Author: Christopher R Smith

The Rev. Dr. Christopher R. Smith is an an ordained minister, a writer, and a biblical scholar. He was active in parish and student ministry for twenty-five years. He was a consulting editor to the International Bible Society (now Biblica) for The Books of the Bible, an edition of the New International Version (NIV) that presents the biblical books according to their natural literary outlines, without chapters and verses. His Understanding the Books of the Bible study guide series is keyed to this format. He was also a consultant to Tyndale House for the Immerse Bible, an edition of the New Living Translation (NLT) that similarly presents the Scriptures in their natural literary forms, without chapters and verses or section headings. He has a B.A. from Harvard in English and American Literature and Language, a Master of Arts in Theological Studies from Gordon-Conwell, and a Ph.D. in the History of Christian Life and Thought, with a minor concentration in Bible, from Boston College, in the joint program with Andover Newton Theological School.

Does Jesus live in all humans?

Q. There are numerous quotes in the New Testament that state that Christ lives in us. But they all seem to predicate this on a belief in Jesus. But if we are all children of God, doesn’t God (and, therefore, Jesus) live in all humans, believers and unbelievers alike?

I would say that in one sense Jesus lives in everyone, but that Jesus lives in another sense only in those who believe in him and trust him for salvation.

Christian theology recognizes that God is paradoxically both transcendent and immanent. That means that while God is a being separate from what he created (Christianity is not pantheistic), God is also present within his creation, including in the people he created. The New Testament affirms this. Paul told the Athenians, for example, “He is not far from any one of us,” and then he quoted the Greek poet Epimenides, “In him we live and move and have our being.” Paul wrote to the Colossians that the church of Christ is “his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.” I will comment on the first part of that statement shortly, but in the second part of it, Paul is saying that Christ “fills all in all.” English versions express the meaning of that by saying things such as that he “fills everything in every way” or that he “fills everything everywhere with himself.” So Christ does live in all humans immanently.

However, the New Testament seems to distinguish a different sense in which Christ lives specifically in those who believe in him. Paul wrote to the Galatians, “I have been crucified with Christ; nevertheless, I live, yet not I, but Christ lives in me, and the life that I now live in the flesh, I live by the faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.” We see here that Christ living in a person in this sense is the result of that person surrendering his life to Christ. The idea is similar in what Paul wrote to the Corinthians: “Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test?” The clear implication is that if people are “in the faith,” then Christ lives in them in this sense, but not otherwise.

So what is the sense—different from the immanent sense in which Christ lives in everyone—in which Christ lives in believers? I would say that it is a relational sense. Paul wrote to the Philippians that his goal was “that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith—that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, if by any means I may attain the resurrection from the dead.” It seems that Paul equates “being found in Christ” (which I would say is comparable with Christ living in him) with “knowing him.” I think he means close personal fellowship. Jesus himself used this same image for belief in the message he gave John for the Laodicean church: “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.” I think it is in this sense that Paul tells the Colossians that the church is the “body” and the “fullness” of Christ. It is the human community that he inhabits in the fullest way.

So I would say that while it is true that Christ lives in everyone in an immanent sense, Christ lives only in believers in a relational sense.

Was John taken up to heaven to witness the visions of Revelation?

Q. Revelation 4:2 says John was “in the Spirit.” Does it mean that the Spirit descended on him, or was he taken up into heaven to witness the vision?

That is an excellent question, but we don’t really know the answer to it. John’s experience seems very similar to one that the apostle Paul had. Speaking of himself as “a man in Christ,” here is what Paul said about his experience:

I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body, I do not know, God knows. And I know that this man was caught up into paradise—whether in the body or out of the body, I do not know, God knows— and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter.

So it seems that even people who have such experiences aren’t sure whether they were physically brought up into heaven or whether they saw into heaven in a vision. John’s experience seems similar, in that he reports seeing things in heaven firsthand and even being told not to relate some of them. (“When the seven thunders had sounded, I was about to write, but I heard a voice from heaven saying, ‘Seal up what the seven thunders have said, and do not write it down.’”) Here is how John relates the beginning of his own heavenly vision:

After this I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven! And the first voice, which I had heard speaking to me like a trumpet, said, “Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this.” At once I was in the Spirit, and behold, a throne stood in heaven, with one seated on the throne.

So should we place the emphasis on “Come up here,” and understand that John was brought into heaven? Or should we place the emphasis on “I will show you” and “behold,” and understand that John saw these things in a vision? Personally I think we don’t have a clear answer, any more than we do in the case of Paul (or that even Paul himself did). So I conclude that perhaps this isn’t the most important thing for us to understand. What we should understand is that, “whether in the body or out of the body,” John was shown the spiritual workings behind the events of his day so that he could give a clear warning to the believers of his time not to compromise with the emerging cult of emperor worship. In ways that interpreters work hard to understand, John’s warnings also speak to believers throughout history and at the end of history.

It is true that John introduces his heavenly vision by saying that he was “in the Spirit,” but this is not the only place in the book where he says that. To introduce his very first vision, of Jesus exalted in power and glory, he tells his readers that he was “on the island called Patmos” and that he was “in the Spirit on the Lord’s day.” So “in the Spirit” does not seems to be a phrase that indicates being caught up into heaven. Rather, it seems to describe, as you suggest, the Holy Spirit’s special presence with John in order to convey spiritual visions and understanding.

As I discuss in my study guide to Revelation, John uses the phrase “in the Spirit” twice more, and the phrase seems to mark off the major sections of the book of Revelation. This too suggests that we should not understand the phrase to mean “carried off by the Spirit,” but rather something like “inspired by the Spirit.” I hope these thoughts are helpful to you.

Why does 1 Kings say that only the tablets were in the ark when Hebrews says it contained other things?

Q. The author of Hebrews, speaking of the ark of the covenant, says, “in which was a golden urn holding the manna, and Aaron’s staff that budded, and the tablets of the covenant.” However, when they brought the ark of the covenant into Jerusalem and finally to the temple, in 1 Kings 8:9 we read, “There was nothing in the ark except the two tablets of stone that Moses put there.” Everything regarding the tabernacle is so exacting (holy) that this difference seems curious.

If we read through the biblical narrative, we find that the statement that needs to be explained is the one in Hebrews rather than the one in 1 Kings. We read in Exodus, about the jar of manna, “As the Lord commanded Moses, so Aaron placed it before the testimony to be kept.” In other words, the jar was placed in front of the ark, not inside it. Similarly, we read in Numbers that God told Moses to put Aaron’s rod that budded “before the testimony, to be kept as a sign.” Once again, in front of the ark, not inside it.

So why does the author of Hebrews say that these things were “in” the ark? We have to be careful about how we understand prepositions in texts translated from other languages. It’s been observed that the last thing a person typically learns who is acquiring a new language is how that language uses prepositions. There are subtle differences in the use of the “same” prepositions between languages. The Greek preposition ἐν, which the author of Hebrews uses when speaking about the ark, can mean in, on, at, by, among, or with. For example, in Matthew 3:9, some versions translate it “do not say within yourselves,” while other versions translate it “do not say among yourselves.” 1 Corinthians 9:15, which also uses the preposition ἐν, translated very literally, says, “And I am not writing these things in order that it may be thus with me.” We need to see this range of meaning in that preposition, and understand its specific meaning from the context.

In the context of Hebrews 9:4, the rest of the biblical narrative enables us to understand that the writer is using it to mean that the things described were in and around the ark. That is consistent with the preposition’s range of meaning and with the details of the tabernacle as we learn them from the biblical narrative.

If God had established Saul’s kingdom forever, how could a ruler have come from the tribe of Judah?

Q. Samuel said to Saul that he should wait for him in Gilgal for seven days for him to offer sacrifices for the favor of God before a battle. After Saul disobeyed Samuel told him that if he had obeyed, “the Lord would have established your kingdom over Israel forever.”

However, we learn in Genesis, when Jacob blessed his sons, that “the scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until he to whom it belongs shall come and the obedience of the nations shall be his.” Saul was not from Judah. So how was that going to happen, if the Lord had established his kingdom forever?

The answer to your question is in the meaning of the word that many English versions translate as “forever.” As I explain in this post, the word ‘olam means “to indefinite futurity,” that is, “for as far into the future as anyone can imagine.” Samuel was telling Saul that God would have established a dynasty for him that would last a good long time, with no one being able to envision when or how it would end. That is not the same as saying that it would never end, so that the prophesied ruler from the tribe of Judah would never come.

Will believers see God in eternity?

Q. Will believers see God in eternity? We read, “God is spirit” (John 4:24); “To the King of the ages, immortal, invisible…” In John 14:9, Jesus tells Philip, “whoever seen me has seen the Father.” Jesus is teaching about His deity and unity with the Father. But perhaps these words apply for eternity and all believers? That is, we will “see” God only in the person of Jesus?

Personally I would say that in eternity, believers will see God. In fact, they will experience amazing, loving fellowship with God, in the full expression of the Godhead in the three persons of the Trinity. That is, believers will not only see God the Son, they will see God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. (And perhaps at that point we will finally understand how the three are also actually one!)

I think the scriptures you have cited, and others like them, indicate that in this life on earth, no human being may or can see God. As God said to Moses, “no one may see me and live.” But I believe it’s different in eternity. The apostle John wrote in his first epistle, “Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.”

I acknowledge that many interpreters take this to be a reference to the return of Christ, in which case this would be saying no more than what you are asking about, that even in eternity we will see God only in Christ. But I think it’s important to realize that the verb translated “appeared” and “appears” is actually passive, so John is saying that what we will be “has not yet been made to appear” or “been revealed,” and that we will see God when he “is revealed.” The closest antecedent in the context of “he” and “him” is “God.” So I understand this to be a reference to believers seeing God in the fullness of the Godhead.

Meyer says about this statement in his commentary, “For man in his earthly body, God is certainly invisible; but it is different with the glorified man in his spiritual body; he will not merely know God (the believer has knowledge already here), but see God.” That is a fair statement of how I would also understand this myself.

How should a Christian repent?

Q. How should a Christian repent? What are the steps involved for a Christian to repent? Where does the Bible teach that Christians need to repent? Also, where does the Bible teach what is the purpose of Christians repenting?

In the New Testament, the term for “repent” is the Greek word metanoia. It indicates a change of mind. The English word “repent” comes from a Latin word from the same root as “penalty,” and so it indicates recognizing that something one has done is deserving of a penalty, in other words, that it was wrong. This implicitly suggests a change of mind, since the person presumably did not think the action was wrong before doing it or when doing it. This is a realization that came afterwards. But it would also apply to any future occurrences and hopefully prevent the person from doing it again.

In other words, the “change of mind” is that previously the person would have said, “It’s all right for me to do this.” Afterwards, the person would say, “It was wrong for me to have done that, and I won’t do it again.” So implicitly the idea is not just that the person thinks differently, but that the person also acts differently. This is what John the Baptist meant when he told the crowds who came to hear him preach that they needed to “bring forth fruits worthy of repentance.” Repentance is not credible unless a person’s conduct changes. If a person says, “From now on, I’m going to believe that things are wrong if God says they are wrong and that things are right if God says they are right,” but that person continues to do things that God says are wrong, then we have no evidence that they have actually changed their mind.

To answer your questions specifically, the gospels tell us that John the Baptist came preparing the way for Jesus by “preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sin” (Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3). John was saying that to get ready for the Messiah, people should repent of their sins (acknowledge that they were wrong and stop doing them) and be baptized to show publicly that they had done this, and God would forgive their sins. In his gospel, Matthew summarizes the teaching of Jesus himself by saying that he preached, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near” (Matthew 4:17). Jesus was telling the crowds to do the same thing that John the Baptist was telling them to do. The apostles preached a similar message. Peter told the crowds in Jerusalem, “Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out” (Acts 3:19).

In all of these places, an initial repentance is in view. It changes people from living for themselves, without regard to God, to living for God, carrying out a commitment to do carefully what God says is right and not do what God says is wrong. But the New Testament also speaks of repentance as an ongoing process for those who have already made this commitment. Paul wrote to the Romans, “Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect” (Romans 12:2). So Christians who are already committed followers of Jesus need to have an ongoing metanoia, an ongoing change of mind, by which they recognize more and more what God considers to be “good and acceptable and perfect.”

In terms of the steps involved in repentance, I would say that they are: an active seeking to understand better and better how God wants us to live; a recognition of those ways in which we have not been living like that; telling God that we are sorry and asking for and receiving God’s forgiveness; and then living more and more in the way that God does want. This should be an ongoing aspect of life for all followers of Jesus. In some Christian traditions, the process also has a more formal component, and it can help ensure that repentance does happen on a regular basis. For example, a person might go to confession, tell a priest about sins, express contrition, and receive absolution. Or in a worship service, there might be a unison prayer of confession, followed by silent individual prayers of confession, and then an assurance of pardon spoken by the minister.

I must say that as a pastor, I always loved to give the assurance of pardon, and even now as a “civilian” in the congregation, I always love to hear it. I believe it represents what God wants us to know about how he receives our sincere repentance. For example, I used to say (and still love to hear) something like this: “The Lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger and rich in mercy. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. In the name of Jesus Christ, I declare, ‘You are forgiven!'”

Are we supposed to “let God take the steering wheel”?

Q. In Christian circles, folks frequently talk about giving all control of our lives to God. I have even heard “let God take the steering wheel” (hopefully this is figurative). I wonder at times what this really means. How far should we as followers of Jesus take this? Throughout history, so many evil things have been done by those who were supposedly listening to God and had “let God take control.” Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t think that people are doing evil things as directed by God. They feel they are directed by God, when in reality it is their own zeal or self-interest. So the bottom line is, when we hear “let God (or Jesus, or the Holy Spirit) take control,” what does that mean? Should we ask God for simplest things, such what to eat or what to wear?  What to do each day? Did God not give us a brain?

I think that, in general, God does not do for us what we can do for ourselves. God does not want us to remain immature people who never acquire the wisdom, talent, or creativity to come up with good ideas and follow them through. Certainly parents want their children to develop in this way. They don’t want to have to tell their children what to do their whole lives. I think it’s the same with God.

I believe there is still a role for seeking God’s guidance, but I don’t think there is necessarily a clear line that we can draw anywhere, for example, “Be sure to consult God about any purchase over $500.” Instead, I think we should see ourselves in a process that God is encouraging, a process that will lead to godly wisdom that informs better decision-making on our parts. I think the people you are describing have a commendable desire to understand and obey God’s wishes for their lives. But personally I think that sometimes God wishes we would make good choices without having to be told what to do.

I think it’s important to realize that we are in a relationship with God. Sometimes, within the context of that relationship, God might actually lead us to wear a certain article of clothing or serve a certain food for dinner. When that happens, we will see how it fits within God’s larger purposes of drawing people to himself. These things can create solidarity and welcome in contexts of fellowship and hospitality, and God certainly wants to promote those things and so may help us out with some tips. Theoretically no area of our lives is too small for God to become involved in, because God is paradoxically big enough to be involved in such small areas. But as I said, this happens within an active, ongoing relationship. It’s not an abdication of responsibility on our parts.

Certainly we should seek God’s guidance and direction for major life decisions, but there’s not necessarily a clear line between “major” and “minor.” I would say that Christians who get married had better be certain that they have heard from God that they are marrying the right person. That’s clearly “major.” Probably decisions such as what college to attend, what house to buy, whether to go into business with certain partners, etc. also qualify as “major.” But ultimately the determiner is relational. We need to become attuned to the voice of God’s Spirit in our hearts and minds so that we can recognize those times when God, for reasons we might not appreciate just then, is leading us to take a certain direction regarding something that seems minor, and those other times when God just wants us to make a good choice.

Should I keep reading the Bible, praying, going to church, etc. if I’m no longer motivated to do those things?

Q. What should a Christian do if he is feeling bored (and/or unmotivated) of reading the Bible, praying, reading Christian books, going to church, and other Christian activities that he used to enjoy doing and was very motivated to do? Should he force himself to continue doing them, hoping that he will regain his enjoyment and motivation, or should he only do them when he feels motivated and will actually enjoy doing them?

The activities you describe are often referred to as “spiritual disciplines.” That does not mean that they are things we have to do. Rather, they are things that we choose to do in order to invest in our relationship with God with structure and regularity. I think that tithing, giving 10% of our income to God, provides a good example. A Christian wants to be part of what God is doing in the world through giving. But if we simply have that desire without introducing any regular practices into our lives, we may end up giving little or nothing, despite our genuine wishes and intentions. So the discipline of calculating 10% of our income, setting it aside for God’s work, and giving it regularly and intentionally to ministries we believe in can help us ensure that we actually do what we want to do.

It’s the same with the specific disciplines that you describe and with all spiritual disciplines in general. To give another example, we have a sincere desire to understand the story of God’s redemptive work in the world and how we can find our own place within that story, and engaging the Bible helps us do that. But if we have no structured plan to engage the Bible regularly, this may not happen. And so forth.

I think the issue you are encountering may be a relational one. As I said, spiritual disciplines are a means of investing in our relationship with God. But every relationship grows and changes, and the things that feed it at one point may not feed it at other points. Put simply, relationships need variety, since they are growing, living things. So not only do we need to commit to following spiritual disciplines to ensure that our sincere desire to walk closely with God is realized, we need to re-examine our disciplines on a regular basis to make sure that they are still fulfilling their purpose. We can change the way we are pursuing certain ones, and we can stop doing others and start doing new ones. Those who study spiritual disciplines have identified over two dozen of them. (In this post I describe a few beyond the ones you list, such as spending time with God in creation or in silence and solitude.) So one thing I would suggest is “mixing it up.” Engage the Bible at a different time, or in a different way. Explore other kinds of prayers besides the ones you have been praying. Pursue simplicity or service as spiritual disciplines for a while instead of reading Christian books. And so forth.

I believe that you asked this question because you really do have a heartfelt desire to be close to God. I believe that desire reflects the relationship with God that you already have, and the relationship that God already has with you. You are just experiencing some “growing pains” in that relationship, and that is actually a good thing. It shows that the relationship is growing.

One thing that happens to all Christians at various times is that their experience outgrows their understanding. That is, we have a workable framework for our Christian life; we understand and expect that things are going to work in a certain way. But as our faith becomes more mature, we also become more discerning, and we can recognize that things are not necessarily working in that way, not all the time. If we don’t reflect on this, we can actually become secretly disappointed with God. We feel inside, without necessarily articulating it this way to ourselves, that God has somehow let us down. If God hadn’t, things would have happened differently, we feel. This leads to spiritual dryness, a sense that we are not moving forward in the faith, and a lack of motivation to draw close to God.

But all of this, I would say again, is actually a positive sign. It shows that your experience of faith has been growing. Your understanding just needs to catch up with it. So I would invite you to ask yourself some questions. Was there something I was expecting God would do that God apparently didn’t do? Was there something I was expecting God wouldn’t do that God apparently did do? Who can I speak with about this who could help me understand what happened, perhaps in light of another look at the Scriptures and the heritage of Christian experience and a reconsideration of the ways of God? What books or podcasts or blog posts or other resources might also help? Do my expectations of God need to change, and if so, in what ways?

I think the process I have just described needs to begin with a commitment to being realistic. We only understand God and ourselves better in light of the truth. We don’t need to apologize or make excuses for the God we have been believing in. We can say, in a clear-eyed way, “Okay, I’ll admit it, this happened.” From there, we can sort out the implications for what we have been believing, and we can re-examine our beliefs in a fresh light.

Just writing this, I’m excited for the journey that you can take forward into a renewed experience of your faith. May God bless you as you translate your sincere desire into practical steps on that journey.

Are the warnings in Hebrews addressed to non-believers rather than believers?

Q. The author of Hebrews speaks in the 1st person plural when giving the warning, “We must pay the most careful attention, therefore, to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away.” So, is it possible that the author was addressing all the members of the local church? Within this gathering there would be believers, non-believers, those “sitting on the fence,” and so forth. So, is the “therefore” not for believers who have assurance, but a warning for those who would “drift away” from the truth they’re receiving? Similarly, is the controversial passage in Heb 6:4-6 not for the believer who needs to hear the warning against apostasy, but for those non-believers, those “on the fence” who could “drift” into apostasy and never be restored again?

I think you are suggesting a very good possibility. I think the warning is against presumption: just because you’ve heard about Jesus and know about Jesus, don’t assume that you have received the salvation that Jesus brought—not if you haven’t done anything in response to what you’ve heard and learned. In other words, the recipients of this letter must not “ignore” (or “neglect,” as some versions translate it) this salvation, that is, they must not fail to take action in response to it.

So the author of Hebrews is basically saying to the whole church, “I’m not going to assume that any of you are genuine believers—and neither should you either. You can’t complacently assume this; you need to know that you have made a definite commitment in response to Jesus.” This would be similar to what Paul wrote to the Corinthians: “Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test?” (And here in Hebrews, since this is in the 1st person plural, as you note, the author is actually saying, “I’m not going to assume that any of us are genuine believers.” The author models self-examination by taking part in it personally.)

I think the case is similar for the other passage from Hebrews that you mentioned: “It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance.” I find it interesting that the author says, right after providing an analogy to illustrate this point, “Even though we speak like this, dear friends, we are convinced of better things in your case—the things that have to do with salvation.” In other words, while the ones who cannot be brought back if they fall away have “tasted” and “shared in” some things, those are not the things that have to do with salvation. Those are necessary but not sufficient conditions. What is needed is a definite commitment.

The analogy itself supports this understanding. The author speaks of the same rain falling on two different types of land. One type produces “a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed” and is blessed, while the other type produces only “thorns and thistles” and is cursed. The warning, in effect, is to both types of land: Don’t think that you’re going to be blessed just because you’re receiving all this rain; what kind of crop are you producing as a result of it?” So the “tasting” and the “sharing” that all the people in the church have experienced are like the rain. They are not the crop.

So I think in the end I would agree with you that these warnings are not addressed so much to people who are genuine followers of Jesus as to people who are part of the believing community but who have not made a definite commitment. The danger of “falling away” (from participation in the life of the community, not from salvation itself) was very real for those who were not committed, since, as the author warns, there had already been persecution of Christians in this place and time and there was going to be more. So the warnings are to count the cost up front and realize that the glories of the salvation that Jesus brought, which the author describes throughout the letter, are worth far more than the suffering that followers of Jesus may experience in this life.

What were the names of Solomon’s wives?

Q. The Bible says that Solomon had three hundred wives and seven hundred concubines. What were their names?

We only know the name of one of Solomon’s wives, and that is because she is mentioned in the account of the reign of her son, Rehoboam, who was Solomon’s successor. Her name was Naamah, and she was an Ammonite. This suggests that she became Solomon’s wife as the result of a marriage alliance that Solomon made with the king of Ammon.

Solomon’s wives are said to have been “princesses,” that is, daughters of kings, and so we can infer that there were marriage alliances in each case. We know that these wives included princesses from Egypt, Moab, Edom, Ammon, Sidon, and the Hittite kingdom. So while we don’t know their names, at least in these cases we know something of their identities.

Unfortunately, Solomon’s attachment to them led him to build altars just east of Jerusalem to their foreign gods. His wives worshiped at these altars, and he joined them in doing so. The altars remained in place for over 300 years, until King Josiah finally destroyed them. The law of Moses specifically forbade the king of Israel from making such marriage alliances—“he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away”—and doing so led to Solomon’s downfall and the breakup of the Israelite kingdom.

But on a brighter note, as I suggest in this post, earlier in his life Solomon may have married Abishag the Shunammite, and this may have been a happy marriage for many years. It is unfortunate that Solomon did not obey the law of Moses and refrain from making the marriage alliances that ultimately ruined him and his kingdom. He already had all that he really needed.