Solomon is a type of Christ. Yes, but a poor type. His early career was attended by the attainment of spectacular wisdom. Unfortunately, this gift of human wisdom did not certify his long-term spiritual discernment. While he could demand that the baby be split in half to discern how the rival claimants to the child would react, he seemed to be incapable of distinguishing between statecraft and the religion of Yahweh. When he cemented alliances with polygamous marriages to foreign wives, he also imported their gods, which eventually wormed their ways into the temple Solomon had built for the only God, the God of his fathers. Solomon was only a type in very small and insignificant ways, namely that he built a temple for the name of the Lord God and that he was the anointed one. He was certainly not a type of Christ in his polygamy, his toleration of idolatry, or the abominable desecration he worked upon the same house he had offered God. The gap between Solomon and Christ is the gap between man and God. Solomon could only be a pitiful sign. Christ was the final and complete fulfillment of the messianic hope.
It is no wonder then that Augustine had very little use for finding in Solomon much that was typical of his future heir and son, Christ. This is all the more remarkable when we consider how deeply committed Augustine was to the allegorical interpretation of the Old Testament. In God's promise to King David there was to be a King who would sit upon the messianic throne forever. 'When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son' (