Solomon’s Reign and the Divided Kingdom: Lessons for Restructuring of the Nigerian Nation
Pemerintahan Salomo dan Kerajaan yang Terbagi: Pelajaran untuk Restrukturisasi Bangsa Nigeria
Ubong E. Eyo
Department of Religious and Cultural Studies, University of Calabar, Cross River State, Nigeria
*Penulis Koresponden: ubongeyo@unical.edu.ng
ABSTRAK
Isu restrukturisasi dan kontrol sumber daya telah menjadi salah satu poin kembar diskusi dalam dispensasi politik masa kini di Nigeria. Dapatkah pemerintahan Raja Salomo, orang paling bijaksana dan raja Israel yang diakui memberikan petunjuk tentang bagaimana menangani teka-teki restrukturisasi ini dan kontrol sumber daya yang menyertainya di antara isu-isu lainnya? Pada catatan inilah makalah ini membahas “Pemerintahan Raja Salomo dan Kerajaan yang Terbagi: Pelajaran untuk Restrukturisasi Bangsa Nigeria.” Dengan menggunakan alat-alat hermeneutis penafsiran alkitabiah sebagai prinsip penafsiran beberapa teks Perjanjian Lama yang berhubungan dengan pemerintahan Salomo dan analisis isi sebagai metode pengumpulan bahan, makalah tersebut mencatat bahwa, terlepas dari semua yang dilakukan Salomo untuk meningkatkan perekonomian Israel, pengeluarannya harus telah melebihi pendapatannya. Kemewahan oriental dari kehidupan istana kekaisaran yang sangat tercermin pada pernikahannya (lih 1 Raja-raja 10:16-22); pajak berat, eksploitasi tambang tembaga yang menuntut kerja paksa (lih. 1 Raja-raja 4:7; 5:13-18), dll. semuanya berdampak negatif dalam pemerintahannya dan penerusnya, yang ternyata adalah putranya. Meskipun Teks Masoret tidak menunjukkan pemberontakan langsung terhadap Salomo, tetapi pengasingan Yerobeam dan teriakan pada zaman Rehoboam, putra dan penerus Salomo adalah petunjuk bahwa Salomo meskipun diakui sebagai orang paling bijaksana dalam sejarah Yahudi meletakkan dasar untuk restrukturisasi kerajaan Yahudi, yaitu kerajaan yang terbagi.
Makalah ini menegaskan bahwa, Nigeria dapat mengambil pelajaran dari pemerintahan Salomo yang sewenang-wenang sehubungan dengan upayanya untuk melakukan restrukturisasi.
Kata Kunci: Salomo; kerajaan; restrukturisasi; bangsa Nigeria.
ABSTRACT
The issue of restructuring and resource control have become one of a twin point of discussion in the present-day political dispensation in Nigeria. Can the reign of King Solomon, the acclaimed wisest man and king of Israel give a clue on how to handle this riddle of restructuring and its attendant resource control among other issues? It is on this note that this paper looks at “King Solomon’s Reign and the Divided Kingdom: Lessons for Restructuring of the Nigerian Nation.” Using hermeneutical tools of biblical interpretation as the principle of interpreting some Old Testament texts which deal with the reign of Solomon and content analysis as the method of gathering materials, the paper noticed that, despite all that Solomon did to boost Israel's economy, his expenditure must have outweighed the income.His oriental luxury of the imperial court’s life which reflected heavily on his marriage (c.f. 1Kings 10:16-22); heavy taxation, exploitation of the copper mines which demanded forced labour (cf. 1Kings 4:7;
5:13-18), etc. all impacted negatively in his administration and that of his successor, who happed to be his son. Even though the Masoretic Text shows no outright rebellion against Solomon, but the exile of Jeroboam and the outcry in the days of Rehoboam, Solomon’s son and successor were pointers that Solomon though acclaimed the wisest person in the Jewish history laid the foundation for the restructuring of the Jewish kingdom, i.e., the divided kingdom. This paper avers that, Nigeria can learn lessons from Solomon’s high-handed reign in respect of her quest for restructuring.
Keywords: solomon; monarchy; restructuring; Nigerian nation.
9
ISSN 2747-2671 (online)
Vol. 1 No. 5, 2021
10 1. INTRODUCTION
There is no gainsaying that Nigeria as a sovereign state is made up of numerous ethno-tribal groups with vast array of tribal/ethnic histories and interests. Nigeria is said to be the most populous Black Country in the entire world (Offiong, 2011; Undiyaundeye 2010). Each of the tribes within the Nigerian territory is endowed with either one mineral, vegetative or other natural resources and/or a correspondence of resident human resources.
This is rightly pointed out that, Nigeria is “a country with multifarious ethnic nationalities having varying and often conflicting interests who strive to ensure that each of their various interests are captured, accommodated and actualized” (Nwafor-Orizu et al., 2018, p. 47). Restructuring and economic resource control has taken a centre stage in Nigerian public space in the sense that almost every administration in the country talks about it. The Guardian Newspaper dealt extensively on this in her 20th March, 2019 edition under the Editorial heading of “Restructuring Nigeria:
Another Way Forward.” In the conclusion of this article which chronicled the governance of Nigeria since its inception as a sovereign state, the Editor said, “The time to change is now if we are not to engage the world as illiterates of the 21st century who can’t learn, unlearn and relearn” (The Guardian Newspaper 2019, Online).
Worthy of note is the fact that, currently, Nigeria is running a federal system of government but the federating components are not in charge of the resources which are domiciled within their geographical territory (Undiyaundeye 2011a;
Undiyaundeye 2011b; Olufu & Offiong 2017). Her currently political structure owes it roots to the 1946 Sir Arthur Richard’s Constitution which right from its inception has been symptomatically sick in its administration of the country which has resulted in the cry marginalization at the ethnic/tribal, regional, linguistic and religious lines with its attendant outcry of political restructuring. Added to the cry of restructuring is that of economic resource control which has become a contentious issue in Nigeria body politic, having been a key problem facing the Nigerian state since the onset of ethnic politics (Offiong 2011; Offiong & Uduigwomen 2021). This outcry of both restructuring and economic resource control is more predicated by the fact that corruption has eaten so deep into the fabric of Nigerian administration to an extent that the country which is blessed with both human and natural resource is suffering from economic recession. Hence, it is axiomatic to aver that, for more than “fifty six years of independence, still Nigeria seems to have found no viable equation to economic management” (Collier et al., 2008, p. 43). This has resulted in economic mismanagement with its attendant result being
economic recession and the call from different sectors of the nation for restructuring of the nation and resource control of the nation’s natural endowment.
The issue of restructuring and resource control have therefore become one of a twin point of discussion in the present day political dispensation in Nigeria. It is worthy to note that though religion is currently advertently or inadvertently playing a role in the quest for restructuring and resource control in the nation, can religion provide answer(s) or pointer(s) as guide for the Nigerian nation’s quest in this direction?
Can the reign of King Solomon the acclaimed wisest man and king of Israel give us a clue to handle this riddle of restructuring and its attendant resource control among other issues? It is on this note that this paper looks at
“King Solomon’s Reign and the Divided Kingdom:
Lessons for Restructuring of the Nigerian Nation.” Using hermeneutical tools of biblical interpretation as the principle of interpreting some Old Testament texts which deals with the reign of Solomon and content analysis as the method of gathering materials, the paper noticed that, despite all that Solomon did to boost Israel's economy, his expenditure must have outweighed the income; his oriental luxury of the imperial court’s life which reflected heavily on his marriage (cf 1Kings 10:16-22); heavy taxation, exploitation of the copper mines all demanded forced labour (cf. 1Kings 4:7; 5:13-18). Even though the Masoretic Text shows no outright rebellion against Solomon, but the exile of Jeroboam and the outcry in the days of Rehoboam, Solomon’s son and successor were pointers that Solomon though acclaimed the wisest person in the Jewish history laid the foundation for the restructuring of the Jewish kingdom. This paper avers that, Nigeria can learn lessons from Solomon’s high- handed reign in respect of her quest for restructuring.
2. PRECURSOR TO MONARCHY IN ISRAEL Understanding the introduction of monarchy into the polity of Israel can serve as a gateway into assessing both the person and administration of King Solomon as a king of Israel, especially in the light of drawing lessons for the quest for restructuring of Nigeria and the control of regional resources thereof.
Israel had been a theocratic nation with only the deliverers or captains who were regarded as Judges being raised for them when occasion demanded it (Johnson 2013). Yahweh who was their King ruled through the elders of the community (without anyone being regarded as a king). It was a purely theocratic nation and they were not expected to have any other ךלמ melek, except הןה' YHWH, The confederating tribes of Israel were bound more by their amphictyony tie which
PINISI JOURNAL OF ART, HUMANITY AND SOCIAL STUDIES
was more of religion than blood tie (even though common descent was not denied). Religion was therefore the major backbone of the Jewish nation (Von Stuckrad 2000).
The days of the judges saw not only all the people did what was right in their own eyes (Judg 21:25 NRSV), but constant attack and defeat by their neighbours and surrounding nations. Majorly in “the southern coastal plain was the rise of a new power that soon became a threat to all Israel, i.e. the Philistines” (Schmidt 2015, p.
21). These were not Semites (that is why the OT speaks of them as ‘uncircumcised’). They probably entered Palestine as part of the movement of seafaring people that is connected with the Doric migration. This group of people established five city-states in Gaza, Ashekelon, Ashdod, Ekron and Gath had superior iron weapons and stronger military formation than Israel.
They actually seemed to have been frightening fighters with a well-established military tradition. According to Judges 13:1, the Philistines oppressed Israel for 40 years, this is a simple indication that the oppression began maybe before the leadership of Samson. "One suggestion is that the oppression began sometime midway through the Judgeship of Eli (1Sam 4:18)"
(Robinson 1993, p. 79).
Secondly, it was the political structure of other nations.
The elders said 'appoint for us then a king to govern us like other nations.' It was probable that when the Israelite saw the political standard of other nations, they also thought it to be better for them to have a very strong and powerful nation. Canaan during the thirteenth century was an established city-state so the Israelite thought of having a type of leadership, which was so organized as Canaan (Mendenhall 1962). During that time city kings who ruled the city-states dominated Canaan. Further these city-states were very strong and well organized politically, and also they had strong army. Apart from that they had well organized culture and traditions; as a result the Israelites adopted a new lifestyle with new customs, which remained in their communities. Israel neighbours such as the Edomites, Moabites and the Ammonites had minor kings who were controlling the affairs of the people. So Israel also wanted to be ruled by kings so as be like her neighbour The third major reason why Israel wanted a monarch as it is recorded in 1Sam. 8:1-3 is that, when Samuel grew old, he appointed his two sons, Joel and Abigah as judges over Beersheba (1Sam 8:1-3). Surprisingly, unlike their father, these two Children became "Selfish and greedy for dishonest gain. They did not care for law or justice, saw their Judgeship only as an opportunity to enrich themselves" (Redford 2008, p. 80). They also accepted bribe and were grossly immoral, which was
contrary to the laws of YHWH. This was also the problem with Eli’s children, Hophni and Phinehas were openly immoral. This made the elders to approach Samuel at Ramah for a king.
After the death of Samson, the Philistines wanted to attack Israel but the Lord fought for her at Mizpah (1 Sam 7:10-13). The main reason why the Philistines wanted to capture Israel was because she was a threat to Philistine's security and also to the security of the trade routes.
Philistines were very disciplined soldiers who used very strong weapons made out of Iron. Apart from that they also used chariots where they were needed. Therefore, it was practically impossible for the Israelites who were using ill-equipped soldier to stand such men. These men were very craft, they fought and killed Hophi and Phinehas, "Priests who bore the ark" (Bercovitch 2012) and further took the ark from the house of the Lord, they captured the land of Judah and Shiloh's shrines were destroyed. Further, "In order to prevent the manufacture of weapons and to protect their own monopoly on Iron, deprived Israel of what metal industry she had and made her dependant on Philistine smith for all services (1 Samuel 13:19-22)".
Worthy of note is the fact that monarchy was meant to give Israel a physical king, it was not meant to be an affront against their religion, individual/tribal existence and unity. Every kingship is therefore meant to judged based on the indices of religious fidelity, individual/tribal integrity and co-operate unity of Israel as a nation under הוהי (YHWH).
3. THE REIGN OF KING SOLOMON
The above was the state in which monarchy was established in Israel with Saul, the son of Kish being the first melek or still a nagid after the manner of the Judge and was succeeded by David who actually ruled as a king. Scholarship has not fixed with mathematical exactitude the actual period of King Solomon’s reign.
Wright G. Addison, et.al. place the dating at about 961- 922 B.C. In studying the reign of King Solomon, we will do this in parts starting with how the Chronicler presents him as different from other presentations of Solomon.
3.1 King Solomon according to the Chronicler The Book of Chronicles devotes its history to the reigns of David (11-29) and Solomon 2Chornicles 1-9) with special reflection on their strengths devoid of any weakness. Hence, Solomon is announced in a divine oracle as David’s successor (22:2-7; 28:6); his accession to the throne is announced publicly by David and is greeted with the unanimous support of all Israel (Chap 28- 29).
No mention is made of the bedridden David, who must overturn the attempted coup d’état by Adonija at the last
12 moment to secure the throne for Solomon .Nor is there
any mention that the military commander Joab and the high priest Abiathar supported Adonija’s attempt ( 1 Kings 1). Though it was Adonija’s right as the oldest living son then to occupy the throne after David, he was short-changed by a number of family intrigues that robbed him of that position. Nathan a prophet who rebuked David had to secretly urged Bathsheba to approach David with a request for Solomon to be crowned as his successor. Incidents like Solomon’s execution of those who offended David (1Kings 2) is tactically omitted. Solomon is presented as ascending the throne without any rival or detracting incident.
On this note of blamelessness, his reign is totally devoted to the building of the temple (2Chron. 2-8) and any reference to his failure is excluded. No mention is made of his foreign wives, his idolatry or the rebellion against his regime. The blame for the schism recorded in 1Kings 11:26-40; 12:1-4) is placed on Jeroboam the son of Nebat as a schemer. It is on this note of whitewash portrait of Solomon that the Chronicler posits that,
“King Solomon was greater in riches and wisdom than all the other kings of the earth. All the kings of the earth sought audience with Solomon to hear the wisdom God had put in his heart.” (2 Chron. 9:22-23 NIV).
The reason for the presentation of David and Solomon in such a flowery posture is not far fetch, when this is viewed within the theme and intension of the Chronicler. Werner Schmidt rightly opines that, “The Chroniclers’ purpose is to show that, in contrast to the Samaritans, Judah, which possesses the only legitimate monarchy and the only legitimate place of worship is the true Israel”. For the Chronicler, “the Davidic monarch on the throne of the Lord seems to e God’s representative and the reign of the king in Jerusalem seems to be the reign of God on earth (1 Chron, 14:14;
28:5; 29:11, 23; 2Chron. 9:8; 13:8)”. These kings (David and Solomon) therefore were not just seen in and for themselves, but seen as typologies of the Messianic King who is to be revealed as the eschatological hope of Israel. Hence, there presentations were rid of any negativity. This uncritical and unanalytical presentation by the Chronicler always tend to present Solomon as one that should be wholly emulated which on the contrary may not be so
4. COMPLEMENTING THE CHRONICLER’S ACCOUNT
Though with eyes on the Chronicler’s account of King Solomon, a better and holistic portrait of him can be gleaned from other parts of the holy writ. He is equally presented as a great king with great achievements in the united kingdom during his reign and this included the
following among others:
4.1 Plea for Wisdom
Immediately Solomon’s ascension to the throne he gathered the people at Gibeon rather than on Mt. Zion.
The place of this gathering has evoked undue criticism from scholars, but it is good to note that, “his interest was in sacrifice and not in the ark itself, the great bronze altar that Moses had built was at Gibeon not at Mt. Zion”
(Kaiser 1998, p. 273). While at Gibeon, God appeared and his only request עמש בל (leebshomea) which is interpreted to mean diligent understanding, discerning, sound, etc.
heart or mind. This pleased הןה' who gave him wisdom.
This was demonstrated not only in the case of the two women with one child, but in the administration of the kingdom and the writing of the books of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Songs of Songs which are all attributed to him. More importantly is the visit of the Queen of Sheba from the south-west corner of Arabia to test that wisdom and to experience for herself. This wisdom manifested in his administration of the land.
4.2 Administration
Administratively, Solomon’s reign witnessed an increase in bureaucracy over David’s model. Against the twelve tribes of Israel, he made twelve districts officers (nitsaabiym) and gave them functions where are not very clear (1Kings 4:7-19). Each district was on duty for a month and the twelve districts correspond to the twelve months of the years. As rightly noticed by scholars,
“Judah and Jerusalem were omitted from the districting, making them a sort of federal district exempt from the obligations that the rest of the nation faced” (Walter 2021, p. 275). This exemption from taxation, forced labour and other similar burdens must have accounted for the discontentment of some tribes which ultimately led to the division of the northern and southern kingdoms.
4.3 Building Projects and the Temple
Solomon was a builder. He constructed the wall around the city of Jerusalem, fortified the major centres of Megiddo, Gezer and Hazor as military bases for his chariot divisions. “He also created numerous palace and temple complex north of the city of David on a hill called Zion” (Boadt 1984, p. 237). Using his administrative setting which was very oppressive, he conscripted and set off some Israelites to the labour camps in Lebanon, others to work in the quarries and others to as burden bearers to enable the building of the various projects embarked upon by the king.
One of such project was the building of the temple which
“exhibited the general forms of Phoenician architecture (note the use of Phoenician craftsmen in 1Kings 5:10, 18;
PINISI JOURNAL OF ART, HUMANITY AND SOCIAL STUDIES
7:13-14) with many of the traditional symbols of Hebrew worship” (Kaiser 1998, p. 276). This was an important achievement and was crucial for the monotheistic faith. All sacrifices to הןה' had to be made in the Temple; private altars which could easily be erected for pagan deities would no longer be allowed.
Moreover, three times a year — for the festivals of Pesach, Shavuot, and Sukkot — all able citizens had to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Exodus 34:23). This precept is known as oleh regel (lit. going up [to Jerusalem] for the Festival). The construction of this temple tended to consolidate the relationships between Israel’s political and economic forms and the centrality of the sanctuary. In this case, “Yahweh was the real monarch, and the king was Yahweh’s vice-regent”
(Kaiser 1998, p., 277). The temple was meant to be one of the major factors of unity among the twelve tribes of Israel. Yet, it was completed at the expense of the cost of the life and liberty of the exploited people of Israel. This must have been one of the things which caused the revolt of Jeroboam who was from the north as a royal task master. The pride and sense of his nationalistic feeling for his oppressed northern tribes triggered off the revolt with its attendant subsequent division of the united kingdom of Israel into the northern and southern kingdoms.
Worthy of note is the fact that, at the end of twenty years, during which Solomon built these two buildings – the temple of the Lord and the royal palace – King Solomon gave twenty towns in Galilee to Hiram king of Tyre, because Hiram had supplied him with all the cedar and juniper and gold he wanted (I Kings 9: 10-11).
So, the building of the temple by Solomon had some negative effects on both the people and land of Israel.
The land he gave to Hiram was not even from the South where Solomon was from. This means that he denied some Israelites from other tribes their land.
4.4 International Diplomacy
Of all the kings of Israel, Solomon ranked the highest in international diplomacy. This was reflected in the trade boom coupled with the seaport in which he was helped by the Phoenicians. He was broadminded in relating with other nations. He made alliance with Tyre and other nations of which some of his ‘marital ties’ had linkage. Hiram, King of Tyre and Solomon’s contemporary made alliances that mutually benefitted each other in trade, exports of wheat and oil from Palestine to Tyre, hardwoods from Lebanon for Solomon’s building projects. His international alliances in no mean way contributed to his commercial ventures, trade and great wealth fraught with the danger of irreligious tendencies. The economic prosperity of his reign brought boom but later doom to the nation of
Israel. Part of his international diplomacy was his caravan trade with Arabia which was epitomized by the visit of the Queen of Sheba and, taxes and duties from Arabian trade flowing into Solomon’s treasury but not without religious compromise.
4.5 Solomon’s Wealth
The scripture presents King Solomon as one of the wealthiest on earth during his reign. The spectacular palace he built was not enough for him, he also had to show his wealth and affluence by an immense ivory throne overlaid with glittering gold. If the accounts of 1Kings 10:18-28 and 1Kings 11:3 are anything to go by, then Solomon was actually walking in the opposite direction of the Torah which “actually forbids a king from having too many horses, having too many wives, and accumulating too much wealth (Deuteronomy 17: 16- 17)” (Friedman and Friednamn 2019, p. 8). Solomon may have had great personal wealth but he did not use it to help the people. Rather, his massive expenditures resulted in a substantial tax burden on the people and ultimately caused complications for Rehoboam, his son and successor.
4.6 Relationship with Women
The Book of Proverbs ends with a paean to the woman of valour (singular). Solomon had a total of 1,000 wives and concubines. It is quite reasonable to believe that he married some of these women for political reasons. It is highly doubtful that he needed so many wives; no other king had so many wives. Moreover, the Torah prohibits a king from having too many wives since they will cause his “heart to stray” (Deuteronomy 17:17). This is exactly what happened to Solomon. Scripture states: King Solomon, however, loved many foreign women besides Pharaoh's daughter – Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians and Hittites. They were from nations about which the Lord had told the Israelites, "You must not intermarry with them, because they will surely turn your hearts after their gods."
Nevertheless, Solomon held fast to them in love. He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray. As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the Lord his God, as the heart of David his father had been. He followed Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and Molek the detestable god of the Ammonites. So Solomon did evil in the eyes of the Lord; he did not follow the Lord completely, as David his father had done (1 Kings 11: 1-5, NIV).
The term “loved” is used several times indicating that
14 these marriages were not simply for political reasons.
He loved these women and they were idolaters.
Solomon was not permitted to marry an idolater.
Moreover, the job of the king was to eradicate paganism and spread monotheism to the world. By erecting temples to foreign pagan deities in Jerusalem, where he had built the Temple, he made it appear as though all of them were legitimate. The Talmud does not believe that Solomon himself worshipped idols (Berger, 2018).
Rather, Scripture considers it as though he himself worshipped these pagan deities since he did not stop his wives from practicing idolatry (Babylonian Talmud, Shabbos 56b). If the purpose of the Temple was to spread ethical monotheism, the marriages to all these pagan women had the opposite effect. Solomon was punished for this sin. Scripture states that God said to him:
Since ... you have not kept My covenant and My laws that I have commanded you, I shall surely tear the kingdom away from you and give it to your servant. But I will not do this in your days, for the sake of your father David; instead, I will tear it away from your son. Only I shall not tear away the entire kingdom from him; I will give your son one tribe for the sake of my servant David, and for the sake of Jerusalem, which I have chosen (1 Kings 11:9-13).
5. THE LINK BETWEEN SOLOMON AND THE DIVIDED KINGDOM
Even though the account of the chronicler paints a whitewash picture of Solomon as a picture of the expected Messiah King of Israel, the Book of Kings which is part of the Deuteronomist History gives a vivid picture of Solomon as one who started leadership race well but ended up on a bad note. This was part of the reasons for the divided kingdom of Israel. Though other factors such as the loose confederacy practiced from the time of Joshua which often led to inter-tribal conflict, the issue of amphictyony where some still wanted theocracy instead of monarchy, the vastness of the Jewish nation, the establishment of Davidic dynasty and the prominent place of Judah over all other tribes and the Israelites lack of adequate understanding of monarchy and its attendant implications.
The immediate causes were overtly tied to the bad leadership of Solomon who forced Israelites to labour without adequate emoluments, the heavy taxation he placed on the people because of his quest to build edifices in Jerusalem and the attendant effect of only favouring his tribe above other tribes in Israel,. More importantly was his encouragement of polytheism through his numerous wives and concubines. It can be rightly said that, in Solomon’s reign, though there was
economic boom and political stability, most of the facets of life were negatively affected – the economic life of the people was impoverished because they either contributed so much for the magnificent building of Solomon’s projects or had to work without consummerate payment. Unfair treatment of other tribes compared to the treatment of Judah which was his own tribe. Lack of a good successor, Rehoboam who supposed to have ameliorated the plight of the people which resulted in their outcryand the subsequent returned self- exiled Jeroboam.
6. LESSONS FROM KING SOLOMON FOR RESTRUCTURING AND RESOURCE CONTROL IN NIGERIA
Many lessons can be gleaned from the reign of Solomon for Nigeria especially from the perspective of restructuring and resource control. These lessons are:
1. Unfair treatment of other tribes is a baneon true federalism and if not reversed is a key pointer to the fact that unfairly treated tribes will look for their autonomy
2. The forced labour or not pay the worker consumerate wages for their labour can lead to the cry for restructuring where every person will be to his/her tent
3. In the wake of leaders spending more time in leisure as in Solomon having more love for women that even his people is an aberration.
4. Heavy taxation on the people who are struggling to make ends meet is not the best for the people. In Nigeria today, taxes are high and there is even increase in VAT. The lesson from Solomon here is that, when people are overtaxed it can lead to outcry 5. Worthy of note is the fact that Solomon seceded some
of the land which belongs to some tribes to his allies.
This can be compared to the ruga issue in Nigeria, where the leadership is looking for land for the President’s allies.
6. Wealth and successful business without a corresponding interest in the people as practiced by Solomon is a quiet call for restructuring
7. CONCLUSION
According to 2 Chronicles 9:22-23, “King Solomon was greater in riches and wisdom than all the other kings of the earth. All the kings of the earth sought audience with Solomon to hear the wisdom God had put in his heart”, yet his reign though great it was laid the major foundation for the division of Israel’s kingdom into two – Northern and Southern kingdoms. Solomonic tendencies which have been covertly and overtly expressed by the leadership of Nigeria are enough to call for both restructuring of the country and resource control, if not there may be a sudden revolt by the oppressed tribes and
PINISI JOURNAL OF ART, HUMANITY AND SOCIAL STUDIES
people on Nigeria.
REFERENCES
Bercovitch, S. (2012). The American Jeremiad. University of Wisconsin Pres.
Berger, D. (2018). ‘The Wisest of All Men’: Solomon’s Wisdom in Medieval Jewish Commentaries on the Book of Kings. In Cultures in Collision and Conversation (pp. 215-235). Academic Studies Press.
Boadt, L. (1984). Reading the Old Testament - An Introduction. New York: Paulist Press.
Collier, P., Soludo, C. C., & Pattillo, C. (Eds.).
(2008). Economic policy options for a prosperous Nigeria. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Friedman, H. H., & Friednamn, L. W. (2019). What Went Wrong? Lessons in Leadership from Solomon, the Bible’s Wisest and Worst Ruler. The Journal of Values-Based Leadership, 12(5).
Johnson, P. (2013). History of the Jews. Hachette UK.
Kaiser, W. C. (1998). A History of Israel from the Bronze Age through the Jewish Wars. Nashville:
Broadman & Holman.
Kim, P. H. K. (2005). Selected biblical principles for conversion church growth and their applications in modern Korean society. Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.
Mendenhall, G. E. (1962). The Hebrew Conquest of Palestine. The Biblical Archaeologist, 25(3), 66-87.
Nwafor-Orizu, I., Chinyere, O. M., & Tochukwu, E. K.
(2018). Public Policy Formulation and Implementation in Nigeria: Questions, Challenges and Prospects. Global Journal of Management and Business Research:
Administration and Management , Volume 18 (Issue 13 (Version 1.0)), 45-52.
Offiong, E. E. (2011). Religion in diaspora-An analysis of the influence of African traditional religion on Brazilian society. The Calabar Historical Journal, 5(1), 53-70.
Offiong, E. E. (2016). Environmental degradation and conservation in the Cross River area: A historical appraisal of colonial and post-colonial interventions. People: International Journal of Social Sciences, 2(1), 607-621.
Offiong, E. E., & Uduigwomen, G. A. (2021). Socio- Cultural Values and Children’s Rights in Calabar. Society Register, 5(2), 13-30.
Olufu, G. O., & Offiong, E. E. (2017). Bekwara and Tiv relations in the Benue-Cross River valley to 1960. Journal Mandyeng Journal of Central Nigeria Studies, 1(1), 76-86.
Redford, D. (2008). The History of Israel: Joshua - Esther.
Colorado Springs: Standard Publishing.
Robinson, G. (1993). Let us be like the nations: a commentary on the Books of 1 and 2 Samuel. Wm.
B. Eerdmans Publishing.
Schmidt, W H. (2015). Old Testament Introduction. New York: The Society of St. Paul.
Undiyaundeye, U. A. (2010). The 1951 Elections and the Origins of Electoral malpractices in Nigeria. Lapai Journal of Humanities, 4(5), 214-252.
Undiyaundeye, U. A. (2011a). Patriotism or Enlightened Self Interest: A Causal Analysis of Nigeria’s First Coup d’etat. The Calabar Historical Journal, 5(1&2), 131-156.
Undiyaundeye, U. A. (2011b). The 1953 Motion of Vote of No Confidence: Nigeria’s First Constitutional Coup d’etat. The Calabar Historical Journal, 5, 223- 242.
Von Stuckrad, K. (2000). Jewish and Christian Astrology
in Late Antiquity-A New
Approach. Numen, 47(1), 1-40.
Walter C. K. (2021). History of Israel. B&H Publishing Group.
