Charles Ellicott Commentary 1 Kings 9

And it came to pass. —The obvious primâ facie meaning of this verse would land us in much difficulty. By 1 Kings 6:38; 1 Kings 7:1, we find that, while the Temple was built in seven years, the erection of the palace and the other buildings occupied thirteen years; and from 1 Kings 5:10 and 2 Chronicles 8:1 it appears that these works were successive, and therefore that the completion of the palace could not have taken place till thirteen years after the completion of the Temple.

Hence we should have to conclude, either that the dedication was postponed for thirteen years, till all the buildings were finished—which is in itself infinitely improbable, and contradicts the express declaration of Josephus—or that a similar period intervened between Solomon’s prayer and the Divine answer to it, which is even more preposterous. The variation in 2 Chronicles 7:11 probably suggests the true key to the difficulty: namely, that the notice in this verse is merely a summary of the history of 1 Kings 6-8, which records the whole of the building works of Solomon, and is not intended to fix the date of the vision of 1 Kings 9:2–9.

To put my name there for ever. —The meaning of the words “for ever” is determined by the prayer which they answer. They simply mark the Temple as the settled habitation to abide in for ever (see 1 Kings 8:13), in contrast to the movable tabernacle. Whether they were to have a larger significance is expressly declared to depend on the faithfulness of Israel (see 1 Kings 9:7–8).

Mine eyes and mine heart. —See 1 Kings 8:29.

And the Lord said to him. —This vision of the Lord presents a remarkable contrast with that recorded in 1 Kings 6:11–13, while the Temple was being built. Then all was promise and encouragement; now, not only is warning mingled with promise, but, as in Solomon’s own prayer, the sadder alternative seems in prophetic anticipation to overpower the brighter.

In this (as has often been remarked) there is a striking exemplification of the austere and lofty candor of the inspired narrative. This candor sternly contradicts that natural hopefulness in the hour of unexampled prosperity, which would have shrunk from even entertaining the idea that the blessing of God on the Temple should be frustrated, and the glory of Israel should pass away.

It is notable that, in its reference to the two parts of the promise to David, there is a subtle and instructive distinction. Regarding the Temple, just built in fulfillment of that promise, it is declared without reserve that, in case of unfaithfulness in Israel, it shall be utterly destroyed and become an astonishment and a proverb of reproach before the world. But concerning the promise of the perpetuity of David’s kingdom—the true Messianic prediction, which struck the keynote of all future prophecies—it is only said that Israel shall be cut off from the land, and so become a proverb and a byword in captivity.

Nothing is said to contradict the original declaration that, even in case of sin, the mercy of God would chastise and not forsake the house of David (2 Samuel 7:13–14; Psalms 89:30–37). So, again and again in prophecy, captivity is denounced as a penalty of Israel’s sin; but the hope of restoration is always held out, and thus the belief in God’s unchanging promise remains unshaken. The true idea is strikingly illustrated by the prophet Amos (1 Kings 9:9–11): I will sift the house of Israel, among all nations ... yet shall not the least grain fall upon the earth ... I will raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof.

If you will walk. —The fall of the house of Solomon from dominion over all Israel is an emphatic comment on the conditional nature of this promise. Yet the essence of the covenant with David was kept in that preservation of the diminished kingdom to an unbroken succession of his descendants—singularly contrasted with the changes of dynasty in the greater rival kingdom—which is expressly declared to have been granted “for David’s sake” (1 Kings 11:12–13).

Then will I cut off. —These warnings were repeated with terrible force by Jeremiah on the eve of their fulfillment. (Jeremiah 24:9; Jeremiah 25:9.) The destruction of the Temple is by him compared with that which fell on Shiloh—no doubt, after the great defeat by the Philistines in the time of Eli (1 Samuel 4:5), although the history gives no record of it. The continued existence of the people, as a people, to be a proverb and a byword, through the Babylonish captivity, and through their present dispersion, is a fact to which the history of the world undoubtedly furnishes no parallel.