“Hiram came over from Tzor to see the cities Shlomo had given him, but he was not satisfied with them. He said, ‘What kind of cities are these which you have given me, my brother?’ So they have been called the land of Kabul [good for nothing] till this day. (Hiram had sent the king four tons of gold.)”-1 Kings 9:12-14
Most folks, including a lot of gentile academic homies, don’t seem to understand the true nature behind the transaction between Solomon and King Hiram.
When Solomon handed over 20 cities and surrounding territories up in the fertile region of the northlands called the GALIL (Galilee in English) to Hiram, most Bible translations paint the picture that Hiram wasn’t happy and then returned the cities to Solomon as an insult.
As a result, Hiram labeled the 20 cities as KABUL, meaning “worthless” according to most English Bible translations.
Tom Bradford’s Torah class says KABUL means something like “binding” or “collateral,” and that Solomon wasn’t simply giving these twenty cities away to Hiram.
Rather, Bradford believes the cities were essentially being used as security for the enormous obligations Solomon had accumulated through his dealings with Hiram.
In other words, the cities were “bound” to Solomon’s debt and would effectively become Hiram’s if Solomon failed to repay what he owed.
I disagree.
And the reason I disagree is that I think Bradford pushes his interpretation further than the text allows us to go.
But first, let’s give credit where credit is due.
I don’t think the Hebrew word KABUL (כָּבוּל) means “worthless.”
The Hebrew root כבל (K-B-L) is associated with the idea of binding or being bound.
So Bradford ain’t pulling the “binding” idea out of thin air here.
That’s a totally legit Hebrew connection.
But where I think Bradford starts smoking a little too much marijuana is when he goes from…
KABUL = binding
to:
binding = collateral
to:
collateral = these cities were security for Solomon’s debt to Hiram.
And I’m not so sure that homie is gonna hunt.
Why?
Because the Bible never actually tells us that these twenty cities were collateral for a loan.
The Hebrew text simply says that Solomon gave the cities to Hiram.
The Hebrew verb is NATAN, which means to give.
Then, when Hiram comes to see the cities that Solomon had given him, we’re told he doesn’t like them.
That’s what the text says, homies.
It doesn’t tell us that Hiram had accepted them as collateral.
It doesn’t tell us that he considered them insufficient security.
It doesn’t tell us that he rejected them as collateral.
And it doesn’t tell us that he would have taken possession of them if Solomon defaulted on a loan.
Those are Bradford’s deductions.
Now, could Bradford’s theory be correct?
Sure.
I ain’t saying it’s impossible.
I’m just saying we shouldn’t confuse speculation with what Scripture actually says.
And there’s an even bigger problem with Bradford’s interpretation that Hiram had loaned Solomon enormous amounts of material, labor, and gold, and therefore these cities must have been offered as security for that debt.
Look at the verse immediately afterward.
“Hiram had sent the king 120 talents of gold.”
Wait a minute.
If Hiram was simply the creditor and Solomon was the debtor, why is Hiram sending Solomon a massive amount of gold?
That tells us the relationship between Solomon and Hiram was obviously more complicated than:
Hiram loans Solomon stuff → Solomon gives Hiram collateral.
There was a whole network of economic exchange between these two kings.
Hiram supplied Solomon with materials, skilled workers, and gold, etcetera.
And Solomon was providing things in return.
But Scripture doesn’t give us enough information to reconstruct the exact financial contract between them.
So I think we gotta be careful.
And there’s another problem with saying that KABUL means “collateral.”
It doesn’t.
At least, we can’t simply take the Hebrew word KABUL and translate it into English as “collateral.”
The connection with binding is one thing.
Turning that into the specific financial concept of collateral is another.
Those aren’t necessarily the same thing.
Finally, there’s one more interesting detail that Bradford brings up.
He points to 2 Chronicles 8:2, which says:
“Shlomo built up the cities which Hiram had given to Shlomo and had the people of Israel live there.”
Now THAT is interesting.
Because according to Chronicles, Hiram had also given cities to Solomon.
So we’re not looking at a simple one-way transaction where Hiram gives Solomon resources, and Solomon puts twenty Israelite cities up as collateral.
There appears to have been an exchange of territory and resources between the two kingdoms.
And this is where I think we gotta slow down.
Bradford says Hiram found the twenty cities to be insufficient collateral and rejected them as such.
But again, and I know I’m repeating myself…
That’s NOT what 1st Kings actually says.
It says Hiram wasn’t pleased with the cities.
That’s it.
We don’t know exactly why he wasn’t pleased.
Maybe he thought they were poor-quality cities.
Maybe they weren’t economically valuable enough.
Maybe there was a political or territorial issue.
Maybe there was some kind of financial arrangement behind them.
There are a ton of different possibilities.
But the text doesn’t tell us which one is correct.
If Hiram truly regarded these twenty cities as unacceptable security for a massive debt, why would the biblical author leave that entire financial arrangement unexplained?
Why wouldn’t the text simply tell us:
“Solomon pledged these cities to Hiram as security for what he owed him”?
Instead, we’re just told that Solomon gave Hiram the cities.
That’s a very different level of certainty.
Alrighty, I’m starting to go around in circles here.
So let’s bring this to a close.
Bradford is right about one thing:
KABUL definitely does NOT mean “worthless.”
But I don’t think we can take the next step and confidently declare:
“KABUL means collateral; therefore, these cities were collateral for Solomon’s debt.”
That’s simply more than the text gives us.
And that’s your takeaway for today.
Healthy speculation based on what info we have is fine.
But at the end of the day, realize that it is still speculation.
Too many homies out there turning their speculations and theories into God-declared doctrines.
Christianity, with its Trinity doctrine, is a perfect example of that.
Alrighty, I’ll leave it at that for today.
Leave a Reply