For my weekly quiet time this week, I studied I Kings 4. I'm at my public library right now because I wanted to avail myself of its resources.
The commentaries that I read differed on how exactly to regard Solomon. Some thought that Solomon was good in I Kings 4 because the chapter portrays him as wise and discusses Israel's peace and prosperity under his reign. Others argued that Solomon was bad because he centralized power at the expense of the local tribes, imposed Judahite rule on non-Judahite areas, exacted taxes from Israel while exempting his own tribe of Judah (if you go with the MT of v 19 rather than the LXX), copied foreign bureaucratic systems, and was just plain arrogant, since breadth of heart (which v 29 ascribes to him) can carry that connotation (Psalm 101:5; Proverbs 21:4; Isaiah 9:9; 10:12). For Solomon's critics, when I Kings 4:25 says that the Israelite people ate and drank in happiness and security, with each man sitting under his own vine and fig tree, it's being facetious!
Here are three thoughts that I have about this chapter:
1. The chapter goes out of its way to say that Solomon is wise, almost as if I Kings 4 is God's answer to Solomon's prayer in I Kings 3. In I Kings 4, God has indeed equipped Solomon with the wisdom to rule a vast and numerous people, as Solomon had requested in the previous chapter. But, if Solomon were so wise, why did he make such foolish mistakes? One of the authors of I Kings 4 may think that Solomon's bureaucracy was an example of intelligent decision-making, but it doesn't take a political scientist to realize that favoritism, suppressing local tribes, and heavy taxes will make a lot of people mad. And, sure enough, most of Israel revolted in I Kings 12 because Solomon's son, Rehoboam, wanted to continue his father's policies.
2. As I did the prayer part of my weekly quiet time, I looked at the books around me. Some of them were in my field of study, while others were in areas that I haven't even begun to peruse (e.g., nature). There's so much that I don't know! One would think that a certain character would come with the study of various fields. People have said that the more you know, the more than you realize that you don't know. And when people study, at least they're getting their minds off themselves.
I Kings 4:33 says that Solomon knew a lot about plants and animals. Commentators have argued that this doesn't just mean that Solomon had an encyclopedic knowledge about nature; rather, he was able to look at nature and see lessons about life (Proverbs 6:6; Judges 9:9-15; etc.), as if the book of nature contained God's revelation for humans.
Wisdom should lead to humility, but it didn't for Solomon. And it didn't for some of the wise people-groups mentioned in I Kings 4:10: the Kedemites (Isaiah 11:14) and the Egyptians (Isaiah 19:11). That baffles me. How can wisdom accompany arrogance, when wisdom should have within itself an outlook that counters arrogance?
3. I don't have a problem taking Israel's prosperity in I Kings 4:25 at face value. Even if Solomon were taxing people heavily, they could have still been prospering under his realm. After all, if there's a lot left for a person after taxes, then he's still well-off. Remember also that we haven't yet gotten to the chapters about Solomon's massive building projects. When those come on the scene, taxes go up, and the Israelites start to complain! In I Kings 4, however, all we read about taxes is that each division of Israel had to support the palace for one month out of the year. That's not too bad, or at least it's not as bad as it will be when Solomon raises taxes for his construction projects.
In I Kings 4, the Israelites were prosperous, so they may have been willing to overlook the loss of their freedom and autonomy that Solomon was bringing about. That makes me think about my own political opinions. I'm at the point right now where "big government" doesn't strike me as a major bogeyman. I think that the federal government can do a lot of good for people, plus I realize that local authorities and the private sector can themselves be oppressive or just plain wrong. "We must take the power away from Washington, D.C. and reserve it for the states and the people" rings hollow to me these days.
But my conservatives friends on Facebook and the conservatives in my family have a different perspective. They fear the federal government having a lot of power. A relative of mine said during my Thanksgiving Break, "It's all about control. They'll force you to do what they want you to do---such as get vaccinated---and not cover your health care if you don't comply." And I can see their point. Government bureaucracies can be cold, impersonal, and narrow-minded, expecting people to do things their way, or the highway.
Am I like the Israelites under Solomon: willing to trade my freedom for security under a powerful central government? Of course, the liberal part of me is quick to respond "What freedom?" My problem is that I'm not free to make my health care decisions under the status quo because things cost so much!
In the Bible, there are a variety of political perspectives. There's the pro-monarchy viewpoint, which wants a strong king who will protect Israel from her enemies and secure the one true religion (Judges 17-21). There's the anti-monarchy view, which fears that a king could become a callous dictator (I Samuel 8:11ff.), stepping all over local tribes, families, and the economic well-being of the Israelites. Then there's the "limited monarchy" point of view, which we encounter in such passages as Deuteronomy 17:14-20. A powerful central government has positives and negatives, as does the absence of such. Is there a way to take the strengths and minimize the weaknesses of all of the perspectives, to have a strong federal government while also protecting freedom?