“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 gave Hiram 20 cities and the surrounding territory in the fertile northern region called the GALIL (Galilee in English), most Bibles make it sound like Hiram was so unhappy with the gift that he returned the cities to Solomon as an insult.
As a result, Hiram labeled the 20 cities as KABUL, meaning “worthless” according to most English 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.
Instead, Bradford says the cities were being used as security for the enormous obligations Solomon had accumulated through his dealings with Hiram.
I think it’s an interesting interpretation.
But I beg to differ.
Why?
I think it goes above and beyond what the text actually says.
But first, let’s give credit where credit is due.
I agree with Bradford in that 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.
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 we’re never actually told these twenty cities were put up as 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 all the text says and nothing else.
It doesn’t tell us that Hiram had accepted them as collateral.
Or that he considered them insufficient security.
Those are Bradford’s deductions.
Now, could he 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.
Look at the verse immediately afterward.
“Hiram had sent the king 120 talents of gold.”
Now, somebody could say that gold was the loan, and the cities were the security.
Fair enough.
But somebody else could say Hiram was paying for the cities.
Some scholars read it exactly that way.
The point is, the text doesn’t tell us which.
There was a whole network of economic exchange going on between these two kings.
We simply ain’t given enough information to reconstruct the entire financial arrangement.
Ya feel me?
And there’s another problem with saying that KABUL means “collateral.”
It doesn’t.
That’s right, man.
We can’t just willy-nilly turn the Hebrew word KABUL into “collateral.”
The connection with binding is one thing.
Turning it into some investment banking term is another.
Those aren’t the same thing.
Alrighty, I know this is getting long.
But there’s one more point I gotta address.
Take a look at 2nd Chronicles 8:2:
“Shlomo built up the cities which Hiram had given to Shlomo and had the people of Israel live there.”
Bradford reads this as the same twenty cities coming back to Solomon.
And I think he’s probably right on that one.
But here’s the thing.
Even if Hiram handed the cities back, that still doesn’t tell us WHY.
A rejected gift and a rejected loan guarantee look the same on the page.
So, again, all we’re told is that Hiram wasn’t pleased with the cities he got from Solomon.
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.
There are a ton of possibilities.
So who knows?!
The text doesn’t go into that detail.
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?
Ya feel me here?
Why wouldn’t the text simply tell us:
“Solomon pledged these cities to Hiram as security for what he owed him”?
Alrighty, I’m starting to beat this horse to multiple deaths.
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 jump from that to saying…
“KABUL means collateral.
Therefore, these cities were collateral for Solomon’s debt.”
That’s going above and beyond what the text tells 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