Elisheba: The Priest’s Wife (Exodus 6:23)

Who was Aaron’s wife? Elisheba

Exodus interrupts its narrative to supply a genealogy of the heads of the first three tribes of Israel (Exodus 6:14-27). The list naturally focuses on the tribe of Levi, the clan of its leaders, Moses and Aaron (Exodus 6:16-27). Amid this context, Aaron’s wife, Elisheba, makes her only biblical appearance (Exodus 6:23).

Aaron married Elisheba, the daughter of Amminadab, the sister of Nahshon, and she bore him Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar. (Exodus 6:23 NASB)

Elisheba is obscure. She appears only in this genealogy and nothing is said of her apart from her family ties. Pamela L. McQuade (b. 1953) acclimates:

Aaron’s wife doesn’t get a lot of press in the Bible. Her brother Nahshon gets more mention as a leader of the tribe of Judah [Exodus 6:23; Numbers 1:7, 2:3, 7:12, 17, 10:14; Ruth 4:20, I Chronicles 2:10, 11; Matthew 1:4; Luke 3:32], but Elisheba would have been well known to the Israelites, as wife of their high priest [Exodus 6:23]. (McQuade, The Top 100 Women of the Bible: Who They Are and What They Mean to You Today, 47)

Some have attempted to fill this void in Elisheba’s story. One strand of Jewish tradition claims that she served as one of the midwives who protected Hebrew babies in Exodus’ opening chapter. (Exodus 1:15-21).

Scott M. Langston (b. 1960) researches:

Were the “midwives of the Hebrews” Egyptians or Hebrews? In the Septuagint, as in Josephus [37-100], they were Egyptians. In the Talmud, however, they were Jewish. One Talmudic tradition, also followed by Targum Neofiti I and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, identified Shiphrah as Jocheved, Moses’ mother, and Puah as Miriam, his sister. The other understood the midwives to be Jocheved and Elisheba, the wife of Aaron (b. Sotah 11b). Exodus Rabbah agreed that they were Hebrew and recorded numerous explanations of their names. Their ethnicity made a difference in the story. As Egyptians, they exemplified God’s ability to use non-Hebrews to achieve his purposes. As Hebrews, they became symbols of the national struggle for freedom. (Langston, Exodus Through the Centuries, 18)

Some scholars have supplied Elisheba a voice. Penina Adelman (b. 1953) apprises:

Very little has been written about Elisheba. Ellen Frankel [b. 1951], author of The Five Books of Miriam (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1996), pages 159-61, responds to this void by letting Elisheba speak in her own voice...Jill Hammer [b. 1969] has responded to the lack of material on Elisheba with a midrash of her own, which also portrays Elisheba in her midwife guise. It is called “The Tenth Plague” and can be found in the midrash collection Sisters at Sinai: New Tales of Biblical Women (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2004), pages 105-113. (Adelman, “Elisheba”, Praise Her Works: Conversations with Biblical Women, 138-39)

Elisheba is the only person who carries this name in the Hebrew Bible (Exodus 6:23). Though uncommon in the modern era, the name did briefly make its way into the mainstream when actress Elizabeth Taylor (1932-2011) adopted it upon her conversion to Judaism in 1959.

William H.C. Propp (b. 1957) studies:

Ĕlîšeba‘ seems to mean “My god is Seven” (cf. the names batšeba‘ ‘Seven’s daughter,’ yehôšeba‘/yehôšab‘at ‘Yahweh is Seven,’ be’ēršeba‘ ‘Seven’s well’ and šeba‘ ‘Seven’; compare to the Byblian king Sibitti-běl ‘Baal is Seven’ mentioned in inscriptions of Tiglath Pileser III [Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament 282, 283]). Is šeba‘ an Israelite manifestation of the Mesopotamian god/gods/demons Sebettu ‘the Seven,’ on whom see D.O. Edzard [1930-2004] (1965:124-25)? For other etymologies see Samuel E. Loewenstamm [1907-1987] (1950). (Propp, Exodus 1-18 (Anchor Bible), 279)

Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1952) informs:

The name ’élîśeba’ (Elisheba) is the Hebrew form of “Elizabeth”. What “Elizabeth” means is debatable, but two possibilities are “My God is the One by whom to swear” or “My God is Seven.” (Hamilton, Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary, 106)

Craig A. Evans (b. 1952) connects:

According to Luke, the mother of John the Baptist and wife of Zechariah the priest is Elizabeth (Luke 1:5). The name Elizabeth is a variant of the biblical name Elisheba (אלישבע), the wife of Aaron (cf. Exodus 6:23), which in the Septuagint is Έλισάβεθ. The Greek form Έλισάβη appears on an ossuary from Silwan, Jerualem (cf. Hans Henry Spoer [1873-1951] 1907; Samuel Klein [1886-1940] and Jean-Baptiste Frey [1878-1939] no. 1338). (Evans, Jesus and the Ossuaries: What Jewish Burial Practices Reveal about the Beginning of Christianity, 82)

The fact that Elisheba is named is significant in and of itself as Exodus seldom identifies women by name. Carol Meyers (b. 1942) notes:

Only six women (Elisheba [Exodus 6:23], Jochebed [Exodus 6:20], Miriam [Exodus 15:20, 21], Puah [Exodus 1:15], Shiphrah [Exodus 1:15], and Zippporah [Exodus 2:21, 4:25, 18:2]) are mentioned by name in the book of Exodus. But many more are referred to in the narratives, especially in chapters 1-3 [Exodus 1:1-3:22]; and generic women are mentioned in the Decalogue and community regulations of chapters 20-23 [Exodus 20:1-23:33]. (Meyers, Exodus (New Cambridge Bible Commentary), 25)

It is worth noting that Moses’ wife and sister are unnamed in this genealogy while Elisheba is.

It is also rare for women to be mentioned in genealogies. Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1952) comments:

Unlike most genealogies in Scripture or elsewhere, it [Exodus 6:14-27] includes the names of women (Matthew 1:1-17 is another exception to the rule); Jochebed [Exodus 6:20], Elisheba [Exodus 6:23], an anonymous daughter of Putiel (wife of Eleazar, Aaron’s daughter-in-law, Phinehas’s mother) [Exodus 6:25], and Miriam in Exodus 6:20 if we follow the reading of the Septuagint and the Samaritan Pentateuch. What makes the presence of these women so unique here is that this genealogy is about who has the proper bloodlines to serve as high priest or just as priest, an office restricted by sex to males. There are no “priestesses” in the Old Testament. (Hamilton, Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary, 108)

Tikva Frymer-Kensky (1943-2006) analyzes:

She [Elisheba] never appears in any story, and the mention of her name in this brief genealogy must be related to the purpose of this family listing. Such listings don’t ordinarily include female ancestors. This genealogy foregrounds Moses and Aaron, and the addition of named women to their family tree — Moses’ mother Jochebed [Exodus 6:20] as well as Elisheba [Exodus 6:23] — perhaps contributes to the prominence of their lineage. Moreover, the inclusion of a mother’s name indicates how significant these women were to the destiny of their children. (Carol L. Meyers [b. 1942], Toni Craven [b. 1944], Ross Shepard Kraemer [b. 1948], “Elisheba”, Women in Scripture: A Dictionary of Named and Unnamed Women in the Hebrew Bible, the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books and New Testament, 73)

Elisheba is the wife of Aaron, the high priest (Exodus 6:23). There is either a significant difference in age between Elisheba and her husband or there is a gap in the genealogy.

William H.C. Propp (b. 1957) relays:

Heinrich Holzinger [1863-1944] (1900:20) observes that Aaron may be considerably older than his wife. He is of the fourth generation from Jacob, she of the sixth. (Propp, Exodus 1-18 (Anchor Bible), 279)

Brevard S. Childs (1923-2007) counters:

The principle of selectivity is...clear in comparing other genealogies within the Old Testament. So, for example, according to Exodus 6, Aaron and Moses belong to the fourth generation after Jacob, whereas from the lists in Ruth 4:18-20 and I Chronicles 2:4-10, it would appear that Aaron’s wife Elisheba, the daughter of Amminadab, belonged to the sixth generation. (Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary (Old Testament Library), 117)

Douglas K. Stuart (b. 1943) concurs:

Moses’ listing of his and Aaron’s ancestry has, typically, gaps. It mentions Moses and Aaron in the fourth generation after Jacob, although Aaron’s wife Elisheba (Exodus 6:23) seems to fit in the sixth generation after Jacob according to the data lists in I Chronicles 2:4-10 and Ruth 4:18-20. By mentioning only the generations of Levi, Kohath, Amram, and Aaron/Moses (Exodus 6:16-20), it could seem to give the impression that there were in fact only four generations from the entrance into Egypt until the exodus—a period of 430 years (cf. Exodus 12:20). This is theoretically possible in light of the long lives of Levi, Kohath, and Amram and the fact that Moses was eighty when the exodus began, but it would require that each father in this group had the son named in this group at about age one hundred. (Stuart, Exodus (New American Commentary), 176)

Though relatively inconsequential within the confines of the Bible, Elisheba was likely eminent during her own lifetime as she was a prominent member of Israel’s first family.

Ronald L. Eisenberg (b. 1945) educates:

The Talmud notes that “Elisheba had five joys more than the daughters of Israel” on the day the Tabernacle was dedicated. “Her brother-in-law [Moses] was a king, her husband [Aaron] was a high priest, her son [Eleazar] was segan [deputy high priest], her grandson [Pinchas] was anointed [as deputy high priest to lead the army for battle], and her brother [Nachshon] was the prince of his tribe; yet she mourned her two sons [Nadab and Abihu]” (Zevachim 102a). (Eisengberg, Essential Figures in the Bible, 62)

Midrash has also attached Elisheba with Proverbs’ description of the ideal woman (Proverbs 31:25). Michael V. Fox (b. 1940) edifies:

Yalqut Shimoni...assembles midrashic comments that identify the Woman of Strength [Proverbs 31:10-31] with Sarah...Memories of other women are evoked as well. “Strength and majesty are her raiment” (Proverbs 31:25a) was associated with Elisheba daughter of Amminadab (Exodus 6:23), and “She opens her mouth in wisdom” (Proverbs 31:26a) brought to mind the wise woman who spoke with Joab (II Samuel 14:2). These and similar associations were not meant to be exclusive identifications but to point to women who exemplify the qualities described in this poem. (Fox, Proverbs 10-31 (Anchor Bible), 906)

Elisheba’s presence within Exodus’ genealogy gives credibility to her family’s position. Susanne Scholz (b. 1966) discusses:

An extensive genealogy interrupts the events. Strengthening the authority of Moses (Exodus 6:14-25), the list legitimates him as the leader of the people of Israel. The passage includes his male and a few female ancestors. The women are characterized as daughters, wives and mothers...Women are significant only in their relationship to men (cf. Exodus 1:27-:20). Jochebed, the mother of Moses, is named (Exodus 6:20) but not Moses’ sister and wife. Instead, Aaron’s wife Elisheba (Exodus 6:23) and the daughters of Putiel are listed. One of the daughters marries Eleazar and gives birth to a son (Exodus 6:25). (Athalya Brenner [b. 1943], “The Complexities of ‘His’ Liberation Talk: A Literary Feminist Reading of the Book of Exodus”, A Feminist Companion to Exodus to Deuteronomy, 30)

In addition to Moses, the genealogy also bolsters his descendants, who likely need the credibility more than he. Thomas B. Dozeman (b. 1952) concludes:

The structure indicates the important position of Phinehas [Exodus 6:25]. He is the only character named in the sixth generation of descendants from Levi. Additional information provided by the P author further accentuates his position. The P author provides the age of three characters, Levi (137 years) [Exodus 6:16], Kohath (133 years) [Exodus 6:18], and Amram (137 years) [Exodus 6:20], emphasizing the ancestry of Aaron. Then, beginning with the father of Aaron, Amram, the P author also includes the name of the wife: Amram married Jochebed, his father’s sister [Exodus 6:20]; Aaron married Elisheba, the daughter of Amminadab, and the sister of Nashshon [Exodus 6:23]; and Eleazar married one of the daughters of Putiel [Exodus 6:25]. The recording of the mothers further accentuates the status of Phinehas. (Dozeman, Exodus (Eerdmans Critical Commentary), 172)

Exodus’ genealogy serves to bolster the credibility of the priestly line and Elisheba’s inclusion assists in accomplishing this objective (Exodus 6:14-27). Her children, introduced with her (Exodus 6:23), will later play prominent roles. Eleazar will become the nation’s high priest (Numbers 20:23-29) making Elisheba both the wife and the mother of a high priest. From this one reference, it is clear that Elisheba is deemed a great success, a woman many likely aspired to be (Exodus 6:23).

Why is Elisheba named in Exodus’ genealogy when so few women are (Exodus 6:23)? Were you documented as merely a name in your family’s genealogy what could be said of you? Who benefits more from this genealogy, its early or later entries? How important are bloodlines to clergy? What are the advantages and disadvantages to being a second generation minister? Do you add credibility to your relatives and associates?

Elisheba is presented as the wife of the high priest, Aaron (Exodus 6:23). This relationship is accentuated given its connection to a remark made by God earlier in the chapter (Exodus 6:7). Bruce Wells (b. 1968) correlates:

Take you as my own people (Exodus 6:7)...Literally the statement is, “I take [lāqah] you to myself as a people.” The forming of a marriage relationship is also expressed in this way: “Aaron took [lāqah] ...to himself as a wife” (literal translation Exodus 6:23). (John H. Walton [b. 1952], Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary), 185)

This type of connection is rare in the Old Testament. Madeline Gay McClenney-Sadler (b. 1967) assesses:

There are only seven marriages in the Pentateuch which provide sufficient kinship information about each character to suggest a preferred marriage form: Milcah–Nahor (Genesis 11:29); Sarah–Abraham (Genesis 12:13, 20:12); Rebekah-Isaac (Genesis 24:4); Mahalath-Esau (Genesis 28:9); Leah–Jacob–Rachel (Genesis 29:30); Aaron–Elisheba (Exodus 6:23) and Amram–Jochebed (Exodus 6:20). (McClenney-Sadler, Re-covering the Daughter’s Nakedness: A Formal Analysis of Israelite Kinship Terminology and the Internal Logic of Leviticus 18, 57)

Given its structure, some have seen practical marriage advice implicit in the genealogy. Ronald L. Eisenberg (b. 1945) informs

The biblical text describes Elisheba as the daughter of Amminadab and the sister of Nachshon (Exodus 6:23). Because the second relationship would seem to be obvious from the first, Rava [280-352] inferred an underlying teaching: “A man who [wishes] to take a wife should inquire about [the character of] her brothers” (Bava Batra 110a), because “most children resemble the brothers of the mother” (Sopherim 15:20). (Eisengberg, Essential Figures in the Bible, 62)

Yehuda Berg (b. 1972) applies:

In an apparent non sequitur, the verse mentions that Elisheva was Nahshon’s sister [Exodus 6:23]. This is important later, Nahshon, who will be one of the foremost tribal princes, will also be the first person to enter the Red Sea when it parts. But there is also a relevant lesson here for us today. Whenever we are considering entering into a relationship, we must take into account the other person’s family because they are the people who have shaped our partner’s concept of the world. (Berg, Exodus (Kabbalistic Bible), 62)

Unlike his brother Moses (Exodus 2:16-22, Numbers 12:1), Aaron marries a fellow Hebrew. But he does not marry someone from his own tribe of Levi. The marriage between Aaron and Elisheba unites two of Israel’s most prominent tribes, Judah and Levi.

William H.C. Propp (b. 1957) relates:

Eliheba is identified by both father and brother because these were an unmarried woman’s primary guardians, and perhaps because, in cases of polgyny, naming a brother in effect identified a woman’s mother. In light of the emphasis on Moses’ and Aaron’s pure Levitic ancestry, it is surprising that Aaron should marry a Judahite (cf. Numbers 1:7, etc.). But Elisheba is the daughter and sister of David’s ancestors Amminadad and Nahshon (Ruth 4:20-22; I Chronicles 2:10-15). The tradition may reflect close ties between the royal house of David and the Jerusalem priesthood (Richard Elliott Friedman [b. 1946] 1987:213). (Propp, Exodus 1-18 (Anchor Bible), 279)

Michele Clark Jenkins (b. 1954) pronounces:

Elisheba is mentioned in Scripture to tell of the marriage union of the Levites with the tribe of Judah. Her husband, Aaron, was a Levitical priest. The priests could not inherit nor leave an inheritance. However, Levites could intermarry with women from other tribes because there would be no confusion regarding inheritances, particularly the allocation of land that God had made to each tribe. (Jenkins, She Speaks: Wisdom From the Women of the Bible to the Modern Black Woman, 63)

Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1952) reviews:

Exodus 6:23 tell us that Aaron does not marry a fellow Levite(ss), but instead marries Elisheba/Elizabeth. Her father is Amminadab, and her brother is Nashshon (a name meaning “snakelike” [the Hebrew word nāhāš, “serpent/snake,” as in Genesis 3 [Genesis 3:1, 2, 4, 13, 14], and -ôn, a characterizing affix]). Both her father and her brother are links in the line of from Judah to David and to Jesus (Ruth 4:20; I Chronicles 2:10-11; Matthew 1:4; Luke 3:32-33). Her brother, Nahshon, is the individual from the tribe of Judah who assists Moses in taking the census (Numbers 1:7). That means that the Levitical priest Aaron is married to a Judahite and that the second generation of high priests comes from mixed tribal groups, Levitical and Judahite. Thus, in the ancestry of Jesus Christ, our High Priest and King of kings, there is an interesting mixture of Levi and Judah. (Hamilton, Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary, 109)

The union of the priestly tribe of Levi with the royal tribe of Judah in the life of Aaron and Elisheba (Exodus 6:23) foreshadows their perfect union in the life of Jesus. It proves to be an unbeatable combination.

Is Aaron’s and Elisheba’s union politically motivated? How important is it to be familiar with a potential spouse’s family before consenting to marriage? Where else do the roles of king and priest overlap? When have two famous families merged? When have you seen a marriage in which the whole was greater than the sum of its parts? What is the most effective combination of people or things of which you are aware?

“Love is a partnership of two unique people who bring out the very best in each other, and who know that even though they are wonderful as individuals, they are even better together.” - Barbara Cage

King Solomon’s Wives (I Kings 11:3)

How many wives did Solomon have? Seven hundred (I Kings 11:3)

Known as the wisest man on the planet (I Kings 4:30), King Solomon is a successful ruler. The holdings of Israel’s kingdom reach their apex during his reign (I Kings 10:14-29). The modern adage “Go big or go home” would have been an apt motto for the ancient monarch as he seemingly accrues everything in warehouse club portions. In addition to wisdom and commodities, Solomon amasses an abundance of women: seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines (I Kings 11:3).

He [Solomon] had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines, and his wives turned his heart away. (I Kings 11:3 NASB)

The number of Solomon’ wives is fantastic. Douglas Sean O’Donnell (b. 1972) relays:

In Mark Twain [1835-1910]’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Huck says to Jim that Solomon “had about a million wives.” A slight exaggeration—Solomon only had 700 wives and 300 concubines. He had a thousand, not a million (but still large enough!). (O’Donnell, The Song of Solomon: An Invitation to Intimacy (Preaching the Word), 130)

Not surprisingly, Solomon and his wives have become fodder for humor. A.J. Jacobs (b. 1968) gibes:

Solomon holds the record with seven hundred wives...Solomon’s proverbs warn against adultery [Proverbs 2:16-19, 5:1-23, 6:24-29, 32, 7:5-23, 9:13-18, 22:14, 23:27, 30:20], which I find curious, since I can’t imagine he had any time or energy for other men’s wives. (Jacobs, The Year of Living Biblically: One Man's Humble Quest to Follow the Bible as Possible, 135)

Andy Stanley (b. 1958) exclaims:

Seven hundred wives! Think about that. Seven hundred mothers-in-law. What was he thinking? Apparently he wasn’t. (Stanley, The Principle of the Path: How to Get from Where You Are to Where You Want to Be, 92)

The note itself falls awkwardly into the narrative as it does not fit comfortably into its present context (I Kings 11:3). Percy S. F. Van Keulen (b. 1963) scrutinizes:

The position of the note in I Kings 11:3a is awkward. Materially, this note links up with the remark of I Kings 11:1 that Solomon loved many women. Its belated appearance at I Kings 11:3a is due to the circumstance that first the issue of the alien origin of Solomon’s wives is dealt with in I Kings 11:1b and I Kings 11:2. However, at I Kings 11:3a the note interrupts the logical sequence between I Kings 11:2b and I Kings 11:3b; the latter verse notes the fulfillment of the prediction made at I Kings 11:2b that foreign nations could turn the heart of the Israelites away behind their gods. (Van Keulen, Two Versions Of The Solomon Narrative: An Inquiry Into The Relationship between MT 1 Kgs. 2-11 and LXX 3 Reg. 2-11, 208)

The Septuagint reorganizes the passage to accentuate the bevy of marriages. Marvin A. Sweeney (b. 1953) footnotes:

The Septuagint...rearranges I Kings 11:1-3 to emphasize Solomon’s many wives followed by his love for foreign women and apostasy: “And King Solomon was a lover of women. And he had seven hundred royal wives and three hundred concubines. And he took Gentile women, and the daughter of Pharaoh, Moabites, Ammonites, Syrians, and Idumeans, Hittites and Amorites, of the nations concerning which the L-rd said to the sons of Israel ‘You shall not go into them, and they shall not come in to you, lest they turn away your hearts after their idols.’ To them, Solomon clung in love” (see Heinrich Hrozný [1879-1952], Die Abweichungen des Codex Vaticanus vom hebräischen Texte in den Königsbüchern 70-72; Gottfried Vanoni [1948-2006] 24-57). (Sweeney, I & II Kings: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 153)

Solomon is said to have seven hundred “wives” (ASV, CEV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV) or “women” (MSG). These are distinguished from his additional three hundred concubines (I Kings 11:3).

The sheer volume is staggering. Solomon tends to do everything extravagantly and marriage is evidently no different. He has far more wives than anyone else in the Bible.

Gene Rice (b. 1925) compares:

As Solomon’s building program, wealth, and fame were on a grand scale, so was his harem. Seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines are not unprecedented [I Kings 11:3], but never before or after did an Israelite king have so many wives. The next largest harem was Rehoboam’s eighteen wives and sixty concubines (II Chronicles 11:21). David had at least eight wives (II Samuel 3:2-5, 5:13-16, 11:27; I Chronicles 3:1-9) and some ten or more concubines (II Samuel 15:16). Only one of David’s wives in known to have been a foreigner (II Samuel 13:37; I Chronicles 3:2). (Rice, 1 Kings: Nations Under God (International Theological Commentary), 86)

Steven Weitzman (b. 1965) illustrates:

It would seem that Solomon conducted his sex life on the same unmatchable scale that he did everything else...In fact, it is scarcely possible to conceive a sex life on this scale. In 1921 the Yiddish writer David Pinski [1872-1959] tried, undertaking an audacious attempt to describe all 1,000 of Solomon’s wives, but though he worked for fifteen years he managed to complete portraits of only 105; there were just too many to handle—and he was merely writing about them. Solomon seems to do everything in multiples of thousands—40,000 stalls for his horses [I Kings 4:26], 180,000 laborers to build the Temple [I Kings 5:13-16]; a sacrifice consisting of 22,000 oxen and 120,000 sheep [I Kings 8:63; II Chronicles 7:5]—but no figure in I Kings has impressed itself on the imagination, or strains it, quite like the king’s 700 wives and 300 concubines. (Weitzman, Solomon: The Lure of Wisdom, 150-51)

Given the outlandish figure, many have seen the record as employing hyperbole. Iain W. Provan (b. 1957) considers:

Not for the first time in the Solomon story (cf., e.g., I Kings 4:26), we may suspect that the number (a round 1000) is not meant to be taken literally. The point is that everything Solomon did, he did in a big way! Song of Solomon 6:8-9 contrasts the one true love of the king (Pharaoh’s daughter? cf. Victor Sasson [b.1937], “King Solomon and the Dark Lady in the Song of Songs,” Vetus Testamentum 39 [1989], pp. 407-14) with his 60 queens and 80 concubines—a more modest number, though not in itself unimpressive, particularly when combined with “virgins beyond number [Song of Solomon 6:8].” (Provan, 1 and 2 Kings (New International Biblical Commentary), 93)

Volkmar Fritz (1938-2007) discounts:

The number of Solomon’s wives is said to be one thousand; as usual, this is probably an exaggeration, and the number has no significance for the course of the narrative. It only matters that his love for the women causes Solomon’s heart to turn away from Yahweh as the only God [I Kings 11:3-8]. The Deuteronomistic Historian firmly roots Solomon’s idolatry in his biography. (Fritz, 1 & 2 Kings (A Continental Commentary), 131)

Linda S. Schearing (b. 1947) pronounces:

His alleged marriages to 700 foreign princesses...is considered historical by some in spite of I Kings 11:3’s obvious hyperbole and literary function...John Gray [1913-2000], 1 & 2 Kings, pp. 274-75, for example, asserts that although “historical fact has been magnified and stylized” in I Kings 11:3, there is still a “historical basis” to Solomon’s diverse harem; while John Barclay Burns [b. 1943], “Solomon’s Egyptian Horses and Exotic Wives,” Foundations & Facts Forum 7 (1991) 33, admits that the “exaggerated numbers of wives and concubines would not have appeared in any formal chronicle” yet goes on to argue that “nonetheless, it is conceivable that Solomon wed foreign princesses to weave a strong web of alliances.” (Lowell K. Handy [b. 1949], “A Wealth of Women: Looking Behind, Within and Beyond Solomon’s Story”, The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium, 436)

Not all agree that the number is figurative. Russell H. Dilday (b. 1930) defends:

While the daughter of Pharaoh held a special position as the number one wife of the king, I Kings 11:3 tells us that Solomon also had 699 other wives as well as 300 concubines. The fact that this number far exceeds the typical harems of other contemporary monarchs should not cause a problem with credibility, since Solomon diligently competed to exceed the other nations in every way. He had accumulated greater wealth, wisdom, and power than all others; and since virility was supposed to be an indicator of royal greatness in that day, he wanted to surpass them in this category too. Some interpreters who doubt the accuracy of the number in I Kings 11:3 point out that in the Song of Solomon 6:8 Solomon speaks of only “sixty queens and eighty concubines and virgins without number.” But the supposed discrepancy can be explained by the fact that the “virgins without number” could have brought the total to a thousand. It can also be explained by reckoning that the number listed in the Song of Solomon may have come earlier in Solomon’s reign before he had accumulated the full number in this chapter. (Dilday, 1, 2 Kings (Mastering the Old Testament), 131)

There are parallels to Solomon’s polygamy in other cultures. John Monson (b. 1963) correlates:

In addition to being a status symbol, the royal harem maintained close ties to Solomon’s constituents through marriage into families of varying clans, tribes, and social classes, including wives of higher status who were counted among the royalty. Counting royal women by the hundreds was not unusual during the Iron Age. Assyrian wine lists from Nimrud indicate that as many as three hundred women of various ranks lived at that palace. Extensive harems produced a large pool of heirs to ensure the enduring strength of the dynasty. (John H. Walton [b. 1952], 1 & 2 Kings, 1 & 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary), 50)

Solomon is the poster child for polygamy. Surprisingly, polygamy is not explicitly outlawed in the Bible. The Torah does mandate that the king “shall not multiply wives for himself” (Deuteronomy 17:17 NASB) and the rabbis capped the number of marriages at eighteen (Mishnah Sanhedrin 2:4). The marriages themselves, however, are not the source of Solomon’s criticism.

Russell H. Dilday (b. 1930) comments:

Polygamy in ancient Israel was apparently permitted, even though it obviously contradicted God’s ideal of one man for one woman for life. Most of the biblical patriarchs had numerous wives. David had fifteen. Abijah had fourteen [II Chronicles 13:21]. Rehoboam, Solomon’s son, had eighteen wives and sixty concubines [II Chronicles 11:21]. So except for the unprecedented number, Solomon’s marital situation was not unusual for the historical period. (Dilday, 1, 2 Kings (Mastering the Old Testament), 131)

The harem was likely a source of pride for the king. Steven Weitzman (b. 1965) informs:

If the historical Solomon really did have a large harem, he was probably quite proud of it. Biblical family values allowed a man to have multiple wives and concubines (it was only in the Middle Ages that Jews embraced monogamy as the ideal), and a large family was considered a mark of virility, wealth, blessing—evidence that a man was favored by God. In the Kebra Nagast, the Ethiopian version of Solomon’s story, the king’s motive for marrying so many women is a pious one; he wants to fulfill God’s promise to Israel of many descendants more numerous than the stars in the sky [Genesis 15:5, 26:4; Exodus 32:13], and there seemed to him no better way to bring this about than to have sex with as many women as possible. (Weitzman, Solomon: The Lure of Wisdom, 151)

While polygamy is not expressly forbidden, intermarriage with those of other religions is (Deuteronomy 7:1-6). This tenet is also sustained in the New Testament where the apostle Paul instructs, “Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?” (II Corinthians 6:14 NASB).

Steven Weitzman (b. 1965) notices:

We are told virtually nothing about Solomon’s wives as individuals—only one is given a name, Naamah, the mother of Solomon’s successor Rehoboam, and only because she was the mother of a future king [I Kings 14:21, 31; II Chronicles 12:13]. What I Kings does make a point of revealing, however, is the ethnic background of these women—they were Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians, and Hittites [I Kings 11:1], non-Israelite peoples who lived within or on the borders of the land of Canaan—and that is what doomed Solomon’s marriages from the start. (Weitzman, Solomon: The Lure of Wisdom, 151-52)

Terence E. Fretheim (b. 1936) adds:

Solomon’s many foreign wives...provide the focus for the description of his unfaithfulness (I Kings 11:1-8). But it is not Solomon’s polygamy per se that centers the account, but disloyalty to God that follows therefrom. Deuteronomic law had prohibited marriage with the peoples of Canaan because of the danger of being led astray to serve other gods (Deuteronomy 7:3-4; see Exodus 34:16; Joshua 23:12-13). Such intermarriage, in fact, had taken place early in Israel’s life in the land (Judges 3:5-6). That law, paraphrased here (I Kings 11:2), is interpreted to apply to other non-Israelite peoples as well. (Fretheim, First and Second Kings (Westminster Bible Companion), 63)

Solomon, it appears, is exercising a loophole in Deuteronomy’s prohibition (Deuteronomy 7:1-6). Cameron B.R. Howard (b. 1980) observes:

Throughout Kings, the worship of foreign gods is repeatedly linked with the influence of foreign women. Solomon’s wives’ seductive powers extend outside the matrimonial realm to the religious, where they “turn his heart” to the gods of their homelands [I Kings 11:3, 4, 9]. According to I Kings 11:1, the peoples represented in Solomon’s marriages include Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians, and Hittites. Notably, this list does not correspond to the book of Deuteronomy’s injunction against intermarriage (Deuteronomy 7:1-6), even though the narrator seems to be invoking that prohibition. Marvin A. Sweeney [b. 1953] notes that Solomon’s list corresponds instead to alliances and conquests made by David, and that the invocation of Deuteronomic law was probably a later reaction to make Solomon’s actions fit it, rather than having composed Solomon’s list in light of the Deuteronomic prohibitions (Sweeney, 155). (Carol A. Newsom [b. 1950], Sharon H. Ringe [b. 1946] and Jacqueline E. Lapsley [b. 1965], Women’s Bible Commentary: Revised and Updated, 169)

Solomon certainly has a problem. Philip Graham Ryken (b. 1966) critiques:

How many women did he “love” [I Kings 11:1]? At least a thousand, which was a thousand times too many! The king was living so large that even his sin was super-sized: “He had 700 wives, princesses, and 300 concubines” (I Kings 11:3). (Ryken, King Solomon: The Temptations of Money, Sex, and Power, 176)

The Message paraphrases, “King Solomon was obsessed with women.” (I Kings 11:1 MSG). Gina Hens-Piazza (b. 1948) condemns:

The number of wives, “seven hundred princesses and three hundred concubines” (I Kings 11:3), even among ancient practices and even assuming some hyperbole, is unconscionable. It bespeaks an excess of one who has lost touch with reality and with relationships. Here, no prospect of human relationship or care exists. Women have been reduced to a commodity to exchange and possess. The iteration of his love for foreign women (I Kings 11:1-2) in such numbers does not convey intimate caring but a recalcitrant attachment to these women as possession and obsession. Moreover, the unimaginable number of wives coincides with behavior patterns well established through his lifetime. Excess has defined this king’s ambitions. (Hens-Piazza, 1-2 Kings (Abingdon Old Testament Commentary), 109)

Seven hundred wives would produce a logistical nightmare. This is seen in the fact that the wives remain nondescript, nameless and devoid of character. Stuart Lasine (b. 1945) attends:

In spite of his thousand wives and concubines, readers do not witness any illuminating exchanges between the king and his famous loves, as one is allowed to follow David’s interactions with Michal [I Samuel 19:11-17: II Samuel 6:16, 20-23; I Chronicles 15:29], Abigail [I Samuel 25:2-42], and Bathsheba [II Samuel 11:2-27; I Kings 1:11-31]. None of Solomon’s wives is said to love him as David was loved by Michal [I Samuel 18:20]. None pursues and flatters Solomon as did David’s wife-to-be Abigail [I Samuel 25:18-35]...In fact, of Solomon’s one thousand wives and concubines only Pharaoh’s daughter receives any attention at all in I Kings 3-11, and remarkably little is said about her or about Solomon’s alleged love for her [I Kings 3:1, 7:8, 9:16, 24, 11:1]. (Lowell K. Handy [b. 1949], “Solomon and the Wizard of Oz: Power and Invisibility in a Verbal Place”, The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium, 379-80)

Sadly, it is doubtful that Solomon had much more of a relationship with his wives than does the reader.

There is also implicit condemnation of Solomon’s serial polygamy. Adele Reinhartz (b. 1953) surmises:

The negative judgment of the narrator upon Solomon for loving foreign women, expressed explicitly in I Kings 11:1-3, is also conveyed by silence regarding the offspring of these unions. That there were offspring is indicated in the formulaic reference to Naamah the mother of Rehoboam (I Kings 15:21) and the naming of several daughters of Solomon who married his prefects (I Kings 4:11-15). This silence regarding Solomon’s offspring is emphasized by the reference to the son of his archenemy, King Hadad the Edomite (I Kings 11:14). In some respects, Hadad is the mirror image of Solomon. Like Solomon, he married a close relative of the Pharaoh, and an anonymous one at that (I Kings 11:19). But unlike Solomon, Hadad is portrayed as the father of a son, Genubath, borne of the Pharaoh’s sister-in-law and raised in the Pharaoh’s palace (I Kings 11:20). It is a mark of Solomon’s disgrace that his adversary is accorded the kind of conventional treatment by the narrator that Solomon himself is denied. (Reinhartz, ”Why Ask My Name?”: Anonymity and Identity in Biblical Narrative, 26)

The text categorically states that “his wives turned his heart away” (I Kings 11:3 NASB). They evidently exercised more influence on him than he them.

David C. Hopkins (b. 1952) accounts:

The narrative of Kings reports Solomon’s seven hundred princesses and three hundred concubines (I Kings 11:3) and suggests their influence upon their husband was both considerable and pernicious. Any influence in reverse escapes mention; the disproportionate numbers undoubtedly weighed against Solomon’s potential sway. (Lowell K. Handy [b. 1949], “The Weight of the Bronze Could Not Be Calculated: Solomon and Economic Reconstruction”, The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium, 301)

Seven hundred wives coupled with three hundred concubines is a formula for disaster. With one thousand women of varying religious affiliations it is not surprising that Solomon has divided loyalties. The text notes that the predicament finally gets the better of him in his old age, as if his senescence mitigates his fall (I Kings 11:4). He acquiesces and erects idols to placate his pagan wives (I Kings 11:4-8). In appeasing the women, he alienates God (I Kings 11:6). The king does what many do: he makes the mistake of tending to the interests of the immediate, temporal issues which surround him instead of the transcendent, eternal deity which sustains him.

What does the number of his wives say about Solomon (I Kings 11:3)? Is the mandate against intermarriage primarily a warning against foreign women or foreign gods (Deuteronomy 7:1-6)? Would you pursue a relationship with someone who practiced a different religion? What is the most spouses you have heard of someone having? What did you think of that person? Why does the Bible not expressly condemn polygamy? Are there any biblical instances where polygamy “works”? In addition to marriage partners, when is less more? Does Solomon have any influence on his wives? How much influence does your significant other have on you; how much do you exert over them? Who would it grieve you more to displease, your loved ones or God?

The note regarding King Solomon’s wives is a precursor to the account of the division of Israel’s kingdom in the next chapter (I Kings 12:1-24). I Kings 11:1-13 braces the reader for the fall of Solomon’s empire.

Volkmar Fritz (1938-2007) dissects:

The long narrative preparing the division of the empire is not a unified whole but was assembled from several single pieces to arrive at its current form. After giving the basic reasons for the events in Solomon’s wrong behavior in I Kings 11:1-13, the narrative moves on to depict Jeroboam as a renegade and unlawful usurper in I Kings 11:26, 40. (Fritz, 1 & 2 Kings (A Continental Commentary), 130)

August H. Konkel (b. 1948) classifies:

This section [I Kings 11:1-13] has been characterized as a theological review. It contains offenses and judgment statements that evaluate the king according to prophetic orthodoxy. The prophetic indictment is given as a word from Yahweh without any specification as to the occasion or manner in which that word is delivered. (Konkel, 1 & 2 Kings (NIV Application Commentary), 219)

Despite elevating Israel to unprecedented heights, the mighty king will fall. The seeds for this demise have long been evident. Lissa M. Wray Beal exposes:

The initial verses (I Kings 11:1-8) reveal Solomon’s heart and the reasons for YHWH’s judgment. With I Kings 3:1-3 they bracket Solomon’s narrative and negatively characterize the king. In Kings 3 Solomon marries Pharaoh’s daughter; the closing bracket now includes other foreign women. In I Kings 3:3 Solomon ‘loves’ YHWH; the only other place where Solomon ‘loves’ is in I Kings 11:1 – but now the ‘love’ is for these foreign women. In I Kings 3:1 the king’s intention to build the temple is mentioned...in I Kings 11:7-8 the temple project is denigrated as Solomon builds temples to foreign gods. Finally, I Kings 3:3 records the king’s positive attitude towards torah obedience, obedience explicitly compromised in I Kings 11:10. (Beal, 1 & 2 Kings (Apollos Old Testament Commentary), 168-69)

Terence E. Fretheim (b. 1936) concurs:

The narrative turns from Solomon’s love for the Lord (I Kings 3:3; see Deuteronomy 6:5), as God had loved him (II Samuel 12:24), to his love for his foreign wives (I Kings 11:1-2); these two references bracket the reign of Solomon. This is a love story gone awry. God’s continuing love does not overwhelm Solomon’s decision to turn his love toward that which is not God, to violate his own call for complete devotion to God (I Kings 8:61). (Fretheim, First and Second Kings (Westminster Bible Companion), 62)

Solomon’s plight is foreshadowed in the preceding chapter as well (I Kings 10:1-29). Peter J. Leithart (b. 1959) catalogs:

The praise for Solomon is not undiluted, since the narrator records that Solomon violates the laws of kingship by multiplying gold and weapons. Gold is mentioned some ten times in this chapter [I Kings 10:1-29]...Solomon has so much gold that he uses it for drinking vessels [I Kings 10:21] and for ceremonial shields [I Kings 10:16-17], and the abundance of gold drives the value of silver to nothing (I Kings 10:21). This seems a further encomium to Solomon, but Deuteronomy 17:14-17 specifically forbids Israel’s kings from multiplying gold and silver...Solomon also gathers horses and chariots [I Kings 10:25-29], again in violation of the rules of Deuteronomy 17:16, and even imports them from Egypt [I Kings 10:28], the very place that Israel was forbidden to go for horses and chariots. These violations prepare for the climactic violation in I Kings 11, the multiplication of wives, who seduce Solomon into idolatry [I Kings 11:1-13]. (Leithart, 1 & 2 Kings (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), 81)

In recounting Solomon’s reign, the text saves the worst for last. A. Graeme Auld (b. 1941) reveals:

The most trenchant criticism of Solomon is left to the end of the report. We have sensed at various points in the previous chapters an undertow of critique; but now it is on the surface and in the open. (Auld, I & II Kings (Daily Study Bible), 80)

J. Maxwell Miller (b. 1937) detaches:

I Kings 3-11 presents Solomon the faithful ruler who achieved the golden age, then I Kings 11 presents a later Solomon led astray by foreign wives and struggling to maintain the secularity of his kingdom. This is an artificial arrangement; the compilers separated out and placed at the end of Solomon’s reign the items which conflicted with their notion of an ideal Solomonic era. (Lowell K. Handy [b. 1949], “Separating the Solomon of History from the Solomon of Legend”, The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium, 16)

Paul S. Evans concurs:

Beginning in I Kings 10:26 there is a clear bent to present Solomon’s shortcomings. Describing his direct violations of the law regarding chariots (from Egypt no less—explicitly forbidden in Deuteronomy 17:16) and amassing of wealth (forbidden in Deuteronomy 17:17). This undercurrent of negativity in this otherwise lionizing description of Solomon has been noted by many. See Richard D. Nelson [b. 1945], First and Second Kings (Atlanta: John Knox, 1987), 66-67; and Jerome T. Walsh [b. 1942], I Kings (editor David W. Cotter; Collegeville, Minnesota; Liturgical, 1996), 137-38. This aspect is surprisingly overlooked by many. E.g., Burke O. Long [b. 1938] (1 Kings, 120) notes this section’s intention as to “glorify Solomon” and does not note the overt (or subtle) critique when read in light of Deuteronomy 17. Curiously, Martin J. Mulder [1923-1994] (1 Kings [Historical Commentary on the Old Testament; translator John Vriend [1925-2002]; Leuven; Belgium: Peeters, 1999], 542) notes the Deuteronomy 17:17 connection only to support the idea that “Egypt was famous for its horses.” (Evans, The Invasion of Sennacherib in the Book of Kings: A Source-Critical and Rhetorical Study of 2 Kings 18-19, 149)

Israel Finkelstein (b. 1949) and Neil Asher Silberman (b. 1950) characterize:

The Biblical Solomon is haunted by a great contradiction. In I Kings 3-10, he is the great successor of David, a larger-than-life ruler who builds the Temple in Jerusalem and who provides the standards of wisdom and opulence that countless later kings would attempt to achieve. Yet in I Kings 11:1-13 he is little more than a senile apostate, who is led astray by the charms of his many foreign wives. (Finkelstein and Silberman, David and Solomon: In Search of the Bible’s Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition, 179)

The downfall of a nation in conjunction with an idolatrous queen will recur in I Kings. Cameron B.R. Howard (b. 1980) studies:

Taking on a sardonic tone, the narrator remarks of Ahab, “And as if it had been a light thing for him to walk in the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat, he took as his wife Jezebel daughter of King Ethbaal of the Sidonians, and went and served Baal, and worshiped him.” [I Kings 16:31] The marriage was surely a political move, creating an alliance with the Sidonians, that is, the Phoenicians, whose kingdom was just north of Israel. Solomon had employed the same strategy hundreds of times, to the disdain of YHWH and the Deuteronomists, though with great political effect. In the eyes of the narrator, it is as if Jezebel herself is capable of more harm than Solomon’s seven hundred foreign wives and three hundred concubines put together. (Carol A. Newsom [b. 1950], Sharon H. Ringe [b. 1946] and Jacqueline E. Lapsley [b. 1965], Women’s Bible Commentary: Revised and Updated, 172)

Despite the influence of his pagan wives, when Solomon’s kingdom falls, Solomon himself is to blame. Gary N. Knoppers (b. 1956) clarifies:

One may observe that the topos of mixed marriages explains a reversal in the course of Solomonic rule, but it does not excuse it. Solomon’s foreign wives catalyze his decline, but YHWH becomes enraged with Solomon and not his wives, “because he turned...his heart from YHWH, the God of Israel” (I Kings 11:9). Similarly, the judgment oracle of I Kings 11:11-13 accuses Solomon and not his wives, of malfeasance. The refusal to excuse Solomon underscores the force of the prohibitions he violates. In his dotage (I Kings 11:4) Solomon flounders because he flouts established divine commands. Under the rule of law even one of Israel’s most distinguished monarchs can be judged and found wanting. (Lowell K. Handy [b. 1949], “Solomon’s Fall and Deuteronomy”, The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium, 398)

John W. Olley (b. 1938) examines:

According to the practices of the ancient Near East all was praiseworthy, showing a mastery of international politics and diplomacy...The biblical writer however saw a sign of weakness and failure for it contradicted the Deuteronomic warning (Deuteronomy 7:1-6). It could be said that Solomon trusted in political alliances, sealed by marriages, rather than wholeheartedly in Yahweh, a negation of “be strong” of I Kings 2:2-3. In fact, the warning became reality as his wives turned his heart after other gods (I Kings 11:4). While this statement has been read as blaming the wives, just as Adam blamed Eve (Genesis 3:12), God places the responsibility squarely with Solomon (I Kings 11:9-10; cf. Genesis 3:17-19). (Olley, The Message of Kings (Bible Speaks Today), 115-16)

Solomon is clearly not discriminating in his marriages and various explanations have been posited for his excessive polygamy. Gerhard Langer (b. 1960) recounts:

Rabbi Jose ben Halafta [second century CE] (Canticles Rabbah 1.1.10) is of the opinion that Solomon took these women in order to win them for the Lord, to convert them to the true faith. Other Rabbis opine that Solomon was seduced to sin and sexual deviance. According to Rabbi Eleazer ben Rabbi Jose ha Gelili [second century CE] , Solomon had intercourse with these women during their menstruation period. (Joseph Verheyden [b. 1957], “Solomon in Rabbinic Literature”, The Figure of Solomon in Jewish, Christian and Islamic Tradition: King, Sage and Architect, 130)

Though he is said to have “loved many foreign women” (I Kings 11:1 NASB), many assume that there are political motivations behind Solomon’s marriages. Richard D. Patterson (b. 1929) and Hermann J. Austel (1926-2011) suspect:

Though Solomon may originally have taken foreign wives for the cementing of diplomatic alliances, I Kings 11:2 states that he “held fast to them in love.” This speaks of strong emotional attachment, which is normal and desirable in a husband. But because Solomon was attached to the wrong women, he was led astray. The seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines, though perhaps adding to the splendor of Solomon’s kingdom, were his downfall. (Tremper Longman III [b. 1952] and David E. Garland [b. 1947], 1 Samuel ~2 Kings (Expositor’s Bible Commentary), 728-29)

Richard D. Nelson (b. 1945) appraises:

What the modern reader may see as the necessary political reality of intermarriage between allied royal families and what the ancient person would have normally interpreted as a witness to Solomon’s glorious potency as a ruler (cf. I Kings 11:4), the narrator evaluates single-mindedly as a violation of the law of God (Deuteronomy 7:3-4). It is not the fantastic number of these wives which is presented as the problem; it is their nationality and religion and Solomon’s accommodation to it. Even though Solomon himself did not worship their gods (I Kings 11:8b, note the plural), it was enough that he had been lured into building places of sacrifice for them. Just as the construction of the temple is presented as the acme of his piety, so these high places are sufficient evidence that “his heart was not wholly true to Yahweh his God” (I Kings 11:4). (Nelson, First and Second Kings (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 69-70)

Gina Hens-Piazza (b. 1948) supports:

The choice Solomon made again and again over the course of his life is clear. The final assessment that unfolds in these verses (I Kings 11:1-8) is less about breaking one law of Deuteronomy as it is about his repeated choices that now culminate in comprehensive waywardness. Polygamy itself is not the issue. That was a common and accepted practice in the ancient world. Failure to trust in the Lord is the crime here. The involvement with women from Egyptian, Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian, and Hittite kingdoms indicts Solomon. Such intermarriages grew out of international alliances and treaties by which nations secured themselves before enemy threats. Solomon’s guilt lies in placing his trust in the power of others rather than in God. (Hens-Piazza, 1-2 Kings (Abingdon Old Testament Commentary), 108-09)

Though Solomon’s many lovers facilitate his downfall, the fact that he enters into these unions is evidence of his proneness. His political allegiances demonstrate a lack of trust in God. Like Adam who is with Eve when partaking of Eden’s forbidden fruit (Genesis 3:6), the great king is culpable in his kingdoms demise despite his wives’ influence. The root of the problem lies in Solomon, not the women or their gods. God is to be his true love and as such, all of the women and idols become little more than “the other woman”.

Where is Solomon’s legendary wisdom when consenting to his marriages? When have you seen the worst of a person revealed at the end of her life; when has the worst been saved for last? Who is most to blame for the fall of the united kingdom of Israel? Who do you know whose downfall was closely connected to the opposite sex? Do you most rely upon divine guidance or human ingenuity? Where does God rank among your loves?

“I found out a long time ago
What a woman can do to your soul
Oh, but she can’t take you any way,
You don’t already know how to go.”
- The Eagles, “Peaceful Easy Feeling” (1972)

Boaz’s Shoe Deal (Ruth 4:8)

To seal a contract, a man took off something and gave it to the other person. What was this? His shoe [sandal] (Ruth 4:8)

According to the custom of the day, before Boaz could legally marry Ruth he needed to get a release from a nearer related kinsman, known as a “guardian-redeemer”or “kinsman-redeemer” (Ruth 3:12-13). Even after this unnamed man decided that it was not financially viable for him to redeem Ruth (Ruth 4:1-6), to make the process legal, Boaz needed to seal the deal with a strange ritual. In a tradition that is perhaps comparable to the modern spit handshake or pinky swear, a shoe was removed and exchanged to ratify the agreement (Ruth 4:7-8).

Now this was the custom in former times in Israel concerning the redemption and the exchange of land to confirm any matter: a man removed his sandal and gave it to another; and this was the manner of attestation in Israel. (Ruth 4:7 NASB)

After this procedure was followed (Ruth 4:8), every bond was broken between the kinsman redeemer and Ruth and consequently Boaz was legally free to marry her (Ruth 4:9-10).

The fact that the author described the custom in an aside to the reader indicates that this means of authentication was as foreign to the original readers as it is to its contemporary counterparts.

Kirsten Nielsen (b. 1943) explains:

In order to follow the course of events the reader must be told that there was a particular custom linked to the closing of an agreement in ancient Israel. The custom...is clearly no longer in use, but the audience is to understand that at the time it was legally binding. (Nielsen, Ruth: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 82).

The text is ambiguous regarding exactly which party removed their na`al, which is translated both generically as “shoe” (ASV, KJV, MSG) and specifically as “sandal” CEV, ESV, HCSB, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV).

André Lacocque (b. 1927) describes:

The sandal...in question here derives from the Hebrew root...which means “locked” (closed with a strap), as in Song of Solomon 4:12. Here, and there, one can see an erotic allusion, which is also not absent from Deuteronomy 25:5-10...“The shoe is namely a symbol of the law, of judicial process. Already in ancient Egypt, the sandal was the symbol of power, authority.” (Lacocque, Ruth: A Continental Commentary, 133)

Many have read this exchange through the lens of levirate marriage, a mandate by which a brother of a deceased man was obligated to marry his brother’s widow in hopes of continuing the dead brother’s line (Deuteronomy 25:5-10). Tod Linafelt (b. 1965) writes that “one cannot overlook the resonance of this sandal ceremony with the strikingly similar ceremony in the context of levirate marriage (Linafelt and Beal, Ruth and Esther (Berit Olam: Studies In Hebrew Narrative And Poetry), 71).”

If a man refused a levirate marriage, the woman was to pull the sandal off of his foot and spit in his face (Deuteronomy 25:9)! As such, some have seen the kinsman-redeemer as disgracing Ruth.

Victor H. Matthews (b. 1950) counters:

There is no sense in this passage that the next of kin is humiliated by this exchange. Having been presented with the economic factors involved in redeeming the field and acquiring the responsibility for Ruth, he makes a business decision not to accept this responsibility. Although this is a public declaration, it does not appear to damage his social standing. It merely gives Boaz the legal right to step in as redeemer. (Matthews, Judges and Ruth (New Cambridge Bible Commentary), 240)

For the kinsman-redeemer, the business of marriage was all business. Perhaps this is why Boaz went to great lengths to ensure that his union with Ruth was legitimate and properly documented (Ruth 4:1-12).

How do we seal contracts today? What unique customs do Americans follow that might seem strange to outsiders? How are modern marriage contracts ratified? Have you ever questioned these practices (e.g. the marriage license, wedding ceremony, etc.)? Why did the terms of this contract “have to be the shoes”?

In her book Jews and Shoes, Edna Nahshon writes

the ceremonial nature of the transaction makes it clear that the shoe was not used as a barter in a quid pro quo exchange but in a legal/symbolic capacity. Some scholars...link the shoe scene with an Arab form of divorce in which the male removes his shoe and declares “She [the wife] was my slipper; I have cast her off,” and to the Arabic use of na’l (shoe) in the sense of “wife of the husband”...Jacob Nacht [1873-1959], writing in 1915, cites a shoe ceremony practiced among some of the Jews then living in Palestine where it was customary for the bridegroom to send a shoemaker to the bride’s house to prepare shoes for the bride and female family members, this indicating that a date for the wedding had been set. (Nahshon, Jews and Shoes, 4-5)

Robert L. Hubbard Jr. (b. 1943) adds:

In the Old Testament “feet” and “shoes” symbolized power, possession, and domination (Joshua 10:24, Psalm 8:6, 60:8, 108:9). When Moses removed his shoes (Exodus 3:5; cf. Joshua 5:15), he acknowledged Yahweh’s lordship; when David walked barefoot, he showed his powerlessness and humiliation (II Samuel 15:30; cf. Isaiah 20:2-4; Ezekiel 24:17, 23). Feet and shoes also played symbolic roles in ancient property transactions. According to the Nuzi texts, for example, to validate a transfer of real estate the old owner would lift up his foot from the property and place the new owner’s foot on it. In the Old Testament, to “set foot” on the land was associated with ownership of it (Deuteronomy 1:36, 11:24; Joshua 1:3, 14:9). Therefore, the sandal transfer in Ruth 4:7 may be a symbolic offspring of such ancient customs. If so, the practice had come a long way: originally associated with transfers of land ownership, in Israel the custom had become a symbol for other transactions as well. (Hubbard, The Book of Ruth (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), 251)

Though the practice seems strange, the theoretical framework is not entirely different from modern contracts. In his legal textbook, The Idea of Private Law, Ernest J. Weinrib (b. 1943) writes, “The external nature of action implies a world of shared social meanings...in order to appropriate a person will perform the act that signifies appropriation in that person’s society: in one society the act may be the shoe’s stepping, in another the hand’s seizure or the laying on of a spear (Weinrib, The Idea of Private Law, 104).”

The process worked and Ruth and Boaz became a happy legally married couple (Ruth 4:13) because all of the parties involved agreed to the terms of the shoe deal. It was not the shoes, it was the shared social meaning.

If you had to seal a contract by the exchange of one common item, what would it be? How important is it to you that you are or will be legally married? Is the marriage contract a public or private issue?

“Love is a feeling, marriage is a contract, and relationships are work.” - Lori Heyman Gordon (b. 1929), marriage and family therapist

Marry Gomer, Feel God’s Pain (Hosea 1:3)

Who married Gomer, daughter of Diblaim? Hosea

Hosea was among the first writing prophets and the book bearing his name is the first of the twelve minor prophets canonized in the Bible. The Talmud claims that he was the greatest prophet of his generation (the eighth century BCE), an era which also included Isaiah (Pesachim 87A). Though he addressed Judah, Hosea was primarily concerned with the condition of the northern kingdom of Israel (whom he calls “Ephraim” 26 times) and the threat of a disaster that silently approached. (The Assyrians would eradicate the northern kingdom in 722 BCE). Though the book primarily denounces Israel for apostasy and warns of pending judgment, it also contains a promise of restoration (Hosea 3:4-5; 14:4-7). The book, however, is best known for the story of Hosea’s unstable marriage to the harlot, Gomer (Hosea 1-3).

Uncharacteristically, when the word of the Lord first came to Hosea, it was not to give him a message to relay but a personal instruction to marry a harlot (zanah). (I am betting this took him by surprise.) The command reads, “Go, take to yourself a wife of harlotry and have children of harlotry; for the land commits flagrant harlotry, forsaking the LORD (Hosea 1:2 NASB).” As such, Hosea’s first act as prophet was to marry a prostitute. (Pretty Woman stole its plot line from God.) God did not specify which harlot he was to marry but Hosea did as he was commanded and married Gomer, daughter of Diblaim (Hosea 1:3). (I wonder how Hosea expressed why he was interested in her...) The marriage produced three children all adorned with names that served as status updates regarding God’s relationship with Israel: Jezreel - “God sows” (Hosea 1:4-5), Lo-ruhamah - “No compassion” (Hosea 1:6-7) and Lo-ammi - “Not my people” (1:8-9). It has been suggested that the paternity of the two youngest children was questionable (Hosea 2:4). Despite God being so involved in his love story, Hosea is not mentioned once in Eric Ludy (b. 1970) and Leslie Ludy (b. 1975)’s When God Writes Your Love Story: The Ultimate Guide to Guy/Girl Relationships...

Have any other notable people married prostitutes? Why did God ask Hosea to do this? How do we explain God’s commanding his prophet to marry someone with whom he is “unequally yoked” (II Corinthians 6:14)? Have you or anyone you know ever felt called to marry a specific person or someone from a particular profession? When have you felt led by God to do something you did not want to?

Hosea used his own marital experience as a symbolic representation of God and Israel. In doing so, Hosea is believed to be the first prophet to use marriage as a metaphor for the covenant between God and Israel. The theme would recur in the work of later prophets (Isaiah 62:5; Jeremiah 3:8). Like Hosea, Jeremiah’s own marriage was scripted by God, but in his case the command was to not marry (Jeremiah 16:2).

Hosea’s first three chapters are devoted to the prophet’s marriage to the prostitute, alternating between his personal narrative and how those events paralleled God’s relationship to the nation with God portraying the dutiful husband and Israel the unfaithful wife. Hosea’s home life reflected the adulterous relationship which Israel had built with polytheistic gods and Hosea could truly empathize with the deity for whom he spoke. Through his marriage, Hosea could feels God’s pain.

Like Hosea’s selection of Gomer, God had contracted with an unreliable partner when he selected Abraham and his descendants. Even though Gomer ran away from Hosea and partnered with another man, he continued to seek her redemption (Hosea 3:1). Likewise, God had also refused to break covenant with Israel in spite of the nation worshiping other gods (Hosea 2:23, 3:1). Hosea manifested God’s love and patience for as the prophet searched for his wayward wife, found her and restored her, God would also not abandon Israel (Hosea 3:1-5). As such, the prophecy of Hosea is foremost concerned with God’s unending love towards a sinful people.

In what ways is marriage like one’s relationship to God? In what ways can you relate to Hosea? What does the fact that God would instruct Hosea to marry an unfaithful woman (and presumably make him miserable) say about the intent of marriage?

“The real purpose of marriage may not be happiness as much as it is holiness. Not that God has anything against happiness, or that happiness and holiness are by nature mutually exclusive, but looking at marriage through the lens of holiness began to put it into an entirely new perspective for me.” - Gary L. Thomas (b. 1961), Sacred Marriage: What if God Designed Marriage to Make Us Holy More Than to Make Us Happy, pp. 22-23