2 Chronicles 8:1–16

8:2 Details here are the reverse of 1 Kings 9:12, where Hiram does not approve of “the cities” that Solomon gave to him. Again, hearers would be aware of the Kings account, and it is possible that Hiram returned the cities (so Josephus, Antiquities 8.142; ESV and others, “Solomon rebuilt”).³ “(Re)building” in reclaimed territory as a sign of blessing accompanying temple building could encourage postexilic hearers that God would again enable this (as in Isa. 54:3; Ezek. 36:33).

8:3–6 Descriptions here differ from 1 Kings 9:15–19 (vv. 15–17a are not represented). “Solomon went to Hamath-zobah and took it” is the sole mention of any military activity during his reign. Since the northern border of Israelite land was commonly labeled as “Lebo-hamath” (2 Chron. 7:8; cf. comment on 1 Chron. 13:5–10) and David had previously controlled the city-states of Hamath and Zobah in northern Syria (1 Chron. 18:3–10), Solomon’s action was possibly to reassert Israelite hegemony (as Jeroboam II did in 2 Kings 14:25).⁴ This gave Solomon control along the main trade route to Mesopotamia, while “Tadmor,”⁵ 125 miles (200 km) northeast of Damascus, was a major oasis on the shorter desert route, later named Palmyra. The building of “store cities” supported the gathering of revenue (including grain, oil, wine, etc.; e.g., 2 Chron. 32:28; 1 Chron. 27:25–31), enabling the maintenance of governmental and defense forces.

Another strategic location was along the ridge of the Valley of Aijalon that led to the plateau of the northern approach to Jerusalem, forming the major route linking Jerusalem with the coast. The “fortified cities” of “Upper Beth-horon and Lower Beth-horon,” approximately 10 and 11 miles (16 and 18 km) northwest of Jerusalem, had earlier been settled as pasturelands on the border between Benjamin and Ephraim (1 Chron. 6:68; 7:24; cf. Josh. 10:10–11; 16:5; 18:13–14). The location of “Baalath” is uncertain, contenders being near Gezer (Josh. 19:44) or, less likely, suggested by its association in 1 Kings 9:18 MT with the southeastern “Tamar,”⁶ in the land allocated to Simeon in the southeast (Josh. 19:8), or equated with “Baalah,” that is, Kiriath-jearim (1 Chron. 13:6).⁷

The summary statement portrays blessing, as there is not only a dynasty but a “dominion,” an area and people being ruled. David had been active with “building” in Jerusalem (1 Chron. 11:8–9); now Solomon was “building” throughout the “dominion.” The motif of “building” as a sign of blessing following obedient trust, sometimes after repentance, continues with subsequent kings (2 Chron. 11:5–23; 17:12; 26:2–10; 27:2–4; 32:5; 33:13–15).

8:7–10 Forced labor by noncitizens was common throughout the ancient Near East (cf. comment on 2:17–18 and footnote there, which references the number of “chief officers” in 8:10; also 1 Chron. 22:2). The Chronicler emphasizes that no Israelite was made a “slave” (the “forced labor” of Israelites in 1 Kings 5:13–14 was thus distinct).⁸

8:11 This is the sole mention in Chronicles of Solomon’s having a foreign wife, and also the only reference to Pharaoh’s daughter. While in Kings this marriage and others are a cause for criticism of Solomon, here it is an opportunity to affirm his piety. David had previously been concerned for cultic purity in all matters connected with the ark (1 Chron. 15:2, 12–13), and now Solomon also takes care. The Hebrew phrasing of “my wife” (“a wife of mine”) points to the reason’s relating to her being a woman, not to her being a Gentile. The Levitical laws prescribed various conditions whereby males and females were to be considered unclean (Leviticus 12–15), and the reasoning may relate to sexual activity in the holy city, as is known later for the community at Qumran (Temple Scroll 65.11–12). Related is the later practice of the “court of women” in the temple.⁹ Here is another act of Solomon that the Chronicler associates with the temple and its worship.

8:12–16 A simple statement in Kings regarding Solomon’s offerings is greatly expanded by the Chronicler. In preparing for the temple, David had paid much attention to arrangements for the ongoing system of sacrifices and offerings and associated musical praise and administration (1 Chronicles 16; 23–26); indeed, much more detail is given for these than for the temple building itself (1 Chron. 28:11–19). Similarly, Solomon had told Hiram of Tyre that the “house of the Lord” was needed for the performance of various offerings and rituals “as ordained forever for Israel” (2 Chron. 2:4). Now the Chronicler affirms that the worship Solomon performed and the arrangements he established were all “according to the commandment of Moses” and “the ruling of David his father, . . . for so David the man of God had commanded.” Further, the priests and Levites also “did not turn aside” from those commands.

David is described as “the man of God” (also Neh. 12:24, 36), a term used for Moses (1 Chron. 23:14; 2 Chron. 30:16; Deut. 33:1; Josh. 14:6; Ezra 3:2; Psalm 90 superscription) and later prophets (2 Chron. 11:2; 25:7, 9; frequent in 1–2 Kings). This title recognizes his special position as one receiving a revelation from God for his people, in this case relating to the temple (1 Chron. 28:19).

Not until arrangements for ongoing offerings and ministry are established can it be said that “all the work [melaʼkah]” was accomplished (cf. Section Overview of 2 Chron. 8:1–16). In the ancient Near East, inscriptions serve as evidence of how much attention was given to the “foundation” of temples, with great preparation and ceremonies noted in such inscriptions (as also in the OT: Ezra 3; Isa. 28:16; Hag. 2:15–19; Zech. 4:6–10a).¹⁰ The Chronicler affirms the attention given to ensure completion and ongoing worship as well.

By inserting this section, the Chronicler frames Solomon’s wider building successes with his concern for the temple. To use later terminology, sacred and secular are held together.