Introduction
Piquing the reader’s interest with elements of irony and paradox, the narrator of the historical narratives of the Kings recounts the reign of King Solomon. The first eleven chapters of 1 Kings, though painting a picture of a monarchial “golden” age for the nation of Israel, contrastingly hints by the narrator reveal an underlying divergence in this glorious Solomonic exterior. The text focuses the reader on the paradoxes within Solomon’s reign and the eventual leading away of his heart from YHWH. Contextually the writer reflecting on the writing’s deuteronomistic foundation holds up a “mirror” against which Solomon and future Israelite and Judaic kings lack consistent integrity to the covenantal code to varying degrees and increasing dissonance. The Deuteronomic writings established transparent expectations for the future Israelite monarchy consisting of temperance in horse accumulation, haram building, and treasury hoarding restrictions (Deut. 17:14-20). King Solomon represents this paradoxical relationship with Deuteronomy by, on the one hand reflecting divine wisdom in his proverbial writings and engaging, thoughtful liturgical expression in his ecclesiastical writings while on the other hand violating all three of the proscribed royal edicts in Deuteronomy 17:14:20.
Historical and Literary Context
Understanding the impact of the Deuteronomist’s theology derived from the “Solomonic Narrative” requires the reader to develop a foundational knowledge of the text’s historicity and the literary presentation of this ancient writing. According to Victor Hamilton, the structure of the books of 1 Kings and 2 Kings presents in the form of a three-act play. The first eleven chapters of 1 Kings reflecting Act 1 and narrating King Solomon’s reign in what scholars refer to as the “Solomonic Narrative.” [1] Although scholars dispute the authorship of the King’s writings, the consensus of thought maintains a strong “Deuteronomistic” influence on the writers of the ancient text. This school of thought derives primarily from the position espoused by Martin Noth. In his Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, Brevard Childs posits that “Martin Noth designated the author of the book of Kings with the name ‘Deuteronomistic’ because he felt that the dominant influence upon him derived from the book of Deuteronomy.” [2]
A crucial literary element utilized in the Solomonic Narrative consists of irony and paradox. A precursory reading of the first ten chapters in the text leaves the reader with a sense of a brilliant rendition of Solomon’s glorious reign with elements of irony seeping through the veneer of hyperbole. Daniel J. Hays writes of this irony within the text glorifying the “spectacular” reign of King Solomon, pointing out that much of the detail within the text works explicitly to prop up this surface rendering of the glorification of Solomon’s reign.[3] Hays posits that “However, below the surface another theme lurks, quietly and ironically pointing out some serious inconsistencies and some serious problems that the surface story glosses over.” [4] By introducing the reader to the paradoxes and irony within the narrative, the writer bridges the divide between textual understanding and the theological underpinnings of blessings with Torah adherence and consequences with Torah violation. Walter Brueggemann writes in his An Introduction to the Old Testament, “By the time we finish the narrative of Solomon, it is clear that the Solomonic account of 1 Kings 1-11 is a quite intentionally shaped theological statement about the conditionality of Torah obedience for success in the world.” [5]
Theological Analysis of the Solomonic Narrative
The theological construct of the “Solomonic Narrative” delves into the idea as posited by Brueggemann of the conditionality of Torah obedience concerning the success of the King described. The narrative surrounding King Solomon’s tenure as sovereign provides a clear example of this conditionality in its presentation of Deuteronomic royal covenantal violations and the resulting impact on the lineage of Solomon and the overall political structure of the kingdom and its devolution into idolatry and away from Yahwistic faithfulness. Early on, the narrator reveals volitional cracks in Solomon’s covenantal devotion. This devolution presents three statutory violations established in Deuteronomy 17 for the future monarchial period in Israelite history. ‘When you have come into the land that the Lord your God is giving you, and have taken possession of it and settled in it, and you say, “I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me” (Deut. 17:14, NRSV).[6] Hays writes concerning the monarchial institution and the commitment YHWH expects compared to other pagan nations, “Israel is not to be like the other nations. What is ‘laudable’ in other monarchies is ‘detestable’ to Yahweh when it violates the deuteronomistic decrees.” [7]
The first violation of Solomon derived from his accumulation of horses in an ethereal show of strength and confidence in military power structures for security. “Even so, he must not acquire many horses for himself, or return the people to Egypt in order to acquire more horses, since the Lord has said to you, “You must never return that way again” (Deut. 17:16). The establishment of this royal edict in Deuteronomy prevented a trust deficit within the Yahwistic worshipper. The narrator illustrates for the reader the paradox of a King established by YHWH’s divine hand, yet increasingly relying on human power structures to maintain the present system. Solomon’s father, King David, illustrated an opposite dynamic in his songs of worship. He writes in Psalm 20, “‘Some take pride in chariots, and some in horses, but our pride is in the name of the Lord our God” (Ps. 20:7). This early subtle crack in the veneer of the narrator’s rendering of Solomon points to a bleak future for the people under the Covenant.
A second critical violation flowed from Solomon’s establishing of a voluminous harem of foreign women in direct contradiction to the royal edicts in Deuteronomy. ‘And he must not acquire many wives for himself” (Deut. 17:17a). This second deviation from the Deuteronomic Covenant proved to be the most damaging. Claudia V. Camp, in her commentary, posits that “although Duet. 17:17 states simply that ‘many women’ will ‘turn away’ a king’s heart, 1 Kings 11:1 specifies the problem as one of ‘many foreign women.’ Having ‘clung to those in love’ and built temples for their deities, in his old age Solomon’s heart is finally ‘turned away’ by them to follow after their deities.” [8] The narrator writes tragically in chapter 11 of 1 Kings, “‘For when Solomon was old, his wives turned away his heart after other gods; and his heart was not true to the Lord his God, as was the heart of his father David” (1 Kings 11:14). Unfortunately, allowing or accommodating trespass in one area of statutory code violation results in a spiraling effect on the entirety of the King’s heart and eventually the entire nation. The apostle Paul writing to the Galatians illustrates this perpetual concept of corruption from accommodation, “Such persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. A little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough” (Gal. 5:8-9).
Solomon’s third violation resulted from an accumulation of vast wealth into the treasuries from legitimate means through the blessings of YHWH. These great riches bestowed on Solomon derived directly as a divine gift according to the writer of 1 Kings. He states, “I give you also what you have not asked, both riches and honor all your life; no other king shall compare with you. I now do according to your word. Indeed I give you a wise and discerning mind; no one like you has been before you and no one like you shall arise after you” (1 Kings 3:12-13). The critical component of the wealth theological construct is not the wealth itself but the hoarding that results in corruption and injustice. This connection of wealth to corruption illustrates the injustice perpetrated by the inequality of taxation perpetuated by Solomon heavily on the northern non-Judaich tribes while exempting his familial tribe, Judah. (1 Kings 4) Paul implores his protégé Timothy in his first letter concerning humankind’s relationship to money and its pitfalls, “‘For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, and in their eagerness to be rich some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pains” (1 Tim. 6:10).
Conclusion
What started so promising in the first of the King’s narrative concerning Solomon tragically devolves into a divided kingdom and the loss of Yahwistic devotion within the royal lines of both realms. Furthermore, though there were moments of revival in Yahwistic worship and reformation, the culminating result produced nations in exile longing for salvation. No amount of positive economic prosperity or peace can replace the need for reliance upon YHWH and adherence to the Covenant. Hays writes concerning the position taken by the narrator posited by David Jobling, “[the narrator] tries to connect the positive picture in 1 Kings 3–10 with idealized economics while connecting the ‘fall’ in 1 Kings 11 to foreign, externally related sexuality, which he notes is symbolically absent from the Golden Age.” [9] The reign of Solomon represents both “the best of times” and ultimately “the worst of times,”
Bibliography
Brueggemann, Walter. An Introduction to the Old Testament: The Canon and Christian Imagination. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003.
Childs, Brevard S. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979.
Hamilton, Victor P. Handbook On the Historical Books: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, Esther. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2001.
Hays, J. Daniel. 2003. “Has the Narrator Come to Praise Solomon or to Bury Him? Narrative Subtlety in 1 Kings 1–11.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 28 (2): 149–74. doi:10.1177/030908920302800202.
Newsom, Carol A., and Sharon H. Ringe. The Women’s Bible Commentary. London: SPCK, 1992.
[1] Victor P. Hamilton, Handbook On the Historical Books: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, Esther (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2001), 379.
[2] Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), 290.
[3] Daniel J. Hays, “Has the Narrator Come to Praise Solomon or to Bury Him? Narrative Subtlety in 1 Kings 1-11,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 28, no. 2 (2003): 154, doi:10.1177/030908920302800202.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Walter Brueggemann, An Introduction to the Old Testament: The Canon and Christian Imagination (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003), 151.
[6] Unless otherwise noted, all Biblical passages referenced are in the New Revised Standard Version.
[7] Daniel J. Hays, “Has the Narrator Come” 152.
[8] Carol A. Newsom and Sharon H. Ringe, The Women’s Bible Commentary (London: SPCK, 1992), 102.
[9] Daniel J. Hays, “Has the Narrator Come”, 151.
Restored 