1 Kings 4 begins with the statement of the sovereignty of Solomon over all of Israel. Why should the writer stress this fact? Part of the answer is that Solomon’s reign over the unified nation was an illustration of the fact that his rule was firmly established. At this point there were no rebellious parties or tribes that were displeased with Solomon’s place on the throne.

Another part of the answer is found in the observation that over the course of the history of the kings a unified monarchy was by no means the established norm. In the Old Testament period, only three kings had reigned over all of Israel, namely, Saul, David, and Solomon.

In the case of the first two, Saul to some extent and David for a period of seven years, there was some resistance to their rule (see 1 Samuel 10:27; 1 Samuel 11:12–13; 1 Kings 2:11, etc.). Adonijah’s rebellion in 1 Kings 1:5–10 took place before Solomon reigned, and in his attempt to claim a right to the throne in 1 Kings 2:13–25 there is no suggestion that he had the same following. We do well to remember, that after Solomon’s reign the monarchy was divided and until the end of the Old Testament no king reigned over all Israel.

The statement concerning Solomon’s reign over all of Israel also has a practical aspect to it as it serves to introduce the record of the administration of the kingdom that is divided between those officials who had functions in regard to the whole of the kingdom and those officials who had responsibility for subordinate administrative districts.