1 Kings 11:1-8

Solomon’s foreign wives 11:1-8

The writer’s condemnation of Solomon in 1 Kings 11:1-2 rests on Deuteronomy 23:3-9 as well as Deuteronomy 7:3-4. The phraseology goes back to Deuteronomy 23:3-9 and the motive to Deuteronomy 7:3-4 (cf. Exodus 23:31-33; Exodus 34:15-16; Ezra 9:1; Nehemiah 13:26). Solomon’s foreign wives were of two categories: Canaanites prohibited in Deuteronomy 7, and women from other nations prohibited in Deuteronomy 23. [Note: See Shaye Cohen, "Solomon and the Daughter of Pharaoh: Intermarriage, Conversion, and the Impurity of Women," Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 16-17 (1984-85):23-27.] Furthermore, God specifically forbade the multiplying of wives by Israel’s kings (Deuteronomy 17:17). Solomon violated both the letter and the spirit of the Law. Some writers argued that because God gave legislation in the Mosaic Law governing the conduct of polygamous Israelite men (Exodus 21:10; Deuteronomy 21:15), He therefore approved of polygamy. Yet God had made His will concerning monogamy clear from the beginning of human history (Genesis 2:24). Both Jesus (Matthew 19:5; Mark 10:7-8) and Paul (1 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 5:31) reaffirmed monogamy. The legislation cited in Deuteronomy is only one example of many laws that regulated the conduct of disobedient Israelites.

Solomon’s harem of 700 wives and 300 concubines (secondary wives, not mistresses in the modern sense, 1 Kings 11:3) was the largest of any Israelite king. Concubines were slaves who could have sexual relations with their masters, according to custom. Their children sometimes became equal heirs with the children of free wives. The next largest harem belonged to Solomon’s son Rehoboam who had 18 wives and 60 concubines (2 Chronicles 11:21). David had 15 wives (2 Samuel 3:2-5; 2 Samuel 5:13-16; 2 Samuel 11:27; 1 Chronicles 3:1-9) and several concubines (2 Samuel 15:16). Apparently only one of David’s wives was a foreigner (2 Samuel 3:3; 1 Chronicles 3:2).

"The large number resulted from political alliances, sealed by marriage, with neigbouring [sic] states: Moab, Ammon and Edom to the east; Sidon, through the treaty with Hiram (1 Kings 5:1), and Syria (’Hittites’ and Arameans, 1 Kings 10:22) to the north. . . . These are cited as examples . . ." [Note: Wiseman, p. 134.]

Solomon did not abandon Yahweh, but he worshipped the gods of the nations along with Him (syncretism; 1 Kings 11:4; 1 Kings 11:6). His sin was that his heart (affections) went after false gods (1 Kings 11:4). He did not follow Yahweh fully (exclusively, 1 Kings 11:6; cf. Exodus 20:3; Deuteronomy 30:15-20). Solomon was noteworthy for his love for God when he began reigning (1 Kings 3:3), but at the end of his reign, love for women characterized him (1 Kings 11:1).

Ashtoreth was the Canaanite fertility goddess whose worship involved licentious rites and the worship of the stars. Molech worship included human sacrifice, even the sacrifice of children (cf. Leviticus 18:21; Leviticus 20:1-5). Chemosh worship was equally cruel. [Note: See any good Bible Dictionary for more information about these pagan deities.] Solomon at least tolerated idolatrous worship if he did not actively promote it. The mountain east of (lit. before) Jerusalem, to which 1 Kings 11:7 refers, was traditionally south of the Mount of Olives and is elsewhere called "the mount of destruction" (2 Kings 23:13). Since the Mount of Olives is a two-mile-long ridge, it seems best to view the mount of destruction as the southern part of the Mount of Olives. Another name for "the mount of destruction" is "the hill of evil council." Ironically, today a United Nations building stands atop this hill. Evidently Solomon felt compelled to support the pagan worship of his foreign wives whom he had married to secure political alliances. One sin led to others, as often happens.

"In the ancient world polytheists tended to worship the gods of nations who had conquered their armies or at least the gods of countries more powerful than their own. Ironically, Solomon worships the gods of people he has conquered and already controls. What could he possibly gain from such activity? The whole episode makes no sense, just as idolatry itself makes no sense." [Note: House, p. 167.]