1
ST
KINGS
Week 19, chapter 11

We’ll continue in 1
st
Kings Chapter 11 by re-reading the entire chapter in sections. Last time we
just go started into this chapter that could reasonably be titled: “The Reasons for the Division
of the Kingdom of Israel” because we are given 4 basic premises of the author of this Bible
book for how it could be that the united and sovereign nation of Israel, an admired and
powerful and wealthy country, would fall into ruin and civil war and split into two kingdoms
within a few months after Solomon’s death.

The 4 reasons are:
1.Solomon’s deliberate and outrageous behavior towards his people that mirrored that of
a typical Middle Eastern monarch instead of a set-apart and anointed king whose God
was Yehoveh and whose guide was the Torah.
2.As a consequence of this bad behavior the Lord raised up adversaries to weaken
Solomon’s Kingdom and prepare it to be torn apart.
3.Jeroboam always sought power and glory, and so the Lord used him as a tool to wreak
havoc and be the leader of the rebels who wanted to overthrow the Davidic dynasty.
4.Shlomo’s idolatry that had its root in his vast harem of foreign wives and concubines
was a severe offense towards the Lord and it couldn’t go unpunished or God would not
be a just God.

I’ll probably enjoy today’s lesson more than you will, because due to its subject and content I
get to preach at you a little bit! And, towards the end, we’ll take a little detour that I think you’ll
find informative and helpful. So I’d like to start by reminding us all that while our personal
salvation is a matter between each individual and the Lord, whatever divine justice we
experience communally as the member of a nation of people is based on the actions and
character of our leadership. This is a Biblical principle that stands as firmly today as it always
has, even though for some reason our Christian and Jewish leaders rarely openly discuss it.
Thus one could reasonably say that while the fate of our eternal spiritual essence is
determined on a one-by-one basis by Yehoveh, the fate of our earthly physical essence (our
flesh-and-blood bodies and our day-to-day lives) is largely determined by the standards and
1 / 11

behavior of our national leadership. The common people of ancient Israel (of all ancient
kingdoms for that matter) had little if any choice in the selection of national leadership; but they
still suffered or benefited depending on that leader’s standing before God. However in modern
democratic countries of today, we have only ourselves to blame as citizens for when we select
a poor leader or refuse to take action to remove a leader who has proved him or herself to be
unworthy of their position.

It has always been a challenge for followers of Christ to determine how involved we ought to
become in what we have come to call “politics”. For some Christians becoming informed and
helping to choose or influence our various levels of government is seen as something to avoid
altogether as it has nothing to do with their faith walk. For others they see their involvement in
politics as a calling and even a full time preoccupation. Wherever you might fall along this
spectrum of political involvement I would like you to pay close attention to what happens to the
Kingdom of Israel as Solomon becomes the poorest of leaders, places economics and wealth
above all else, practices and demands tolerance for all religions and all gods, and sees the
people of his nation as but pawns to be used to achieve his personal ideology and ambitions.

Let’s re-read a few verses.

RE-READ 1
ST
KINGS 11:1 – 13


Since in our last lesson we discussed much of what is written here, I would like to focus on
verse 4. There it says that the difference between Shlomo and his father David is that David
had remained wholehearted towards Yehoveh. In Hebrew the words are Shlomo lo male
achar Yehoveh and it most literally translates to “Solomon did not go fully after Yehoveh”.
What this is referring to is loyalty; Solomon quit being loyal only to the God of Israel. We spent
months in Samuel and in Kings discussing the terrible things that David did, from murder to
adultery (usually to satisfy his sexual lusts or exorcize his political paranoia’s). But what he did
NOT do was worship other gods. He hung on steadfastly to Yehoveh, even in the midst of
committing heinous sin, and did not succumb to worshipping any other than the God of Israel.
Solomon on the other hand does not appear to have engaged in adultery (at least as defined
culturally in those days as taking another man’s wife) or in overt murder. Yet in his old age he
openly worshipped other gods (even if mainly to please his many foreign wives). David’s
punishment for his many sins against other men was to be barred by the Lord from building the
Temple. Solomon’s punishment for his sin against God (idolatry) was that God would yank
Israel from his grasp (in reality from Solomon’s son’s grasp).
2 / 11

Thus perhaps this is a good clue to help us understand what our Savior meant about speaking
against, or blaspheming, the Holy Spirit when he said in Matthew 12:

Matt 12:31-32 CJB

31
Because of this, I tell you that people will be forgiven any sin and blasphemy, but
blaspheming the Ruach HaKodesh will not be forgiven.

32
One can say something against the Son of Man and be forgiven; but whoever keeps
on speaking against the Ruach HaKodesh will never be forgiven, neither in the 'olam
hazeh nor in the 'olam haba.


The King James Version puts it this way and I think it captures the sense of the words a little
better:

Matt 12:31-32 KJV

31
Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto
men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

32
And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but
whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this
world, neither in the world to come.

But what these passages are actually getting at is that the committing of sins (crimes) against
humans, or blaspheming (lying, slandering) against humans, which is also against the Law of
Moses, can be forgiven them; however blaspheming (speaking against) the Holy Spirit cannot.
And notice that in the Matthew passages that Yeshua uses one of his favorite expressions
when referring to himself: the son of man. When he says “the son of man” he is emphasizing
his humanness. Although He is indeed a God/man by using the phrase “son of man” he is
3 / 11

identifying himself with us, the human race, in all of our fleshly weaknesses and frailties. Thus
what Yeshua meant when he was saying that it could be forgiven to speak against him was
meant in the context of one man speaking against another man, as opposed to the context of a
man speaking against God and thus committing spiritual blasphemy.

While I’m not confident enough to say that I fully understand all the elements of this concept of
blaspheming the Holy Spirit, nor where the line is that once crossed amounts in God’s eyes to
blaspheming Him, the gist of the concept is perhaps best seen in God’s attitude towards David
who regularly blasphemed and committed crimes against humans but stayed loyal to Yehoveh
(did not blaspheme God), versus Solomon who generally did not blaspheme humans or
commit crimes against them but did blaspheme God (by committing idolatry). As in the 10
Commandments whereby some commandments deal with human to human behavior and
others deal with human to God behavior, so we see the same in Yeshua’s words in the NT
book of Matthew, and here in 1
st
Kings 11, that there are crimes that are directly men against
men and thus these crimes are only indirectly against God. But there are also crimes that
don’t really have a human victim, but instead are directly against God. Idolatry is the chief of
these crimes and therefore idolatry is by definition “blaspheming the Holy Spirit”.

It is common among the Rabbis to say the following as do the editors of the Artscroll series on
the Prophets, in their commentary on 1
st
Kings:

Quote: “……This chapter criticizes him (Solomon) sharply, saying that toward the end of
his life his many wives caused him to go astray, even so far as to follow idols. That very
verse implies clearly that Solomon was NOT literally an idolater, because it goes on to
state that his failing was that his heart was not AS wholesome with Hashem as that his
father David, not that he actually worshipped idols…..”

As much as I admire the learned Hebrew sages, they are often (like some Christian teachers
and pastors) caught-up in mindlessly defending a dubious doctrine by declaring something that
simply isn’t backed up by Scripture. Look at verse 5; no matter which version of the Scriptures
one wants to examine, it clearly and unequivocally states that Solomon followed after
(worshipped) Ashtoreth and Molech. The Hebrew is equally clear. In fact in verses 9 and 10
the passage explains that the main source of God’s anger with Solomon was that even though
God had visited Solomon twice, and on one occasion told him explicitly not to follow other
gods, Solomon disobeyed and DID follow other gods. But the Rabbis deny this and say that he
only did this in his heart (his mind) and not physically. Now most Christians would say that
there is but a hair’s breadth of difference between thinking it and doing it (and I certainly agree
with that). And thus we have another valuable insight into Judaism that can be hard for
4 / 11

especially gentile Christians to digest. It is that Orthodox Judaism is built as a system of
physical rituals and behaviors. Therefore what one thinks in their minds, and what one believes
and has faith in, is secondary to what one physically does. So if Solomon did not actually,
physically, openly get on his knees before an idol and say certain prayers to it out loud, and
offer it sacrifices, then he wasn’t really an idolater from their perspective.

Of course in our case, the Scriptures clearly state that not only did he physically worship these
false gods he even ordered altars built for them. Solomon was an idolater of grand magnitude.
And as I just mentioned let’s not quickly bypass that in verse 9 we’re reminded that God
indeed appeared to Solomon twice. God NEVER appeared to David. God appearing the
Solomon in a dream/vision was a rare and amazing honor. And for Solomon to still go and
worship other gods after Yehoveh personally speaking to Solomon and personally telling him
not to worship other gods, well, it’s hard to find words of sufficient condemnation.

Back in verse 5 and then in the next couple of verses we’re given details of which false gods
Solomon worshipped, and where he had their altars built. The name that stands out and is
mentioned first is the one that will be at the center of almost every false god system ever to
emerge in history: Ashtoreth. Ashtoreth is the moon goddess, and the goddess of fertility. Her
name translated into the languages of other cultures is Ishtar in Assyrian, Aphrodite in the
Greek world, and Eostre in Anglo-Saxon. In English her name is Easter, from which we get the
name of the holy day that we celebrate Messiah’s resurrection. That she is the fertility
goddess is why the main symbols for Easter all over the world are rabbits and eggs. So while
we have every right to condemn Solomon for sinking into syncretism and adding pagan
symbols and worship practices to the religion of the God of the Hebrews, it is undeniable that
long ago Christianity succumbed to its own form of syncretism by adopting the practices of
ritual worship to the goddess Ashtoreth (Easter) in observation of perhaps the holiest day of
the year.

When the verses speak of the hill on the south, it means the Mt. of Olives. So the same Mt. of
Olives that millions of Christian and Jewish pilgrims visit every year was littered with altars to
false gods during Solomon’s era.

So in verse 11 Yehoveh tells Solomon that since NOT ONLY was the thought to follow other
gods existent in his mind (that is, he desired to follow these gods), but he also didn’t keep the
Torah (meaning he physically did the wrong things he was thinking to do) and as a
consequence the Kingdom of Israel would be taken away from him and given to another.
Specifically it would be given to one of Solomon’s servants. I doubt Solomon comprehended
what God meant by “servant”, or in Hebrew ebed. This is referring to someone that Solomon
5 / 11

lorded over; an underling. But these represented everyone from the lowest woodchopper to a
member of his royal court. So who might this person be?

Now here comes another God-principle that we need to be mindful of; God doesn’t go back on
His word even when it seems that He ought to. God promised David that at the least one of his
ancestors would be alive and qualified to be on the throne of Israel forever. So how can
Yehoveh take the throne of Israel from Solomon and give it to a servant of Solomon’s, who by
definition would NOT be a family member, and yet keep his promise to David? Because doing
such a thing sounds like it would be the end of the David’s dynasty.

The answer comes in the next two verses. For the sake of the promise that God had made to
David, Solomon would not physically lose the throne of Israel. Rather it would pass on to his
son after his death and then his son would lose the throne. But even then what this son would
lose would be his rule over the largest portion of the Kingdom, but a small piece would be
retained for him to rule over. When God orders something to happen on earth, from a spiritual
perspective it has already occurred. When God told Solomon that he would lose the throne in
the form of it being taken from his son, in heaven it had already occurred. Nothing good could
happen upon the throne of Israel from this moment forward since its occupant was no longer in
God’s favor.

The Lord says that He is going to give Solomon’s son but ONE tribe to be king over, all else
will be taken away from him. That single tribe will hold the territory of Judah, because
Yerushalayim is to remain with David’s descendants. This is the place where God has chosen
to put His name, and so it will not change. Ever. And what an effect upon the entire globe that
ancient promise has even to our day as the world’s powers try every way imaginable to force
Israel to give up hope of having a Temple for Yehoveh rebuilt in Jerusalem. What they don’t
know is that from a heavenly perspective, it’s already been built, because God ordained it
3000 years ago and it will happen.

RE-READ 1
ST
KINGS 11:14 – 25

Since this entire chapter is dedicated to explaining that what happened that caused Israel to
effectively be dissolved and split into two kingdoms was God’s anger at Solomon, verse 14
tells us that one of the steps God took to bring it about was to weaken the civil fabric of Israel
and the hold of King Solomon upon his kingdom, by raising up enemies to trouble Israel. The
result would be that the aging Shlomo would lose some valuable pieces of territory, the
6 / 11

common folk of the land would become discouraged and disheartened, no longer sure of his
leadership, and Israel’s enemies would become confident and emboldened, and thus the table
would be set for civil war.

Solomon’s first antagonist was Hadad, a fugitive from the land of Edom. It seems that many
years earlier King David along with his military commander Yo’av found themselves battling
Edom. The result was a resounding victory for David that devastated the male population of
Edom but also had the effect of instilling a furious hatred toward Israel that would not be
quenched until revenge was taken. This exploit is something we talked about back in 2
nd
Samuel 8. It seems that when Hadad was but a young child his father fled Joab’s onslaught,
his son Hadad in tow. Although the intention was to seek asylum in Egypt, they first spent
considerable time in Midian and in the area of the Paran wilderness (years apparently). This
gave them time to build up a force of fighters before they ventured down to Egypt.

When they finally arrived in Egypt the Pharaoh was kindly disposed to them, giving them a
place to live and everything they needed to be comfortable. Hadad was now a young man, and
because he was Edomite royalty others who hated Israel and King David rallied around him.
After a few more years Hadad gained such favor with the Pharaoh that the Pharaoh wanted to
create a formal alliance and so gave Hadad one of his family in marriage. Naturally Hadad had
children with the Pharaoh’s sister-in-law and the firstborn was given the name G’nuvat. The
child was raised along with members of Pharaoh’s royal court in Pharaoh’s palace.

It is rare for Holy Scripture to spend so much time describing someone’s personal
circumstances; but here it is to show how deep and embedded was Hadad’s hatred and
determination to shed his family’s and his Edomite countrymen’s shame of being defeated
and decimated by David. So when word arrives that Hadad’s nemesis King David has died, he
goes to the Pharaoh and seeks his permission to leave Egypt and return to Edom. This
protocol of a guest seeking permission to leave is merely a common courtesy among
Easterners that is customary; the king of Egypt would not have refused him. It is only a means
of the guest showing proper respect for the grace of hospitality that his host has shown to him.
And in the typical Middle Eastern Kabuki dance that always accompanies these sorts of
formalities the Pharaoh wants to know if perhaps he hasn’t done enough for Hadad. Hadad
responds that such is not the case at all; it’s just time for him to go. Without explanation as to
why.

It is interesting that we don’t hear of Hadad explaining the reason for his arrival in Egypt, nor
his departure several years later. But the reason for keeping quiet (especially about his
departure) is obvious: David is dead, Solomon is king, and one of Pharaoh’s daughters is now
7 / 11

King Solomon’s wife. Pharaoh had a very good relationship with Israel, was even closely allied
with Israel by means of his daughter’s marriage to Israel’s king, and so Hadad had to keep
hidden that his intent was to go back to Edom, organize, and then take revenge on Solomon
and Israel for what David and Joab had done to his people so many years earlier.

Here’s where we’re going to take a detour. I’d like to take some time to explain that the
source of Hadad’s extreme hatred for Israel was shame. The attack upon Edom by David (as
representative of Israel) had taken away Hadad’s family, and his nation’s, honor. This is a
concept that is very difficult for Westerners to wrap our minds around but it is an important one
for us to grasp and it is obvious that our highest government officials who shape and direct our
Middle Eastern policy have little understanding of this foundational principle of the very
societies they are tying to deal with. And it is not only important for us to explore because it
helps us to better understand what we read in the Bible and exposes the common motive in
the Bible for it’s characters to become shamed and then seek to restore their honor through
revenge, but also because this same code of shame and honor is at the heart of the unrest in
the Middle East today.

So let’s detour for a few minutes to see if I can, in fairly abbreviated fashion, shed a little light
on the subject of shame and honor. To get there I need to set the stage. Each of the world’s
many societies can generally be described as being built upon one of three sets of rudimentary
philosophies of civil society: 1) guilt and innocence, 2) power and fear, or 3) shame and honor.
I don’t want you to think that these philosophies are pure in the way they exist and play out,
and certainly elements of each type exist in almost every society. But in general we can say
that every identifiable society in the world conforms to primarily one of these 3 basic
philosophical platforms: guilt and innocence, power and fear, or shame and honor. And what
we can also generally say is that whichever of these 3 platforms a society has adopted it is not
really consciously aware of it, it invariably is also unaware that there are 2 other platforms in
existence, and generally they cannot conceive of another society operating on a different
platform. This probably has more to do with the misunderstandings among the many societies
and nations of our planet than any other cause.

Briefly, the platform of guilt and innocence is the one we are most familiar with. It is the
underlying societal platform of what is typically called the Western world. North America and
Europe are the prime examples, but so is the Soviet Union, modern day Australia, and to a
lesser extent a few of the countries of South America. What makes us a guilt and innocence
society is that we operate on a system of laws that sets down right and wrong. And then in
some form or another there is a justice system that determines if wrong has been done and
applies the consequences.

8 / 11

Usually (especially if we look past the corruption) the laws are absolute and the punishments
are consistent. Some societies such as the USA are the most rigid about the absolute nature of
its laws, and other societies such as some in Eastern Europe and in parts of South America
are more flexible. No matter; the idea is that if one violates the law that person is guilty, and if
one is law abiding they are innocent. And it is this sense of guilt or innocence that defines the
character and status and value of a person as a member of this kind of a society. Therefore we
find our politics, for instance, revolve around a discussion of right versus wrong. Decisions are
made on a basis of right versus wrong. And this is because to be right under the law makes
one innocent and to be wrong under the law makes one guilty.

As revered a person as the business tycoon Bernard Madoff once was, he is now a pariah
after wrongly bilking thousands of people out of billions of dollars. And this status as pariah is
because whereas at one time he operated with a societal status of innocent, he is now guilty.
And it is his status as a guilty person who has committed wrong that makes him a societal
outcast. Now to most ears, you are probably saying, so what’s new? Of course that’s how we
do things. Everybody thinks that way. All societies have their unique sense of right and wrong,
guilt and innocence, even if they can be quite different. No, they do not, and that’s where our
misunderstandings of society and the Bible begin.

The second of the 3 philosophical platforms of society is fear and power. This is one that
seems the most primitive when we understand what it is. It is a societal platform that believes
in the existence of many spirits and gods and operates based on an immutable belief that
these spirits and gods have power over you. And because a spirit or god who has power over
you can harm you, therefore you have fear. These societies have shamans and witch doctors
as guides and protectors and doctors who treat spiritual infestations. This is a society that
operates day to day on trying to counteract and/or avoid the fearful power of a spirit or a god.
They believe that they must find a way to live in peace with these unseen powers either by
avoiding them stealthily or by appeasing them or by finding some means to appropriate some
kind of opposing power for themselves that causes sufficient fear in these spirits and gods to
leave them alone.

Thus in this kind of society, their chief goal, and the underlying rules of their society has no
systematic or universal code of right and wrong. The terms right and wrong, guilty and
innocent, have no meaning whatsoever because that is not how life operates. Whatever means
it takes to gain power and thus alleviate your fear, or to gain power as a means to project fear
into someone else or to ward off some spirit or god, is fair game. There is no right or wrong to
it. These people see themselves as living in a sphere where the natural and the supernatural
live together and are not separated. Men making laws and rules are incomprehensible to them.
Therefore there is no such concept as guilt. As the Bible tells us, where there is no law there is
no trespass. And if there has never been such a thing as a law, then there has never been
9 / 11

such a thing as guilt.

The 3
rd
societal platform is called shame and honor, and while there is a concept of right and
wrong, it is not absolute and it is not the driving force in the society. Let me be clear on one
thing however: for Westerners shame more means feelings of guilt or a loss of self-esteem.
Shame tends to come upon us when people we trust violate that trust, as with child abuse or
molestation. Shame is also what we feel, at times, when we feel guilty.

We tell our children or our friends or even our congregations to act rightly. And if they do not,
they will properly feel guilt. But in a shame and honor based society all members are taught to
act honorably, not rightly. And if they do NOT act honorably, then the result is shame. Just as
in a guilt and innocence based society where our status and position is based on our doing
right or wrong, in a shame and honor based society ones societal status and position is based
on being in a condition of shame or of honor.

So as much as a person works to be honorable, if they are shamed then they will do whatever
it takes to get their honor back. Thus right and wrong are not based on any absolute, but rather
within the context of achieving, maintaining, or reacquiring honor. This is why a Middle Eastern
father whose daughter has violated some cultural norm, and thus has brought shame upon her
and her family, feels no sense of wrong by murdering her even though he may also feel grief
stricken over her loss. Rather he has done what he must to rid his family of shame so that they
can go forward in honor once again. If a person finds him or herself in a position that if they tell
the truth they will lose their honor, then they will lie and it is not wrong because in their society
maintaining honor is the basis of their culture.

Thus right and wrong are relative. Right and wrong are not predicated on laws but rather on
cultural rules and customs about how to avoid shame and maintain honor. Sometimes one
must actually do something to return their honor that the government has determined deserves
a punishment. But even that isn’t necessarily a matter of right or wrong. In fact that
punishment is often seen as merit for doing what one must to get back their honor. Often this
punishment is seen as merely a price to be paid, like a ransom, for what must be done to get
rid of shame and one is often quite admired for it.

Further, time and generational turnover plays no role in a shame and honor society. Thus a
man who died in shame expects his son to avenge that shame for him. And if that son is
unable to, then his son is obligated and so on. Entire nations operate on a national level with
10 / 11

that same understanding. Maintaining or recouping honor is far more important than life or
death. Thus for someone to kill another for causing them shame brings no sense of guilt,
because it is “right” in that society to have honor at all cost.

I’ll end this for today with this thought. In the Muslim world, shame is routinely handled by
killing the person who shamed you, and thus bringing you and/or your family back to a societal
status of honor. But in other oriental societies who have shame and honor as at least a major
part of their societal platform, such as the Japanese, shame is often handled through suicide.
But either way (to a fault) shame and honor based societies put human life and death far below
the matter of shame and honor. The only issue is who dies in order that the shame is relieved:
the party who caused the shame, or the party who was shamed. In the one the answer is
homicide, in the other the answer is suicide.

We’ll start next week by talking about how this applies to the Bible and then also apply what
we’ve learned to 1
st
Kings 11 and the person of Hadad.

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
11 / 11