Charles Ellicott Commentary 1 Kings 3

Pharaoh king of Egypt: At this time, it would appear from Egyptian records and traditions that Egypt was weak and divided, and that what is called the twenty-first dynasty of the Tanite kings was ruling in Lower Egypt. This, along with a corresponding suspension (judging from the monuments) of Assyrian power, allowed for the Israelite kingdom under Solomon to rise to sudden greatness and wealth. It also probably induced the Egyptian king of those days to consent to an alliance that, at other times, the greatness of the Pharaohs might have spurned.

No fault is found with the alliance by the sacred historian, for the Egyptians were never looked upon with the same aversion as the strange women of the Canaanite races. Furthermore, as it is not in any way connected with Solomon’s subsequent decline into idolatry, noticed in 1 Kings 11:1–8, it is likely that the new queen literally acted on the call of the Psalmist (Psalms 45:10) to forget her own people and her father’s house.

In high places.—The historian, writing from the point of view of his own time, when, after the solemn consecration of the Temple, the worship at “the high places” (which form natural sanctuaries) was forbidden, explains that because there was no house built to the name of the Lord, the people, and Solomon himself, sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places. It is clear that these high places were of two kinds: places of sacrifice to false gods, and unauthorized sanctuaries of the Lord, probably associating His worship with visible representations of Deity. The former class were, of course, absolute abominations, like the high places of the Canaanite races, so sternly denounced in Deuteronomy 12:2-3.

The prohibition of the other class of high places (constantly disobeyed by some even of the better kings) appears to have had two distinct objects: (a) to guard against all local corruptions of God’s service, and all idolatry, worshipping Him (as at Bethel) under visible forms; and (b) to prevent the breach of national unity, by the congregation of the separate tribes around local sanctuaries. But besides these objects, it served (c) as a very remarkable spiritual education for the worship of the invisible God, without the aid of local and visible emblems of His presence, in accordance with the higher prophetic teaching, and preparatory for the perfect spirituality of the future.

It is, indeed, scarcely conceivable that there should not have been, before the Captivity, some places of non-sacrificial worship, in some degree like the synagogues of the period after the exile, although not yet developed into a fully organized system. Unless we refer Psalms 74:8 to the Maccabean times, it must be supposed to describe the Chaldean invasion as destroying not only the Temple, but also all the houses of God—properly "assemblies," and in our Bible version actually translated "synagogues"—in the land. But these places of prayer and praise and instruction would be different in their whole idea from the "high places" rivalling the Temple.

Up to this time it is clear that, even under Samuel and David, sacrificial worship elsewhere than in the Tabernacle was used without scruple, though certainly foreign to the spirit of the Mosaic Law regarding the supreme sacredness of the place which God should choose to place his name there (see, for example, 1 Samuel 7:10; 1 Samuel 13:9; 1 Samuel 14:35; 1 Samuel 16:5; 1 Chronicles 21:26). After the solemn consecration of the Temple, the circumstances and the character of such worship were altogether changed.

Gibeon. —The name itself, signifying “belonging to a hill,” indicates its position on the central plateau of Israel, in the land of Benjamin, from where rise several round hills, on one of which the town stood. There was now erected the Tabernacle, with the brazen altar of sacrifice, to which the descendants of the old Gibeonites were attached as hewers of wood and drawers of water (Joshua 9:23). It was therefore naturally “the great high place.”

The Lord appeared—This direct communication to Solomon by a dream—standing in contrast with the indirect knowledge of the Lord’s will by David through the prophets Nathan and Gad (2 Samuel 7:2–17; 2 Samuel 12:1–14; 2 Samuel 24:11–14), and by “enquiring of the Lord” through the priest (1 Samuel 23:9–12; 1 Samuel 30:7; 2 Samuel 2:1)—is perhaps the first indication of some temporary abeyance of the prophetic office, and (as appears still more clearly from the history of the consecration of the Temple), of a loss of leadership in the priesthood.

At the same time it is to be noted that the vision of the Lord through dreams, being of a lower type than the waking vision, is mostly recorded as given to those outside the Covenant, as Abimelech (Genesis 20:3–7), Laban (Genesis 31:24), Pharaoh and his servants (Genesis 40:5; Genesis 41:1–8), the Midianite (Judges 7:13), and Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 2:1; Daniel 4:10–18); as belonging to the early stages of revelation, to Abraham (Genesis 15:12), Jacob (Genesis 28:12–15), and Joseph (Genesis 37:5–10); and as marking the time of cessation of the regular succession of the prophets during the Captivity (Daniel 2:19; Daniel 7:1).

And Solomon said—On Solomon’s “wisdom,” see Note on 1 Kings 4:29. Here it is clear that the wisdom that he asks is that of the ruler, involving elements both moral and intellectual—the wisdom to discern and do true justice between man and man. He calls himself a little child—his age is variously estimated from twelve to twenty at this time—and trembles at the responsibility of ruling over so great a people. But, in the characteristic spirit of the true godliness of the Old Testament, he looks for wisdom, not as the mere result of human teaching and experience, but as an inspiration of God, and prays for it accordingly, in a prayer of singular beauty and humility, pleading simply God’s promise to his father, and its fulfilment in his own accession to the throne.