37. § 5. The Life of Solomon

§ 5. The Life of Solomon

 Solomon, a son of David and Bath-sheba,—according to 1 Chronicles 22:9, thus named by a command of God, given to David through Nathan before his birth,—the peaceful, in contrast to the warlike David, brought up under the supervision of the prophet Nathan, ascended the throne before he was 18 years of age. This happened half a year before the death of his father, in consequence of the machinations of one of his brothers, Adonijah. Solomon was not indeed the first-born; but the king had the right of naming as his successor the son whom he regarded as most capable. David’s choice had long fallen upon Solomon, and had received the divine sanction through the sentence of the prophet Nathan; he was therefore universally known as heir to the throne. Nevertheless Adonijah, disregarding the divine and the human right of Solomon, made an attempt to gain the supremacy. David, warned by Bathsheba and Nathan, caused Solomon to be publicly proclaimed king, and to be anointed by the high priest Zadok and the prophet Nathan. When this became known, the adherents of Adonijah dispersed.

Solomon began his reign under the most favourable circumstances. Foreign enemies had been conquered by David, and every land from the Mediterranean to the Euphrates did homage to him. At the time of David’s death, Israel alone numbered about six million souls, 1,300,000 “valiant men that drew the sword;” comp. Michaelis on 2 Samuel 24:9. The Philistines, formerly an object of special terror to the Israelites, had lost their independence. Neither was there anything more to be feared from the cruel, rapacious Amalekites. Their power was first broken by Saul, and then by David completely and finally, so that they totally disappear from the history. The possession of the mountainous district of Idumea, whose inhabitants were famous for their valour, was secured by garrisons. The land of the Moabites offered great advantages by its rich flocks, of which a considerable number was given as tribute; comp. 2 Kings 3:4. The warlike Ammonites, who had pressed the Israelites so hard during the period of the judges, were held in subjection by the circumstance that the Israelites had possession of the fortress Rabbah in the centre of the land. All the conquered nations were tributary, and paid heavy taxes; they were so completely subdued by David, and the military power of the Israelites was in so good a condition, that it was impossible for them to think of rebelling. Only in the interest of an arbitrary interpretation of Psalms 2 has Ewald imagined a universal rising of the conquered nations at the time of Solomon’s accession to the throne. Internally there was a well-ordered constitution. But, what was the principal thing, true fear of God prevailed throughout the land. Solomon himself, educated by Nathan, was resolved in this respect to tread in his father’s footsteps. In 1 Kings 3:3 we read: “And Solomon loved the Lord, walking in the statutes of David his father;” and the supplementary clause, “Only he sacrificed and burnt incense in high places,” is not intended as a limitation of this praise, but only points to the fact that in the beginning of his reign, owing to the fault of the relations, the Mosaic law respecting the unity of the sanctuary could not be carried out. It was no fault of his, but only a misfortune, which it was part of his task to remove. Until this was possible, Solomon presented his offerings partly before the ark of the covenant in Jerusalem, and partly in the holy tent at Gibeon. 1 Kings 3:4-15 gives us a glance into the mind of the king at the time when he began his reign. He appointed a great religious feast of thanksgiving to be held at Gibeon, which was celebrated with great splendour and expense. Here he had a dream, which bears testimony to his pious disposition, and served to foster it. God appears to him in the dream, and says, “Ask what I shall give thee.” Solomon has only one wish, a request for a wise and pious heart, and God promises to grant it, and to give him also what he had not asked, just because he had not asked it, viz. riches and honour. Solomon was endowed with the greatest gifts. Those who suppose that his far-famed wisdom was an external possession, something acquired, are ignorant of what they say. The Proverbs sufficiently show what fulness of original spirit there was in him; and in them we also possess an absolutely certain testimony how the gift of wisdom under the sanctifying influences of divine grace became in him the χάρισμα, thus refuting those who, in opposition to the additional testimony of the historical books, apply to Solomon in general what can only be said of him in his old age, and refuse to recognise his apostasy, believing that he was never sincerely devoted to the Lord.

These critics appeal, in the first place, to those acts of cold severity which characterized his very first measures. But these acts appear in another light if we look at the matter in an unprejudiced way. He had promised his brother Adonijah that he should be perfectly safe if he would remain quiet. This condition was not fulfilled. The latter thought of a means of acquiring a kind of right to the throne, and believed that he had found it in an alliance with Abishag the Shunamite, familiar in the history of David. Adonijah sought to gain his object by stratagems, and even succeeded in inducing the innocent Bath-sheba to intercede for him with Solomon. But Solomon saw through him, and sentenced him to death, as a punishment for his high treason. If we consider that Adonijah did not stand alone, but was supported by the two most powerful and influential men of the state, Abiathar the high priest, and Joab the commander-in-chief; that the question was not one of dealing with an ambitious thought, but with a concerted and mature scheme of rebellion, comp. 1 Kings 2:22; if we take into consideration the weakness of the kingdom, and the unutterable misery which David had brought upon himself and the whole nation by his ill-timed indulgence towards Absalom, with whom Adonijah may the more readily be compared, since he too is to be regarded as the representative of the godless principle, the centre of the godless party,—we shall certainly be more cautious in our judgment. Solomon deposed Abiathar the nigh priest, who also deserved death, and banished him to his own possessions, remembering that he had been his father’s companion in affliction. In his place he appointed Zadok, with whom the line of Eleazar again attained to the high-priesthood. Abiathar’s sin served to hasten the fulfilment of the prophetic judgment on the house of Eli, to which he belonged. In passing sentence of death on Joab and Shimei, Solomon only followed a charge of David’s. In the “fatal oblivion into which the old traitor had fallen,” we cannot fail to recognise the hand of God which led him on to punishment. But it is true that, with all Solomon’s sincere piety, he was yet deficient in the deeper life-experiences of his father, that he had not yet attained to an experimental knowledge of the depth of sin, to profound humility, or to a life of fear and trembling. Here was the point where the tempter might find admittance, and where he afterwards really did find it.

Solomon was endowed with rich gifts, and did what he could to improve them. All that was worth knowing interested him. His knowledge of nature extended to all the kingdoms of creation, and the products of every country; comp. 1 Kings 5:13. He gave special attention to the study of man. His manifold observation and experience he expressed in maxims, of which, according to 1 Kings 5:12, he composed three thousand, and of which only some have been preserved in Proverbs, such as had a moral-religious tendency, and were written under the special guidance of the Spirit of God. The fame of Solomon’s genius and knowledge must have spread with a rapidity in proportion to the rarity of such a phenomenon at that time. Strangers thronged from foreign lands to learn to know the wise king, and to admire his institutions and appointments; comp. 1 Kings 4:34. Even the queen of Sheba or Yemen, in Arabia Felix, thought nothing of the trouble of the long journey, that she might be convinced of the truth of what she had heard. She is mentioned not only in the sacred historical books, but also in the traditions of other orientals; comp. Herbelot, Biblioth. Or. v. Balkis; Hiob L. h. A. t. II. c. 3. All these accounts, however, are dependent on the biblical narrative, and have therefore no historical importance whatever. The contest respecting them between the Arabs and the Ethiopians must be determined decidedly in favour of the former. שבא always belongs to Arabia. The designation βασίλισσα νότου in Matthew 12:42, Luke 11:31, also leads to Arabia. With a large retinue and many presents she appeared at Jerusalem, perhaps about the twentieth year of Solomon’s reign, as we learn from the fact that she found all the large buildings already completed; comp. 1 Kings 10:4-5. She made herself acquainted with all the appointments of Solomon, tried his acuteness by propounding difficult riddles, and her admiration was unbounded. Solomon proved his love for art by the erection of great buildings. He built himself a castle to reside in, and another palace was erected for his wife. He then made important arrangements for the security of the kingdom. Jerusalem was newly fortified. He established a series of new fortresses on the borders of the country, especially toward Damascus, which had raised itself to a new independent power during his reign; comp. 1 Kings 11:23-25. In Song of Solomon 7:4 of the Song of Solomon, the proud watch-tower toward Damascus serves as a symbol of the greatness of Israel. The ruins of this castle on the Lebanon are probably still in existence; comp. Thenius on 1 Kings 9:19. By the trade which he first created, Solomon opened new resources to himself and the nation. Outward circumstances favoured this enterprise. Palestine, as it then was, was better situated for trade than almost any country. It lay in the centre of the then known world. Its situation on the Mediterranean Sea gave it all the advantages possessed by the Phenicians, and in its proximity to Egypt it had an advantage over them. Moreover, David already possessed Idumea, which was situated on the Red Sea, and the two harbours, Ezion-geber and Elath. But Solomon could have profited very little by all these advantages, owning to his people’s ignorance of the arts of shipbuilding and navigation, and their inexperience in trade, if he had not entered into an alliance with the Phenicians. He concluded a treaty with the king of Tyre, which was equally advantageous for both parties. For on the one side the territory of the Phenicians was very limited. It consisted of a small stretch of land, about twenty-five miles in length, and perhaps nowhere more than four to five miles in breadth. Hence they were unable to maintain any great number of soldiers, and, moreover, the spirit of trade had crushed all disposition for war. In the piracy which was then prevalent, however, it was impossible for them to dispense with a military guard. Hence it must have been most desirable that they should be able to man their ships with Israelites, who had been brought up as warriors under David’s rule, harbours Ezion-geber and Elath would by this means be opened to the Phenicians, and an opportunity be given to them to extend their trade over the Red Sea, and even beyond it. It is probable that the Israelites as well as the Tyrians took no inland produce with them. Owing to the great population of the country, the export could not be very considerable. The superfluous wheat and oil were probably consumed by the Phenicians alone; comp. 1 Kings 5:11. It is more probable that they bought up the products of one land, and then disposed of them again with profit in another, thus carrying on a kind of barter. This view is confirmed by the long duration of the sea-voyages. Solomon carried on trade on his own account. The ships went partly from Solomon’s harbours on the Red Sea, partly from the Phenician harbours in the Mediterranean. From the former the Israelites sent out their own vessels, which, however, were doubtless built by the Phenicians, and were under the direction of Phenician pilots, to the famous gold district Ophir,—according to Genesis 10:29, undoubtedly in Arabia, but with vague geographical limits, so that it probably includes India also; comp. the discussions on Ophir by Lassen, IndianArchaeology, i. p. 538 ff. The voyage generally occupied three years, probably because they went from country to country, and bartered the products of the one against the products of the other. The navigation from the harbours of the Mediterranean Sea, on the other hand, was undertaken by Phenician ships. Besides this, Solomon carried on a very profitable trade in horses with Egypt. For a long time this land had reared the best horses, and was specially adapted for this object owing to its large and excellent pasturage. It must have been an easy matter for Solomon to monopolize the trade in Egyptian horses, and to provide all his neighbours with them. For all other purchasers,—Syrians and Arabs, for example,—were obliged to pass through Palestine, which Solomon could easily prevent; comp. Michaelis on the oldest history of horse-breeding, appendix to the third part of the Mosaic Laws. By this trade great riches were brought to Jerusalem. Gold and silver, every article of luxury, the most costly spices and kinds of wood, accumulated there. Jerusalem gained quite the appearance of the capital of a great oriental kingdom. But the enterprise had also a specious side. It brought the Israelites into contact with the most vicious nation of antiquity; and the danger was the greater, because in their high culture the evil was clothed in a garment of light. The constant intercourse tended first of all to beget a religious tolerance, such as was incompatible with the exclusive character of the religion of Jehovah; and from this it was easy to pass over to participation in the sinful worship of idols. Luxury endangered the old simplicity and severity of morals, and readily produced an aversion to the Mosaic law, which demanded such austerity; while it fostered an inclination for the religion of the idolatrous nations, in which a man might follow his own desires under the semblance of piety. But these consequences are not so necessarily connected with the thing, that Solomon was to blame for entering into such universal mercantile relations. It would be just as reasonable to reproach the present Government for favouring railways, which also bring so many new temptations with them. That the promotion of trade is contrary to the Mosaic law is a false theory advanced by Joh. Dav. Michaelis, and is carried to extremes by Bertheau. When Moses founded the state mainly upon agriculture, he had regard to the relations of his time, which presented no facilities for trade. In the blessing of Jacob in Genesis 49:13, Zebulun is characterized as happy in being so favourably situated for trade, and this is attributed to the blessing of God. The same thing occurs still more emphatically with respect to Zebulun and Issachar in the blessing of Moses, Deuteronomy 33:18-19. The nation was very happy under Solomon. In 1 Kings 4:25 we read: “And Judah and Israel dwelt safely, every man under his vine and under his fig-tree, all the days of Solomon.” “Judah and Israel were many, as the sand which is by the sea in multitude, eating and drinking, and making merry.” Not until nearly the end of his reign do we find a change taking place. The nation complained of heavy taxation and despotic rule; comp. 1 Kings 12:1-4. The erection of such huge buildings and the splendour of the court required immense means. In his old age Solomon fell into idolatry. Many, indeed—among others, Justi in his Miscellaneous Essays, i. pp. 88-145—have endeavoured to show how improbable it was that Solomon should really have fallen into idolatry. But where we have definite historical testimony, probabilities are of no account. Not only is it said in 1 Kings 11:4 that “his wives turned away his heart after other gods,” but also in 1 Kings 11:5, that he “went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians.” And we learn that the expression “to go after idols “really points to idolatry, from Deuteronomy 11:28, Deuteronomy 28:14, and especially from 1 Kings 18:18, comp. with 1 Kings 16:31. In 1 Kings 11:33 it is definitely affirmed that Solomon, and the nation led by his example, worshipped idols. Thus it came to pass that in the country which was consecrated to the worship of the true God, the same abominations of idolatry were practised on account of which the land had been wrested from its former inhabitants. For more than 300 years the evil seed which had been scattered by Solomon bore evil fruit. The altars on the high places were first destroyed by Josiah. And in proportion as the nation was irreligious, it was corrupt and immoral. The less worthy the king proved himself of the dignity of God’s representative, the more the nation lost their respect for him, which rested only upon his relation to the invisible Ruler; the more were they inclined to rebellion, which was scarcely kept in check till the death of Solomon. But the apostasy of Solomon is not to be regarded as complete. In 1 Kings 11:4 it is expressly stated, “And his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, as was the heart of David his father.” Neither are we to suppose that he gave himself up to polytheism in that rude form in which it obtained among the surrounding idolatrous nations. He adhered firmly to the unity of the divine essence. The words, “Behold, the heaven, and the heaven of heavens, cannot contain Thee,” in 1 Kings 8:27, to which he gave utterance in his prayer on the consecration of the temple, and which bear remarkable testimony to the depth of his knowledge of God, were still his motto, even in the time of his apostasy. Having a clear consciousness of the glory of the one divine nature, he regarded it as a narrow conception to confine the revelation of this nature to Israel alone. In Jehovah he recognised the most perfect manifestation of this nature, and at the same time that which was specially intended for Israel. Jehovah was therefore the principal object of his adoration. But he thought it necessary to recognise imperfect and lower manifestations of the Divine Being in the idols of the neighbouring nations, and regarded it as the task of an enlightened and large-hearted piety to express this recognition in a palpable way, by the establishment of subsidiary worships for these idols, of whose unreality he was the less able to persuade himself, since he saw the power which faith in them exercised over the minds of his heathen wives.

While recognising the incompleteness of the apostasy, we cannot fail to see that already in the earlier life of Solomon there was a predisposition to this apostasy, although we must repeat that the testimony of Holy Scripture is decidedly averse to making no distinction between the earlier and the later Solomon. We find this predisposition in the fact that from the beginning of his reign (his union with the daughter of the Egyptian king belongs to this period), in choosing his wives, he paid no regard to religion. This shows that from the beginning he had no deep consciousness of the sharp antagonism between the religion of Jehovah and heathenism, due to the definitely exclusive character of the former. Other accusations which have been brought against Solomon previous to his fall seem to us to be totally unfounded. Thus when it is assumed that the providing of many horses is in opposition to the law respecting the king in Deuteronomy 18. If this were the case, it would still be forbidden; for the reason given, “that his heart be not lifted up,” is not peculiarly Israelitish, but applicable to human nature in general. The command is evidently not externally binding, but is only to be regarded as drawing attention to the dangers connected with the maintenance of a splendid court. Whoever, recognising these dangers, kept watch over his heart that it should not be lifted up, might do externally whatever was demanded by altered circumstances.

Solomon’s apostasy was followed by a series of divine punishments. While he was still on the throne, Idumea began to throw off its allegiance, under the guidance of a certain Hadad, a descendant of the old Idumean kings who had been deposed by David, who had married a daughter of the king of Egypt, and was supported by him. Another successful opponent, Rezon, took Damascus from him, and all Damascene Syria, and became the founder of a kingdom which afterwards proved very destructive to the Israelites. A still heavier punishment was to fall upon Solomon in his descendants. It was made known to him by a prophet that the greater part of his kingdom would be wrested from his son. Preparation was made for the fulfilment of this threat even in Solomon’s lifetime.

It is generally supposed that Solomon repented before his end, and completely renounced the worship of idols. But this opinion is based only on the assumption, which is decidedly erroneous, that Solomon was the author of Ecclesiastes, which is regarded as bearing testimony to and proving his conversion, although the book nowhere expressly speaks of Solomon having repented, as many have asserted, nor even of his having fallen. Nor do the historical books contain the slightest indication of a later conversion of Solomon, and it is at variance with the passage, 2 Kings 23:13, according to which the idolatrous worship instituted by Solomon continued long after his death. The first fruit of his conversion would have been to destroy the scandals which he had established.

Solomon died after having reigned for forty years. Unquestionably the most important event of his reign was the building of the temple. He found great treasures, which David had already collected for this purpose, as well as drawings and models. David, who was not allowed to build the temple himself, had at least tried to prepare everything for it. But Solomon was determined to build a temple which should far surpass the highest ideal of his father. With this object he entered into an alliance with the king of Tyre, with whom his father had already been on friendly terms. This alliance was most advantageous to him. By this means he obtained the best material, cedar wood; for king Hiram was possessor of the western part of Lebanon, on which the cedars grow. It also enabled him to procure workmen and artisans. We learn that the Tyrians had very skilful artisans even at that time, and that Hiram was acquainted with and promoted the art of building, not merely from the accounts of Scripture, but also from those fragments of Dius and Menander which have been preserved by Josephus. After these preparations a beginning was made by procuring materials. Notwithstanding the immense number of work-people, this occupied so much time, that it was not until the fourth year that the building could be begun. David had already fixed upon Mount Moriah as the site of the temple. Without doubt the proximate cause for the choice of this place was the divine vision which had there been vouchsafed to him; comp. 2 Samuel 24:1 ff., 1 Chronicles 21:28 Chron. 21:28, 1 Chronicles 22:1. But this vision was only a renewal of the remembrance of a former one, a strengthening of the demand already made, to choose this place. On Mount Moriah Abraham had confirmed his election by the highest proof of his faith: here the angel of the Lord had appeared to him and had renewed the promise. When the building of the temple was completed after seven years, the feast of dedication was celebrated with great splendour, in an assembly of the princes of the tribes and the heads of the families, and amid a great multitude of people. The ark of the covenant was brought from the tabernacle on Zion to the temple-mountain Moriah, and God’s mercy was sought by sacrifice, and songs, and prayers. The solemnity made a happy impression on the nation. Sacrifice on the heights, which had formerly been tolerated, was now entirely abandoned. It is true that Bertheau infers the contrary from 2 Kings 23:22, according to which the feast of the passover in Solomon’s time was not kept as enjoined by the Mosaic law, the whole nation being assembled at the sanctuary. But this passage only makes a general reference to the time of the kings, in which, for the most part, it was impossible to realize the Mosaic determination owing to the separation of the kingdom. The short time in which the Mosaic law was fully carried out is left out of sight. The arrangement of the temple has been discussed by Keil, The Temple of Solomon, Dorpat, 1839, and best by Bähr, 1848. The patriotic fancy of Josephus and the Rabbis satisfied itself in embellishing and exaggerating it; and they have been only too closely followed by Christian scholars until the latter half of the past century, when some have gone to the opposite extreme. Voltaire declared that, in all antiquity, he could remember no building, no temple of any nation, so small as the temple of Solomon. Joh. Dav. Michaelis thought that his house at Gottingen was larger than the admired temple of the God of Israel at Jerusalem. The truth is, that the temple itself, which was not, like our churches, intended to accommodate a congregation, but only to conceal the holy vessels and to give space for the performance of certain sacred acts, was of no very great extent; but the whole erection, including the fore-courts, was of an imposing size. The temple was nothing more than an enlarged and immoveable tabernacle of the covenant, and was characterized by the same threefold division. First came the fore-court of the people, which was surrounded by a wall containing porches for shelter in bad weather, and was entered by gates fastened with brass. This fore-court of the people led to the higher or inner or priests’ fore-court, which was separated from the outer one by three rows of freestone and a row of cedar beams. In this court there were large brass pedestals on wheels, five on the right side, and five on the left side, with large basins on them, intended for the washing of the meat-offerings; then the brazen sea, a basin ten cubits in diameter and five cubits high, resting on twelve brass wheels, for the purification of the priests; finally, the large brass altar for burnt-offerings, twenty cubits in length and breadth, and ten cubits in height. Next to the court of the priests came the temple itself. First of all there was a porch or court containing two large brass pillars, with artistically wrought chapiters. In breadth it was equal to the sacred court, and was ten cubits long. Leading from it into the temple-house was a door five cubits wide, with double wings of cypress wood overlaid with gold, and ornamented with carving of cherubs, palms, and open flowers. This was 60 cubits long, 20 wide, and 30 high: 20 cubits were set apart for the holy of holies, being separated by a cedar wall, with folding doors, and a curtain behind it. The walls of the temple were of hewn stone, and were wainscoted inside with cedar wood, ornamented with carving of palms and cherubim. Inside, the holy and the holy of holies were inlaid with thin gold plates. The floor was of cypress wood, the roof of cedar beams. In the sanctuary, besides the golden altar of incense before the entrance to the holy of holies, there were ten golden candlesticks and the table of shew-bread. Outside, round about the holy and the holy of holies, there was an accessory building which enclosed the temple on three sides, so that only the porch in front remained open. This building consisted of three stories, each five cubits in height, with simple chambers or sacristies. The temple, with the porch and the surrounding building, occupied a space of about 90 cubits in length and 46 cubits in breadth. The priests’ fore-court was probably about 200 cubits long, and nearly 100 cubits wide; the outer court was 300 cubits long, and of equal width. With regard to the symbolical meaning of the temple and its vessels, all that we said before respecting the tabernacle of testimony is applicable to it, for the distinction between them is only a material, and not a theological one. The only symbol peculiar to the temple is to be found in the palms and the flower and fruit ornaments, which, together with the cherubim, the representation of the living creation, revealed the God of Israel as the Lord of nature. The building of the temple had most important results. We learn how powerfully it promoted religious public spirit, from the fact that Jeroboam despaired of the success of his attempted division of the citizens, unless he could put a stop to the annual feast-journeys to the temple. For those who feared God among the ten tribes, the temple continued to be a magnet which drew them to Jerusalem. The greater the temptations to idolatry in the time of the kings, the more important it was that a centre of Jehovah-worship should be given to the nation in the temple, with its glorious service; otherwise idolatry would certainly have made much more rapid progress.

Solomon’s reign was important not only for the building of the temple, but also because it gave birth to a new branch of sacred literature, viz. the creation of proverbs, which, with its predominant objective mode of view, could only flourish in a time of rest and peace, while times of battle and of excited feeling were favourable to sacred lyrics. Finally, because it gave a new substratum for the Messianic idea. Just as David’s reign quickened the hopes in the Messiah as the mighty victor over all the enemies of the kingdom of God, as we find from Psalms 2 and Psalms 110, which are founded on the relations of the Davidic time, so Solomon’s reign afforded a glance into the government of the Prince of peace, a name which is used by Isaiah in Isaiah 9:5 with plain reference to Solomon. We see from Psalms 72 and Psalms 45 how all that God granted in this respect under Solomon, was, even at that time, regarded as a prophecy of that which He would do far more gloriously in the future. This is still more clearly shown in the Song of Solomon, in which he extols his antitype under the name of the heavenly Solomon. Care was taken that the present should not afford perfect satisfaction, but should only awaken a more intense longing after the true and heavenly Prince of peace. In close connection with a high state of national prosperity, we perceive the beginning of a cancerous growth which incessantly eats away, destroying the nation’s fear of God, the condition of their salvation, and hence this salvation itself. We are taught that the peace given by a merely human ruler bears in itself the germ of decay; bringing temptations which an inferior anointed of the Lord cannot give power to overcome. The result of the whole brilliant period was a Kyrie Eleison, and the prayer, “Oh that Thou wouldst rend the heavens and come down!”