Charles Ellicott Commentary 1 Kings 11

Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, Hittites. —The first three of these peoples were related to Israel and from the lineage of Abraham, and were now among Solomon's subjects. The last two were of the old Canaanite lineage and were now inferior allies. The prohibition of the Law (Exodus 34:12–16; Deuteronomy 7:3–4) properly applied only to these latter groups. However, the reason on which that prohibition was based was now equally applicable to the others, because they also had fallen into the worship of false gods. Therefore, this prohibition was extended to them, a practice recognized by the Jews after the captivity (Ezra 9:2; Ezra 9:11–12; Nehemiah 13:23–29).

It should be noted that the marriage with Pharaoh's daughter is apparently distinguished from these connections, which are so strongly condemned, and that there is no mention of the introduction of any Egyptian idolatry.

Solomon's falling away is distinctly traced to his polygamy, contracting numerous marriages with “strange women.” Polygamy is also attributed to David (see 2 Samuel 3:2–5; 2 Samuel 15:16), perhaps marking the characteristic temperament of voluptuousness which seduced him into his great sin. However, it was carried out by Solomon on a scale corresponding to the magnificence of his kingdom, and, in his case, probably had the political object of alliance with neighboring or tributary kings. We find it inherited by Rehoboam (2 Chronicles 11:18–21), and it probably became, in different degrees, the practice of succeeding kings. Until this time, while polygamy, as everywhere in the East, had existed to some degree in Israel from patriarchal times, it must nevertheless have been checked by the marriage regulations of the Law.

Nor had there yet been the royal magnificence and wealth, under which alone it attains full development. We have some traces of it in the households of some of the Judges: Gideon (Judges 8:30), Jair (Judges 10:4), Ibzan and Abdon (Judges 12:9; Judges 12:14). Now, however, in spite of the prohibition of the Law (Deuteronomy 17:17), it became a recognized element of royal self-indulgence—such as is described in Ecclesiastes 2:7-8, and is perhaps traceable even through the beauty of the Song of Solomon. In itself, even without any incidental consequences, it must necessarily be a demoralizing power, as sinning against the primeval ordinance of God, and robbing natural relations of their true purity and sacredness. But in actual fact, it sinned still more by involving forbidden marriages with idolatrous races, with the often-predicted effect of a decline into idolatry.

Seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines. —The harem of an Eastern king is simply an adjunct of his magnificence, and the relation of the wives to him little more than nominal. (Compare to Esther 2:14.) Nor does the statement here made necessarily imply that at any one time the whole number existed.

Still, the numbers here given, though found also in the Septuagint and in Josephus, are not only extraordinarily large, but excessive in comparison with the three- score queens and fourscore concubines of Song of Solomon 6:8, and disproportionate in the relative number of the superior and inferior wives. It is possible that, in relation to the former, at any rate, the text may be corrupt, though the corruption must be of ancient date.

When Solomon was old. —It is clearly implied that the evil influence belonged to the time of senile feebleness, possibly the premature result of a life of indulgence; for he could not have been very old, if he was but a child at the time of his accession. But, as it is not at all likely that Solomon forsook the worship of God (see 1 Kings 11:5–6; 1 Kings 9:25), it would seem that his idolatry was rather the inclination to an eclectic adoption of various forms of faith and worship, as simply various phases of reverence to the One Supreme Power, each having its own peculiar significance and beauty.

Such a spirit, holding itself superior to the old laws and principles of the faith of Israel, was the natural fruit of an overweening confidence in his own wisdom—the philosophic spirit, “holding no creed, but contemplating” and condescending to “all.” Whatever it may have owed to the baser female influence, so well known in the countries where woman is held a mere toy, it seems likely to have been, still more naturally, the demoralizing effect of an absolutely despotic power, of a world-wide fame for wisdom, and of an over-luxurious magnificence.

It may have even had a kind of harmony with the weary and hopeless conviction that all things were vanity: for there is something of kinship between the belief that all worships are true, and that all worships are false. It may also have been thought good policy to conciliate the subject races, by doing honor to their religions, much as the Roman Empire delighted to do, when faith in its own religion had died out.

How absolutely incompatible such a spirit is with the faith in the One only God of Israel, and in itself even more monstrous than avowed devotion to false gods, is indignantly declared by Ezekiel (Ezekiel 14:3–4; Ezekiel 20:39). How utter the practical incongruity is, becomes obvious on the slightest consideration of the contrast between the impure and bloody worship of the false gods, and the lofty spiritual worship of the God of Israel.

Ashtoreth (or, Astarte).—The goddess of the Sidonians, and possibly the Hittites, corresponding to Baal, the great Tyrian god, and representing the receptive and productive power in Nature, as Baal represented the active and originative power. As is usual in all phases of Nature-worship, Ashtoreth is variously represented, sometimes by the moon, sometimes by the planet Venus (like the Assyrian Ishtar, which seems a form of the same name)—in either case regarded as the queen of heaven. (Jeremiah 44:25).

There seems, indeed, some reason to believe that the name itself is derived from a root which is found both in Syriac and Persian, and which became aster in the Greek and astrum in Latin, and has from there passed into modern European languages, signifying a “star,” or luminary of heaven. With this agrees the ancient name, Ashterôth-Karnaîm (or, “the horned Ashteroth”) of a city in Bashan (Genesis 14:5; Deuteronomy 1:4; Joshua 13:12).

This place is the first in which the name Ashtoreth is used in the singular number, and expressly limited to the “goddess of the Sidonians.” In the earlier history we frequently hear of the worship of the “Ashtaroth,” that is, of the “Ashtoreths,” found with the similar plural Baalim, as prevalent in Canaan, and adopted by Israel in evil times (Judges 10:6; 1 Samuel 7:3; 1 Samuel 12:10; 1 Samuel 31:10); and the worship of the Asherah (rendered “groves” in the Authorized Version), may perhaps refer to emblems of Astarte.

In these cases, however, it seems likely that the phrase, “Baalim and Ashtaroth,” may be used generally of the gods and goddesses of various kinds of idolatry. The worship of the Tyrian Ashtoreth, as might be supposed from the idea which she was supposed to represent, was one of established license and impurity.

Milcom, the abomination of the Ammonites.—The name Milcom (like the Malcham of Jeremiah 49:1, 3) is probably only a variety of the well-known Molech, which is actually used for it in 1 Kings 11:7. The name “Molech” (though here connected expressly with the Ammonite idolatry) is a general title, signifying only “king” (as Baal signifies “lord”), and might be applied to the supreme god of any idolatrous system. Thus the worship of “Molech,” with its horrible sacrifice of children passing through the fire, is forbidden in Leviticus 18:21; 20:2, evidently as prevailing among the Canaanite races .

Again, we know historically that similar sacrifice of children, by the same horrible rite, was practised by the Carthaginians in times of great national calamity—the god being in that case identified with Saturn, the star of malign influence. By comparison of Jeremiah 7:31; 19:5-6, it is very evident that this human sacrifice to Molech is also called a burnt-offering to Baal; and if Molech was the “fire-god,” and Baal the “sun-god,” the two deities might easily be regarded as cognate, if not identical.

It is notable that, in this place, while Ashtoreth is mentioned, there is no reference to any worship of the Phoenician Baal as such; possibly the Ammonite Molech-worship may have occupied its place. In any case, as the worship of Ashtoreth was stained with impurity, so the Molech-worship was marked by the other foul pollution of the sacrifice of human blood.

Chemosh, the abomination of the Moabites.—The name Chemosh probably means “the Conqueror,” or “Subjugator,” and indicates a god of battles. He is again and again described as the god of the Moabites who are called the people of Chemosh (Jeremiah 48:7; Jeremiah 48:13; Jeremiah 48:46); and the Moabite Stone speaks of the slain in war as an offering to Chemosh, and even refers to a deity, “Ashtar-Chemosh,” which looks like a conjunction of Chemosh, like Baal, with Ashtoreth.

In Judges 11:24, Jephthah refers to Chemosh as the god of the Ammonite king, an expression which may indicate a temporary supremacy of Moab over Ammon at that time, through which the name “Chemosh” superseded the name “Milcom” as descriptive of the Supreme Power. In the history, moreover, of the Moabite war against Jehoram (2 Kings 3:26–27) it seems that to Chemosh, as to Molech, human sacrifice was offered.

Probably, in actual practice the various worships of the Tyrians and Canaanites, the Ammonites and the Moabites might run into each other. Unlike the awe-inspiring and exclusive reverence for the Lord Jehovah, the devotion of polytheistic systems readily welcomes strange gods into its Pantheon. Polytheism is also apt to pass into what has been called “Henotheism,” in which, of many gods each is for the moment worshipped, as if he stood alone, and concentrated in himself all the attributes of deity.

The generality and similarity of meaning in the names, Baal (“lord”), Molech (“king”), and Chemosh (“conqueror”), seem to point in this direction. Still, these worships are described as taking, in Jerusalem, distinct forms and habitations, which continued until the days of Josiah (2 Kings 23:13), no doubt disused and condemned in days of religious faithfulness, such as those of Jehoshaphat and Hezekiah, but revived, and associated with newer idolatries, in days of apostasy.