1 Kings 3:1

SOLOMON’S AFFINITY WITH EGYPT, 1 Kings 3:1.

1. Solomon made affinity with Pharaoh This seems to have been his first act of foreign policy, and was, perhaps, designed to counteract the influence of Hadad the Edomite, who had fled to Egypt during David’s reign, and was now securely housed in the royal family. See 1 Kings 11:14-22. Every thing in the history of Hadad naturally conspired to make him a settled enemy of the kingdom of Israel; and, perhaps, at a later period, he had a hand with Jeroboam in planning the revolt of the ten tribes of Israel. Solomon, doubtless, expected to strengthen his kingdom by this affinity with Egypt, and to prevent invasion from that quarter. It was the first intercourse between these nations since the time of the Exodus, and the first of those foreign alliances which brought the Israelites into disastrous intimacy with the heathen powers. Its immediate effect was probably favourable to Solomon by increasing his fame and comparative importance among the nations, and adding to his dominions, (1 Kings 9:16,) but it resulted in a commerce forbidden by the law, (1 Kings 10:26-29,) and thus involved the Israelitish kingdom in numerous evils. The Pharaoh here named is by Winer and Ewald identified with Psousennes, the last king (in Manetho’s table) of the twenty-first dynasty; called also the Tanite dynasty from the city Tanis, the scriptural Zoan, which was then the place of the royal residence.

Took Pharaoh’s daughter According to the letter of the law only marriage with the Canaanitish tribes was forbidden, (Exodus 34:16,) and intermarriage with nations outside of Canaan was not only not prohibited but tolerated in the examples, never rebuked, of Joseph’s marriage with the daughter of an Egyptian priest, (Genesis 41:45;) of Moses’s marriage with a daughter of Midian, (Exodus 2:21,) and that of Boaz and Ruth. But though the law did not forbid these marriages, they were not in harmony with its spirit; and it was by foreign marriages that Solomon’s heart was seduced from the worship of Jehovah. See note on 1 Kings 11:1.

The city of David This was built upon Mount Zion, the Jebusite stronghold, and has been identified for centuries with the southwestern hill of the modern city “the upper city” of Josephus. See notes on 2 Samuel 5:6-7, and compare Josephus, Wars, 1 Kings 5:4 ; 1 Kings 5:1. But recently this locality of Zion has been called in question. Thrupp, Fergusson, and Rawlinson identify Zion with Moriah, and so locate “the city of David” on the eastern, or temple, mountain. The chief reasons for this identification are:

1.) That in many passages Zion is distinguished from Jerusalem. For example, 2 Kings 19:31; Psalms 51:18; Joel 3:16; Zechariah 1:17. These passages, however, are all poetic parallelisms, and Zion may be distinguished from the rest of the city as being its most conspicuous feature.

2.) The passages which speak of Zion as the “holy hill,” or chosen seat of Jehovah, are thought applicable only to the temple mountain: (Psalms 2:6; Psalms 132:13; Isaiah 60:14; Jeremiah 31:6; Joel 3:17; Joel 3:21; Zechariah 8:3:) but on whichever mountain “the city of David’’ was built, it was consecrated by the ark of God before the temple was erected, and so would ever be celebrated as “chosen” and “holy.” Afterwards the ark was transferred from the city of David to the temple. Compare 2 Samuel 6:16; 1 Kings 8:1.

3.) Some passages in 1 Maccabees ( 1Ma 4:37 ; 1Ma 4:60 ; 1Ma 7:33 ) seem to identify Zion with the temple mount, as, “they went up to Mount Zion and saw the sanctuary desolate, and the altar profaned.” But all this may have been seen from the modern Zion, as one looked across the valley; and Zion may also be used in the wider sense of Jerusalem.

4.) Finally, Psalms 48:2 is thought to be decisive against the modern Zion, which is the most southern extremity of the city. But it may well be asked, in reply, what more beauty of situation or elevation has Moriah than the modern Zion “on the sides of the north?” The passage is very properly rendered by Gesenius thus: “Beautiful in its elevation, the joy of the whole earth, is Mount Zion; (the joy) of the remotest north is the city of the Great King.” But if we retain the rendering “sides of the north,” we may either understand the reference to its appearance as being immediately north of the border of Judah, (Joshua 15:8,) or, as Alexander suggests, “As it rose upon the view of the army returning from the south.” From whatever quarter viewed, the modern Zion is more noticeable for its elevation than Moriah. Until more conclusive evidences are adduced to overthrow the ancient tradition, we therefore prefer to locate the city of David on the southwestern hill, “the upper city,” which, elevated so conspicuously above the neighbouring heights, would be most naturally fixed upon by the Jebusites as their stronghold, or castle. Subsequently Solomon removed his Egyptian wife “out of the city of David” to his own palace, ( 1Ki 9:24 ; 2 Chronicles 8:11,) which seems to have been built upon the southern slope of Moriah. See note at the beginning of chap. 7.

Until… his own house He had no appropriate palace of his own as yet, and he esteemed the palace of David, where the ark had been brought, too holy for the residence of a foreign princess. See 2 Chronicles 8:11. Whence it appears that Pharaoh’s daughter must have dwelt for many years, not in the royal house, as Thenius thinks, but in some private residence upon Mount Zion, somewhat apart from the more sacred places.

House of the Lord The temple.

The wall of Jerusalem This, though strongly fortified by David, (2 Samuel 5:9,) was greatly enlarged and strengthened by Solomon. See 1 Kings 9:15; 1 Kings 11:27.