1 Kings 9:1–28

9:3 Initially, the Lord brings good news: “I have heard your prayer and your plea.” This most naturally refers to Solomon’s prayer and plea in chapter 8 (see Solomon’s use of this pairing in 8:28, 38, 45, 49, 54). The fact that Yahweh has “heard” the prayer means in this context that a positive response to the request has been granted. In fact, the answer far exceeds the scope of the original request. Solomon had asked God to hear the prayer offered toward the place of which God had said “My name shall dwell there” (8:28–30). God’s response is more far-reaching: “I have consecrated this house that you have built, by putting my name there forever. My eyes and my heart will be there for all time.” For the temple to be “consecrated” is for it to be set apart for God—it belongs to him, and the God who dwells in heaven has established a permanent “outpost” of his domain there. The fact that God’s name is there “forever” is a step up from 8:16, as is the fact that not only God’s “eyes” but also his “heart” will be there for all time. The significance of “eyes” is straightforward: God’s attentive care will be focused on the temple as a central part in his unfolding plan. But his “heart”? As the heart is the control center of the mind or personality, the thought here is similarly of the temple as being at the heart of God’s intentions or plans.

9:4–9 The preoccupation with Yahweh’s grand plans continues as he initially appears to address Solomon as an individual. However, it quickly becomes apparent that God’s major concern is with Solomon as his messiah, the standard-bearer for the people he rules. The promise of verses 4–5 is essentially a recapitulation of the promise made to David himself in 2 Samuel 7. However, as there was in the Lord’s appearance to Solomon at Gibeon (1 Kings 3:14), there is now a sharper focus on the need for Solomon to “walk before me, as David your father walked, with integrity of heart and uprightness, doing according to all that I have commanded you, and keeping my statutes and my rules.” The language is highly reminiscent of Deuteronomy (cf. Deut. 26:13–14). This then becomes the standard by which all the kings of Judah will be measured in the rest of Kings. Should Solomon meet this challenge, God’s open-ended commitment to the temple will be matched by a similar guarantee to the Davidic dynasty: “I will establish your royal throne over Israel forever.”

The obedience that God, through Moses, demanded of his son Israel is now required of his son the king.¹ In language strongly reminiscent of Deuteronomy, God warns Solomon that “if you turn aside from following me, you or your children, and do not keep my commandments and my statutes that I have set before you, but go and serve other gods and worship them, then I will cut off Israel from the land that I have given them, and the house that I have consecrated for my name I will cast out of my sight, and Israel will become a proverb and a byword among all peoples” (cf. Deut. 11:28; 28:14 [turning aside]; 4:1, 5; 12:1 [commandments and statutes]; 4:26; 6:15 [cutting off Israel from the land]; and 28:37 [byword]). God requires wholehearted allegiance (not to “turn aside”), flawless obedience (to “keep my commandments and my statutes”), and a rejection of idolatry (not to “go and serve other gods”). Failure to observe these instructions will lead to the nation experiencing the curse of the covenant as they are “cut off” from the land, lose the temple, and, beyond even that, become a negative example to the surrounding nations instead of being the light to the Gentiles. Solomon may be the king of Proverbs, but the warning that Israel herself might become the most powerful proverb of all is a sobering one.

In particular, the fate of the temple, so movingly and spectacularly commissioned in the previous chapter, will speak powerfully to the watching world. It will “become a heap of ruins.” Passersby will “be astonished and will hiss” in appalled derision (cf. Jer. 18:16; 19:8; 29:17; 50:3). When they ask how this has happened, the answer, once more in language typical of Deuteronomy, will be announced: “Because they abandoned the Lord their God who brought their fathers out of the land of Egypt and laid hold on other gods and worshiped them and served them. Therefore the Lord has brought all this disaster on them.” The passage underscores that the fate of the nation is now inextricably linked to that of the Davidic king. The leader of the Lord’s people will lead them either toward God, as David did, or away from him (1 Kings 9:9). Tragically, the latter will be far more common in Kings than the former.

9:10–11 Our writer moves from the theme of future Gentile passersby recognizing the judgment of God on the temple to Hiram, Solomon’s present next-door neighbor and construction partner. However, the picture is neither flattering nor reassuring. The fact that “at the end of twenty years . . . King Solomon gave to Hiram twenty cities in the land of Galilee” is problematic at a very basic level. Now that Solomon has happily fulfilled his building agenda (“Solomon had built the two houses, the house of the Lord and the king’s house”), he offers his friend an entirely inappropriate gift. Hiram may have been the key supplier of “cedar and cypress timber and gold” who extended unlimited credit (“as much as he desired”), but the idea that any foreign king should be granted any part of God’s land is unthinkable. The land is the gift of God, the place where God meets with his people, and the sign of their relationship with God at both an individual and a national level. Solomon, it seems, has either forgotten this or is now prepared to act in the place of God himself.

9:12–14 Hiram’s response is not what we might expect; with intentional understatement the text simply states that these cities “did not please him.” The land may be the good gift of the creator God, but humanly speaking these Galilean cities simply do not make the grade as far as Hiram is concerned: “What kind of cities are these that you have given me, my brother?” The language of brotherhood probably implies a formal agreement to pay a certain amount for Hiram’s services. In this case, Hiram clearly believes that Solomon has ripped him off, renaming this area “Cabul,” meaning “as nothing” or “worthless.” The fact that “Hiram had sent to the king 120 talents of gold” seems designed to expose Solomon’s dubious and deeply ungrateful behavior.² If this is the intention, then the massive amount of gold, in addition to the other materials supplied, casts Solomon as a kind of “anti-Abraham”: not only does he give away the land God has given him, but he appears to cheat “the nations” rather than bringing them blessing.

9:15–19 In the wake of the account of Solomon’s messy relationship with Hiram, the theme of the unraveling of the fulfillment of God’s promise continues in the details that dominate from verse 15. The announcement that Solomon has employed “forced labor” raises significant questions (although this is resolved in v. 22), which casts a shadow over this program. The reminder of Solomon’s priorities (“the house of the Lord and his own house . . . and all the store cities that Solomon had, and the cities for his chariots, and the cities for his horsemen, and whatever Solomon desired to build in Jerusalem, in Lebanon, and in all the land of his dominion”) picks up earlier concerns that he is far from a Deuteronomy 17 kind of king. The geographical and architectural details in this section are interesting at the level of adding color to the narrative, rooting the account firmly in the historical context, but they also confirm that Solomon is seeking to accrue power in a theologically unhealthy way. The echoes of Exodus 1:11, where Pharaoh conscripted Israelite slaves to construct “store cities,” cannot be accidental.

“The Millo and the wall of Jerusalem” (cf. 2 Sam. 5:9) cannot be identified with any certainty, but they are clearly defensive measures designed to strengthen the city. “Hazor and Megiddo and Gezer” are all former Canaanite cities on key trade routes (to the north, inland, and to the sea, respectively). “Lower Beth-horon and Baalath and Tamar” are similarly located on key trade routes. This enumeration of a line of cities running north to south, and the allusion to Solomon’s influence on Lebanon, make his ambitions and intentions quite clear.

The intriguing account of Pharaoh attacking Gezer and then giving it to Solomon as a dowry seems to imply that Solomon, even as he seeks to expand his kingdom, does not, in fact, have his existing lands under control, leading to the intervention of his future father-in-law.

9:20–23 It becomes apparent that significant numbers of non-Israelites remain in the land (cf. Deut. 7:1, although it is puzzling that the Girgashites and Canaanites have apparently gone missing!), which gives Solomon occasion to pursue his building projects while observing the letter of the law:

All the people who were left of the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, who were not of the people of Israel—their descendants who were left after them in the land, whom the people of Israel were unable to devote to destruction—these Solomon drafted to be slaves, and so they are to this day. But of the people of Israel Solomon made no slaves.

These verses shed light on 5:13–18, suggesting that this policy is designed to extract maximum work from the population while not technically violating the law of God. There is some ambiguity in this account, as the same word is used to designate both the Canaanite “slaves” and their Israelite supervisors (“officials”). It is true that the word can mean “slave” or “servant/official,” depending on context, but it does seem strange to use this language (and even to invite misunderstanding) in a passage in which avoiding Israelite forced labor is a real issue. It may also be that the emphasis on Solomon’s work is an oblique criticism of his tendency to follow his own agenda.

9:24 The interpretation of these verses as contributing to the gradual unraveling of the picture of Solomon’s reign as the golden age of Israel is supported by the little note in verse 24, which explains that all of this expansionist and protectionist activity is occasioned by the construction of a palace for one of Solomon’s queens (and an Egyptian one at that) right at the heart of the nation, beside the temple.

9:25–28 All is not lost, however. In typically contradictory fashion, Solomon’s godly wisdom is described in the same breath as his incipient foolishness. “Three times a year Solomon used to offer up burnt offerings and peace offerings on the altar that he built to the Lord, making offerings with it before the Lord.” The most natural way of reading this is in connection with Deuteronomy 16:16. In this, at least, Solomon appears to be acting as the “model Israelite” envisaged in the Mosaic description of the king. As in 1 Kings 8, Solomon himself is described as directing the sacrifices. There is no need to assume that he is infringing on the rights and responsibilities of the priests. However, even here the towering presence of Solomon, obscuring all other officials (including the priests), contributes to the growing sense of his hubris in these chapters. Even the fact that “he finished the house,” mentioned after the completion of Pharaoh’s daughter’s palace, is slightly uncomfortable, given the fact that completing the temple of the Lord should surely have been his priority.

The Israelites were not generally a seafaring people. However, Solomon’s drive to increase his wealth with substantial amounts of gold (somewhere between 14 and 30 tons [13 and 27 metric tons]) from “Ophir” even leads to an expansion of Israel’s influence on the ocean.³ The location of Solomon’s port on the Gulf of Aqaba is telling. It is located on the “Yam Sup,” the “sea of reeds” (or “Red Sea”) mentioned in Exodus 13:18; 15:4. Solomon is apparently leading the people back to Egypt in a successful quest for riches. Further cooperation with Hiram and the resultant swelling of the royal coffers neatly round off the section.