I Kings 9:28-11:43

Although it goes against my earlier intention, but because the last post sparked such great conversation, I thought I would also include my exegesis from the same paper. Hopefully, an illustration will be beneficial.

“The pericope I Kings 9:26-11:43 is an apt case-study for the methodology outlined here.  Verse 41, a conclusion to the preceding text, is an obvious example of such support. “Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, all that he did as well as his wisdom, are they not written in the Book of the Acts of Solomon?” (NRSV) This explanation reminds the reader that the interest of the text is not historical. There is a more specific, theological purpose accompanying this short and concise history of Solomon.

This text also uniquely evidences the usefulness of a diachronic approach. Chapters 10 and 11 present two contrasting visions of Solomonic rule. On the one hand, Solomon’s commercial success climaxes with a visit from the Queen of Sheba and establishes a vision of an earthly Kingdom which fuels Israelite eschatological hope. Yet, the vision of earthly glory is immediately followed by the Deuteronomic judgment and the impending troubles for Solomon and the house of David. The two together compose a conflicting and perplexing situation for the reader and the prophetic voice which wishes to speak a word for and to the church and the world.

The voice of the text in this pericope begins by relaying the extravagant success of Solomon. When chapter 10 is taken together with 9:26-28 an interesting parenthesis and logical development in the text becomes clear. A short account of Solomon’s shipping activity from Edom to Ophir is immediately followed by what the reader can suppose is the effect of Solomon’s nautical trade—interest from foreign dignitaries. The account of the visit by the Queen of Sheba is then followed by another implication of Solomon’s trading and commercial ventures. Chapter 10, verses 14-29 is completely devoted to the opulence and excess that Solomon brought to the monarchy and Jerusalem. The threefold sequence develops logically.

The three subjects – nautical trade, the visit of the world’s royalty, and a gold-lain capital – become more than the sum of their parts. Within these three components lies the seed for an eschatological hope. Naturally, a community’s hope for the future will be based upon the highest points of its history. Solomon does indeed represent such a point, if not in justice and righteousness then in sheer economic and military power. As Walter Brueggemann points out, the text from verse 14 to 29 in chapter 10 can be summarized as containing the list of Solomon’s accumulation of wealth, wisdom, and power.[1] From these measures, Israel, during the rule of Solomon, has reached her utmost status.

This utmost status can be characterized by the three criteria of nautical trade, visits from foreign dignitaries, and an opulent capital, which becomes the seed for Israel’s imaginative hope while in exile. This hope becomes characterized by restoration and by eschatological features. It is perhaps most poignantly expressed in Isaiah 60.

Verse 5-6

Then you shall see and be radiant; your heart shall thrill and rejoice, because the abundance of the sea shall be brought to you, the wealth of the nations shall come to you. A multitude of camels shall cover you, the young camels of Midian and Ephah; all those from Sheba shall come. They shall bring gold and frankincense, and shall proclaim the praise of the Lord.

Verse 9a

Your gates shall always be open; day and night they shall not be shut, so that nations shall bring you their wealth, with their kings led in procession

Verse 11

For the coastlands shall wait for me, the ships of Tarshish first, to bring your children from far away, their silver and gold with them, (NRSV)

The gold-lain capital, while hinted at by various other prophets (Ezekiel for instance), as an image of ultimate restoration, is fully employed by the author of the Book of Revelation. The Jerusalem of Solomon’s day is only bested in scripture by this other more complete New Jerusalem. As for the gold and frankincense, Brueggemann relates that the common double reference to gold and spices can be more specifically referred to as “gold and frankincense,” linking the two passages in question further.[2] The ships of Tarshish are also found in the I Kings text, “For the king had a fleet of ships of Tarshish at sea with the fleet of Hiram. Once every three years the fleet of Tarshish used to come bringing gold, silver, ivory, apes, and peacocks.” (Verse 22, NRSV) It is clear that the memory of Solomonic Israel was alive and well in the exiled Israel. In fact, the opulence and power of that situation has characterized the formula of restoration and of the eschaton for Israel.

However, the culminating text and chapter, which follows chapter 10, is unconcerned with the grand vision surrounding the community’s memory of Solomon. While chapter 10 is celebrative, chapter 11 is a theological judgment on the monarchy.[3] The judgment which follows the tale of Solomon is a characteristic method employed by the narrator in Kings. First, the summary, account, and narrative of their rule, then a short and concise theological judgment follows.[4]

This judgment is Deuternomic. The kings are judged solely by their opting for or against Yahweh based upon their keeping of Torah.[5] This is entirely in keeping with the general attribution of the books of Deuteronomy, Joshua, and I-II Samuel and Kings to the “Deuteronomic Historian.”[6] The Deuteronomic perspective, according to Gerhard von Rad, is identifiable by its “standards of judgment found only in Deuteronomy, or predominantly in Deuteronomy, [these standards] are accepted as normative for evaluation of the past.”[7]

The standards of Torah, found in Deuteronomy, indict and convict Solomon. While many examples of Torah breaking occur prior to this final account[8] the final and kingdom-breaking judgment is against Solomon’s idolatry. It is interesting to note that the account of Solomon’s idolatry is preceded by an account of another indissoluble requirement of Torah. By taking foreign wives Solomon seems to have effectively doomed himself to following other gods. The text says “For when Solomon was old, his wives turned away his heart after other gods” (11:4).

Two significant implications could be teased out further. First, Solomon seems doomed to idolatry. A terribly powerful relationship between sex and worship is hinted at in the text. Solomon seems destined for idolatry the minute the narrator explains he kept 700 princesses and 300 concubines in his harem. In fact, the close relationship between whom Solomon keeps in his harem and whom Yahweh keeps in his own harem is being carefully explicated by this account. When Solomon marries those “which the Lord had said to the Israelites, ‘You shall not enter into marriage with them,’” (11:2) he is to some degree stepping outside of the Torah guarded harem of Yahweh.

Another implication is found in the purpose of royal marriage. Solomon’s marriage to Pharaoh’s daughter was likely political. It can be assumed without fault that the predominant number of Solomon’s marriages were carried out in the interest of consolidating power. There develops a clear logical line between Solomon’s opulence, excess, and power and the taking of foreign wives and his idolatry. What Brueggemann calls the effects of the “Royal Community” are clearly at work here.[9] Solomon’s failures therefore do not begin in Chapter 11, but can be traced back to 1 Kings 2 and, perhaps to his father David as well. It would seem Jerusalem has been as much a drunken Babylon as it has been the seed for the image of the New Jerusalem.

The theological judgment against Solomon is ambiguous enough to warrant this interpretation. According to Ralph Klein, the Deuteronomic Historian inserts analyses into the text in identifiable speeches or prayers found in the mouths of the narration’s leading figures.[10] One such speech can be found ascribed to Yahweh in I Kings 11:7-13. “Therefore the Lord said to Solomon, ‘Since this has been your mind and you have not kept my covenant and my statutes that I have commanded you, I will surely tear the kingdom from your hand and give it to your servant.’” However, there remains grace, “Yet for the sake of your father David I will not do it in your lifetime; I will tear it out of the hand your son.”

There is a mixed picture present in this judgment. On the one hand, the Deuteronomist perspective condemns Solomon because he violated torah. It does not matter which violations he accrued, any forsaking of the covenant is enough. On the other hand, Royal Theology[11] maintains there is something of especial interest to Yahweh about David, the monarchy, and the city Jerusalem. In fact there is enough interest that for the sake of all three, Yahweh will abide with Israel’s whoring a while longer. The two perspectives – of covenant and torah and of grace – share the same space in the judgment.

The pericope 9:28-11:43 also carry two seemingly conflicting perspectives. Nautical trade and foreign royalty converge centripetally on an opulent and powerful Jerusalem in both the I Kings account and later prophetic visions of restoration, such as that of Isaiah 60. Yet, the majesty and power of Solomon’s rule means not to the Deuteronomist. All the glory and power of Solomon is predicated upon the breaking of Torah and is as the author of Ecclesiastes aptly described it: meaningless. The consolidation of power occurs insidiously – as if to confirm the suspicions the Deuteronomist has always held against an Israelite monarchy. Indeed, there remains a hazy, yet prominent, link between such consolidation and the final undoing of the Solomonic regime.

A heavy task remains for the author of Isaiah. To compile two powerful images, seemingly at odds with each other and with their own significant theological weight and right would not be easy. It is a difficult theological undertaking to understand and incorporate the goodness of Solomon’s opulence with the judgment and source of exile that follows it.

Isaiah does however include such earthly and monarchial glory with the Deuteronomist’s stinging and resounding judgment. “The shepherds also have no understanding; they have all turned to their own way, to their own gain, one and all. “Come,” they say, “let us get wine; let us fill ourselves with strong drink. And tomorrow will be like today, great beyond measure” (Isaiah 56:11-12). “Instead of bronze I [that is Yahweh] will bring gold, instead of iron I will bring silver; instead of wood, bronze, instead of stones, iron. I will appoint Peace as your overseer and Righteousness as your taskmaster” (Isaiah 60:17)

There is a heavy and important difference in the source of Isaiah’s opulence and glory. While it seems unlikely Solomon could have accumulated such wealth and power without breaking Torah, it is through the very keeping of Torah – abstinence from the Technique of Solomon – that the holy community is given the things removed from Solomon. The bringer is Yahweh, who responds to a covenant people, not a regime of wealth, wisdom, and power.

---

[1] Walter Brueggemann, 1 & 2 Kings (Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2000), 135.

[2] Brueggemann, 1 & 2 Kings, 138.

[3] Ibid., 141.

[4] Ibid., 141.

[5] Gerhard von Rad, The Problem of the Hexateuch, 206.

[6] The term Deuteronomic Historian originates with Martin Noth in 1943. Ralph Klein, Israel in Exile (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), 23.

[7] Gerhard von Rad, The Problem of the Hexateuch, 206.

[8] The implementation of forced labor (I Kings 5:13-18) and the accumulation of horses and chariots (I Kings 4:26), compare with the prohibitions against such things (Deuteronomy 24:14 and 17 and 17:16, respectively).

[9] See the Prophetic Imagination. Walter Brueggemann, The Prophetic Imagination (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001).

[10] Klein, Israel in Exile, 23.

[11] Brueggemann, 1 & 2 Kings, 144.

Advertisement