the Sept.

[10]1Ki_11:29.—[The Sept. renders or replaces the last clause by “and he took him aside from the way.”

[11]1Ki_11:32.—[The Sept. has δύο σκῆπτρα—two tribes. So also 1Ki_11:36.

[12]1Ki_11:33.—[Instead of the peculiar form צִדֹנִין many MSS. read צִדוֹנִים.

[13]1Ki_11:33.—[The Sept. has evidently understood in מִלְכֹּם the final ם as a pronominal suffix, and so translate “their king, the stumbling-block of the children of Ammon.” Throughout this verse the Sept. puts the verbs in the singular as having Solomon for their nominative.

[14]1Ki_11:38.—[The Vat. Sept. omits the clause “and will give Israel unto thee.”

[15]1Ki_11:40.—[וַיְבַקֵּשׁ שְׁלֹמֹה = but Solomon sought. The word “therefore” of the ancient version is not necessary, and connects the attempt of Solomon quite too distinctly with the communication of Ahijah, which may have been known to him (see Exeg. Com.) or may not. The true connection of 1Ki_11:40 is with 1Ki_11:26, 1Ki_11:27-39 being parenthetical.—F. G.]

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

THE WIND AND THE WHIRLWIND

1Ki_11:14-41

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

- Gal_6:8

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But the hour had now struck for a prophet to speak the word of the Lord. If the king, surrounded by formidable guards and a glittering court, was too exalted to be reached by a humble son of the people, it was time for Ahijah to follow the precedent of Samuel. He obeyed a divine intimation in selecting the successor who should punish the great kings rebellion against God, and inaugurate a rule of purer obedience than now existed under the upas-shadow of the throne. He was the Mazkir, the annalist or historiographer of Solomons court; {2Ch_9:29} but loyalty to a backsliding king had come to mean disloyalty to God. There was but one man who seemed marked out for the perilous honor of a throne. It was the brave, vigorous, ambitious youth of Ephraim who had risen to high promotion and had won the hearts of his people, though Solomon had made him the task-master of their forced labor. On one occasion Jeroboam left Jerusalem, perhaps to visit his native Zeredah and his widowed mother. Ahijah intentionally met him on the road. He drew him aside from the public path into a solitary place. There, seen by none, he took off his own shoulders the new stately abba in which he had clad himself, and proceeded to give to Jeroboam one of those object-lessons in the form of an acted parable, which to the Eastern mind are more effective than any words. Rending the new garment into twelve pieces, he gave ten to Jeroboam, telling him that Jehovah would thus rend the kingdom from the hands of Solomon because of his unfaithfulness, leaving his son but one tribe that the lamp of David might not be utterly extinguished. Jeroboam should be king over Israel; to the House of David should be left but an insignificant fragment. God would build a sure house for Jeroboam as He had done for David, if he would keep His commandments, though the House of David "should not be afflicted forever." {1Ki_11:34-39}

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

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

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

"With larger other eyes than ours

To make allowance for us all."

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

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

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

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

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

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

King Solomon stood in his crown of gold,

Between the pillars, before the altar

In the House of the Lord.

And the king was old,

And his strength began to falter,

So that he leaned on his ebony staff,

Sealed with the seal of the Pentegraph.

And the king stood still as a carven king,

The carven cedar beams below,

In his purple robe, with his signet-ring,

And his beard as white as snow.

And his face to the Oracle, where the hymn

Dies under the wings of the cherubim.

And it came to pass as the king stood there,

And looked on the House he had built with pride,

That the hand of the Lord came unaware

And touched him, so that he died

In his purple robe and his signet-ring

And the crown wherewith they had crowned him king.

And the stream of folk that came and went

To worship the Lord with prayer and praise,

Went softly ever in wonderment,

For the king stood there always;

And it was solemn and strange to behold

The dead king crowned with a crown of gold.

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

Until out from the pillar there ran a red mouse,

And gnawed through his ebony staff;

Then fiat on his face the king foil down,

And they picked from the dust a golden crown."

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

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

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

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

William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.

11:14-40 God delivered Solomon’s punishment through three political adversaries, Hadad, Rezon, and Jeroboam (see 11:40).

11:14-22 Solomon’s first adversary was Hadad. David had fought against the Edomites and defeated them with a great slaughter (2 Sam 8:13-14; 1 Chr 18:13-14). Hadad was the only member of the Edomite royal house to survive and escape. He had gone to Egypt with a number of followers, where the Egyptian king received him as a potential ally and gave him his wife’s sister in marriage. When David and . . . Joab died, Hadad returned to Edom, awaiting an opportunity to retaliate against Israel.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Of the king of Edom’s stock.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

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

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(14) Hadad the Edomite.—The name (or rather, title) Hadad (with the kindred names Hadar, Hadadezer or Hadarezer, and Benhadad) is most frequently found as a designation of the kings of Syria. Here, however, as also in Gen_36:35, 1Ch_1:46; 1Ch_1:50, it is given to members of the royal family of Edom. According to ancient authorities, it is a Syriac title of the sun—in this respect like the more celebrated title Pharaoh—assumed by the king, either as indicating descent from the sun-god, or simply as an appellation of splendour and majesty. The Hadad here mentioned seems to have been the last scion of the royal house, escaping alone, as a child, from the slaughter of his kindred and people.

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

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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

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

Hadad the Edomite] Hadad was apparently a common name among the Edomite royal family. We find it (Gen_36:36) among the list of early Edomite kings, and three verses later, Hadar, is probably (cf. 1Ch_1:50) a mistake of the scribe for Hadad.

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

The LXX. (Vat.) inserts in this verse a notice of Rezon, spoken of in 1Ki_11:23-25 below. The name is given as Ἐσρὼμ, and the notice is more brief than in the Hebrew text, and 1Ki_11:23-25 are omitted from the LXX. in consequence.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

For it came to pass, when David was in Edom,.... Fighting with the Edomites, and subduing them, and putting garrisons in the land, Sa2 8:14.

and Joab the captain of the host was gone up to bury the slain: the Israelites that fell in battle, or whom the Edomites afterwards, through stratagem and surprise, fell upon in their garrisons and destroyed, and which caused Joab to go thither to bury them, and take vengeance on the Edomites for it; or these were the Edomites slain by David and Joab; and it has been always reckoned a piece of humanity to bury the dead of an enemy, and is to the honour of the conqueror, see Eze 39:12 or to suffer the enemy to bury them themselves: it is said (o), that Hercules was the first that brought up this practice, and that before they were left on the field, to be devoured by dogs; so they were in the times of the Trojan war, as appears by the writings of Homer; but burying them, in later times, was used by the Romans (p) and Greeks; and Josephus (q) delivers it as a law of Moses to bury enemies, and not suffer any dead to lie without partaking of the earth, nor to pass by or overlook any unburied; but from whence he took it, or grounds it upon, is not very evident; this is the first mention of it; though the Targum is,

"to strip the slain:''

after he had smitten every male in Edom; as he thought, intending to root out the name of them; being enraged at their falling upon the garrisons, if that was the case.

(o) Aelian. Var. Hist. l. 12. c. 27. (p) Liv. Hist. l. 39. c. 21. Vid. Kirchman. Append. ad. lib. de Funer. Roman. c. 3, 4, & 5. (q) Antiqu. l. 4. c. 8. sect. 24. contr. Apion. l. 2. c. 29.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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

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

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Adversary. Hebrew Satan. Nothing of this kind could molest him, while he continued faithful, chap. v. 4. But now he sees the arm of God stretched out, pressing him to repent. --- Adad. Septuagint Ader. Josephus says that this prince solicited Pharao to let him return into his own country, after the death of Joab: but was prevailed upon to desist from the attempt, till the affairs of Solomon began to decline. He then endeavoured to get possession of the country; but, being repelled by the strong garrisons of the Hebrews, he went and joined Razar, (Hebrew Razon) who had revolted against Aderezer; and made inroads into the dominions of Solomon, after he had conquered a part of Syria. (Antiquities viii. 7.) Others think that Solomon consented, at the entreaty of Pharao, that Adad should reign over Idumea, on his paying tribute; and that the latter attempted to throw off the yoke. (Salien) --- But these particulars are uncertain, and Idumea was subject to the kings of Juda till the days of Joram, 2 Paralipomenon xxi. 8. (Calmet)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

Solomon’s Adversaries and Death

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

v. 31. And he said to Jeroboam, Take thee ten pieces; for thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel, Behold, I will rend the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and will give ten tribes to thee, the northern tribes being known as the Ten Tribes or Israel, more in a symbolic than in a literal way of speaking,

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

v. 33. because that they have forsaken me, the people having taken their cue from the king and indulged in the idol worship which he permitted the members of his harem, and have worshiped Ashtoreth, the goddess of the Zidonians, Chemosh, the god of the Moabites, and Milcom, the god of the children of Ammon, and have not walked in my ways, to do that which is right in Mine eyes, and to keep My statutes and My judgments, as did David, his father.

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

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

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

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

v. 38. And it shall be, if thou wilt hearken unto all that I command thee, and wilt walk in My ways, and do that is right in My sight, to keep My statutes and My commandments, as David, My servant, did, that I will be with thee, and build thee a sure house, the dynasty founded by him would be well established, as I built for David, and will give Israel unto thee, giving him the dominion for which he was striving.

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

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

v. 41. And the rest of the acts of Solomon, and all that he did, and his wisdom, are they not written in the Book of the Acts of Solomon? This was a secular book containing a history of the reign of Solomon, similar to that referred to 2Ch 9:29, from which the inspired writers took no more material.

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

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

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Hadad

This is the name of a man. (See: How to Translate Names)

When David was in Edom ... since Hadad was still a little child

This is background material that happened long before.

Joab and all Israel

The words "all Israel" refer to the army of Israel. AT: "Joab and all of the Israelite army" (See: Synecdoche)

But Hadad was taken with other Edomites by his father's servants

This can be stated in active form. "But the servants of Hadad's father took him with other Edomites" (See: Active or Passive)

translationWords

raise

adversary

Solomon

Edom

royal

family

Joab

bury

die

Israel

Egypt

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.