1 kings 4 commentary

1 KI GS 4 COMME TARY
EDITED BY GLE PEASE
Solomon’s Officials and Governors
1 So King Solomon ruled over all Israel.
BAR ES, "Solomon, that is, was king over “all Israel” from the first; not like David,
who for seven and a half years reigned over Judah only. This feature well introduces the
glory of Solomon and the organisation of the court, of which the historian in this chapter
intends to give us a general sketch. Solomon constitutes certain “princes” or officers of
the first rank, deriving their station from him, and probably holding it during pleasure.
GILL, "So King Solomon was king over all Israel. As David his father was not at
first, only over Judah, and as Solomon's successors were not, after the division of the
kingdom under his son Rehoboam; though this seems to have a particular respect to
what is related in the preceding chapter concerning the wisdom of Solomon, for which
he was so famous, that he reigned by the consent of all, and in the hearts of all the people
of Israel.
HE RY, "Here we have,
I. Solomon upon his throne (1Ki_4:1): So king Solomon was king, that is, he was
confirmed and established king over all Israel, and not, as his successors, only over two
tribes. He was a king, that is, he did the work and duty of a king, with the wisdom God
had given him. Those preserve the name and honour of their place that mind the
business of it and make conscience of it.
II. The great officers of his court, in the choice of whom, no doubt, his wisdom much
appeared. It is observable, 1. That several of them are the same that were in his father's
time. Zadok and Abiathar were then priests (2Sa_20:25), so they were now; only then
Abiathar had the precedency, now Zadok. Jehoshaphat was then recorder, or keeper of
the great seal, so he was now. Benaiah, in his father's time, was a principal man in
military affairs, and so he was now. Shisha was his father's scribe, and his sons were his,
1Ki_4:3. Solomon, though a wise man, would not affect to be wiser than his father in this
matter. When sons come to inherit their father's wealth, honour, and power, it is a piece
of respect to their memory, caeteris paribus - where it can properly be done, to employ
those whom they employed, and trust those whom they trusted. Many pride themselves
in being the reverse of their good parents. 2. The rest were priests' sons. His prime-
minister of state was Azariah the son of Zadok the priest. Two others of the first rank
were the sons of Nathan the prophet, 1Ki_4:5. In preferring them he testified the

grateful respect he had for their good father, whom he loved in the name of a prophet.
JAMISO , "1Ki_4:1-6. Solomon’s princes.
So King Solomon was king over all Israel — This chapter contains a general
description of the state and glory of the Hebrew kingdom during the more flourishing or
later years of his reign.
BE SO , "1 Kings 4:1. Over all Israel — Reigned over all the tribes, and with the
full consent of them all. This is spoken with respect to his successors, who were
kings only over a part, and that the smallest part of Israel. Or in reference to the
times of division and rebellion under David, when part only went after David, and
part after Ish-bosheth, Absalom, Sheba, or Adonijah.
COFFMA , "THE ALLEGED GLORY OF SOLOMO 'S KI GDOM
This chapter is touted by admirers of Solomon as a summary of the magnificence
and glory of the kingdom of Solomon, but this writer's opinion of that kingdom
holds it in a somewhat different light - the light shed on it by the Prince of Peace
who declared of himself that, "Behold, a greater than Solomon is here" (Matthew
12:42)! The full implication of Jesus' words in that passage clearly mean that
Solomon's kingdom suggests that of the Messiah only in their dramatic contrasts.
The materialistic trappings of the Solomonic kingdom exhibited all of the
extravagant abuses of excessively big government, outrageous, and oppressive
taxation, great battalions of forced labor, and a bloated military establishment, to
say nothing of his enormous multiplication of personal wealth and his sensual
indulgence of his lust in cohabiting with a thousand pagan women. Some very great
scholars, seemingly out of their right mind, have the audacity to make that
reprobate kingdom of Solomon actually, "a type of the Messianic Kingdom." As
Matthew Henry stated it: " ever, in the days of Solomon's father, nor in the days of
any of his successors, was the kingdom of Israel ever so glorious a type of the
kingdom of the Messiah as it was in the reign of Solomon."[1]
The great error in all such false notions is founded in the widespread ignorance of
the fact that "The True Israel of God" in the Old Testament was never THE
SI FUL KI GDOM, but THE RIGHTEOUS REM A T. The Kingdom of
Solomon was the scandalous disgrace of forty generations, and Israel never
recovered from it!
For these reasons, this writer will not make elaborate comments on many phases of
this tragic reign.
SOME OF SOLOMO 'S PRI CIPAL ADMI ISTRATORS
"And king Solomon was king over all Israel. And these were the princes whom he
had: Azariah the son of Zadok, the priest; Elihoreph and Ahijah the sons of Shisha,

the scribes; Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud, the recorder; and Benaiah the son of
Jehoiada was over the. host; and Zadok and Abiathar were priests; and Azariah the
son of athan was over the officers; and Zabud the son of athan was chief
minister, and the king's friend; and Ahishar was over the household; and Adoniram
the son of Abdo was over the men subject to taskwork."
It is at once evident that Solomon's principal officers included important men from
the days of David (Benaiah and Adohiram) as well as certain kinsmen. Scholars
disagree on whether athan here is the prophet or David's son A surprise is the
mention of Abiathar, indicating that Solomon had either forgiven and elevated him,
or that another of the same name is meant. The usual explanation of critics is that
the name's appearance here is "an error," but no critic tells us who that other priest
actually was!
Keil identified this list as coming from the "middle portion,"[2] but Barlow
identified it as coming from the latter part of Solomon's reign.[3] Two designations
here are of special interest; and in both of them, it is clear that euphemisms are
involved. Ahishar over the household was in charge of Solomon's harem; and
Adoniram over the men subject to taskwork was in charge of the great gangs of
forced labor. The Hebrew here leaves no doubt that "forced labor is meant."[4]
These are threatening and ominous words, a sinister note indeed. "One of the great
weaknesses of Solomon's administration was his insistence upon wringing the last
possible amount of money and other help from his subjects. This policy brought
about the division of his kingdom following his death, and Adoniram (Adoram)
would play a most unhappy role on that occasion (1 Kings 12:18)."[5] Keil also
agreed that the Adoniram here is the same as the Adoram of the days of David (2
Samuel 20:24).[6]
EBC, "SOLOMO ’S COURT A D KI GDOM
1 Kings 4:1-34.
"But what more oft in nations grown corrupt And by their vices brought to
servitude, Than to love bondage more than liberty, Bondage with ease than
strenuous liberty?"
-Samson Agonistes.
WHE David was dead, and Solomon was established on his throne, his first
thoughts were turned to the consolidation of his kingdom. He was probably quite a
youth. He was not, nor did he ever desire to be, a warlike prince; but he was
compelled to make himself secure from two enemies-Hadad and Rezon-who began
almost at once to threaten his frontiers. Of these, however, we shall speak later on,
since it is only towards the close of Solomon’s reign that they seem to have given
serious trouble. If the second psalm is by Solomon it may point to some early
disturbances among heathen neighbors which he had successfully put down.

The only actual expedition which Solomon ever made was one against a certain
Hamath-Zobah, to which, however, very little importance can be attached. It is
simply mentioned in one line in the Book of Chronicles, and it is hard to believe-
considering that Rezon had possession of Damascus - that Solomon was master of
the great Hamath. He made a material alteration in the military organization of his
kingdom by establishing a standing army of fourteen hundred war chariots, and
twelve thousand horsemen, whom he dispersed in various cities and barracks,
keeping some of them at Jerusalem. {1 Kings 10:26}
In order to save his kingdom from attack Solomon expended vast sums on the
fortification of frontier towns. In the north he fortified Hazor; in the northwest
Megiddo. The passes to Jerusalem on the west were rendered safe by the fortresses
at Upper and ether Bethhoron. The southern districts were overawed by the
building of Baalath and Tamar, "the palm-city," which is described as "in the
wilderness in the land,"-perhaps in the desolate tract on the road from Hebron to
Elath. Movers thinks that Hazezon-Tamar or Engedi is meant, as this town is called
Tamar in Ezekiel 47:19.
As the king grew more and more in power he gave full reins to his innate love of
magnificence. We can best estimate the sudden leap of the kingdom into luxurious
civilization if we contrast the royalty of Saul with that of Solomon. Saul was little
more than a peasant-prince, a local emir, and such state as he had was of the
humblest description. But Solomon vied with the gorgeous secular dynasts of
historic empires.
His position had become much more splendid owing to his alliance with the King of
Egypt-an alliance of which his humbler predecessors would scarcely have dreamed.
We are not told the name of his Egyptian bride, but she must have been the
daughter of one of the last kings of the twenty-first Tanite dynasty-either Psinaces,
or Psusennes II The dynasty had been founded at Tanis (Zoan) about B.C. 1100 by
an ambitious priest named Hit-hor. It only lasted for five generations. Whatever
other dower Solomon received with this Egyptian princess, his father-in-law
rendered him one signal service. He advanced from Egypt with an army against the
Canaanite town of Gezer, which he conquered and destroyed. Solomon rebuilt it as
an outpost of defense for Jerusalem. Further than this the Egyptian alliance did not
prove to be of much use. The last king of this weak twenty-first dynasty was
succeeded B.C. 990 by the founder of a new Bubastite dynasty, the great Shishak I
(Shesonk), the protector of Jeroboam and the plunderer of Jerusalem and its
Temple. Ker’amat, niece of the last king of the dynasty, married Shishak, the
founder of the new dynasty, and was the mother of U-Sark-on I (Zerah the
Ethiopian).
It has been a matter of dispute among the Rabbis whether Solomon was
commendable or blameworthy for contracting this foreign alliance. If we judge him
simply from the secular standpoint, nothing could be more obviously politic than the
course he took. or did he break any law in marrying Pharaoh’s daughter. Moses

had not forbidden the union with an Egyptian woman. Still, from the religious point
of view, it was inevitable that such a connection would involve consequences little in
accordance with the theocratic ideal. The kings of Judah must not be judged as
though they were ordinary sovereigns. They were meant to be something more than
mere worldly potentates. The Egyptian alliance, instead of flattering the pride, only
wounded the susceptibilities of the later Jews. The Rabbis had a fantastic notion
that Shimei had been Solomon’s teacher, and that the king did not fall into the error
of wedding an alien {See Deuteronomy 23:7-8} until Shimei had been driven from
Jerusalem. That there was some sense of doubt in Solomon’s mind appears from the
statement in 2 Chronicles 8:11, that he deemed it unfit for his bride to have her
residence on Mount Moriah, a spot hallowed by the presence of the Ark of God.
That she became a proselytess has been suggested, hut it is most unlikely. Had this
been the case it would have been mentioned in contrast with the heathenism of the
fair idolatresses who in later years beguiled the king’s heart. On the other hand, the
princess, who was his chief if not his earliest bride, does not seem to have asked for
any shrine or chapel for the practice of her Egyptian rites. This is the more
remarkable since Solomon, ashamed of the humble cedar house of David-which
would look despicable to a lady who had lived in "the gigantic edifices, and
labyrinthine palace of Egyptian kings" expended vast sums in building her a palace
which should seem worthy of her royal race.
From this time forward the story of Solomon becomes more the record of a passing
pageant preserved for us in loosely arranged fragments. It can never be one tithe so
interesting as the history of a human heart with its sufferings and passions.
"Solomon in all his glory," that figure so unique, so lonely in its wearisome pomp,
can never stir our sympathy or win our affection as does the natural, impetuous
David, or even the fallen, unhappy Saul. "The low sun makes the color." The bright
gleams and dark shadows of David’s life are more instructive than the dull
monotony of Solomon’s magnificence.
The large space of Scripture devoted to him in the Books of Kings and Chronicles is
occupied almost exclusively with the details of architecture and display. It is only in
the first and last sections of his story that we catch the least glimpse of the man
himself. In the central section we see nothing of him, but are absorbed in
measurements and descriptions which have a purely archaeological, or, at the best, a
dimly symbolic significance. The man is lost in the monarch, the monarch in the
appurtenances of his royal display. His annals degenerate into the record of a
sumptuous parade.
The fourth chapter of the Book of Kings gives us the constitution of his court as it
was in the middle of his reign, when two of his daughters were already married. It
need not detain us long.
The highest officers of the kingdom were called Sarim, "princes," a title which in
David’s reign had been borne almost alone by Joab, who was Sar-lia-zaba, or
captain of the host. The son of Zadok is named first as "the priest." The two chief
secretaries (Sopherim) were Elihoreph and Ahiah. They inherited the office of their

father Shavsha, {1 Chronicles 18:16} who had been the secretary of David. It was
their duty to record decrees and draw up the documents of state. Jehoshaphat, the
son of Ahilud, continued to hold the office of annalist or historiographer (Mazkir),
the officer known as the Waka uwish in Persian courts. Azariah was over the
twelve prefects ( itza-bim), or farmers-general, who administered the revenues. His
brother Zabud became "priest" and "king’s friend." Ahishar was "over the
household" (al-hab-Baith); that is, he was the chamberlain, vizier, or mayor of the
palace, wearing on his shoulder the key which was the symbol of his authority.
{Isaiah 22:21} Adoniram or Adoram who had been tax-collector for David, still held
that onerous and invidious office, {2 Samuel 20:24} which subsequently, in his
advanced old age, cost him his life. Benaiah succeeded to the chief-captaincy of
Joab. We hear nothing more of him, but the subsequent history shows that when
David gathered around him this half alien and wholly mercenary force in a country
which had no standing army, he turned the sovereignty into what the Greeks would
have called a tyranny. As the only armed force in the kingdom the body-guard
overawed opposition, and was wholly at the disposal of the king. These troops were
to Solomon at Jerusalem what the Praetorians were to Tiberius at Rome.
The chief points of interest presented by the list are these:-
1. First we mark the absence of any prophet. either athan nor Gad is even
mentioned. The pure ray of Divine illumination is overpowered by the glitter of
material prosperity.
2. Secondly, the priests are quite subordinate. They are only mentioned fifth in
order, and Abia-thar is named with Zadok, though after his deposition he was living
in enforced retirement. The sacerdotal authority was at this time quite
overshadowed by the royal. In all the elaborate details of the pomp which attended
the consecration of the Temple, Solomon is everything, the priests comparatively
nothing. Zadok is not even mentioned as taking any part in the sacrifices in spite of
his exalted rank. Solomon acts throughout as supreme head of the Church. or was
this unnatural, since the two capital events in the history of the worship of Jehovah-
the removal of the Ark to Mount Zion, and the suggestion, inception, and
completion of the building of the Temple-were due to Solomon and David, not to
Zadok or Ahiathar. The priests, throughout the monarchy, suggest nothing,
inaugurate nothing. They are lost in functions and formal ceremonies. They are but
obedient administrative servants, and, so far from protecting religion, they
acquiesce with tame indifference in every innovation and every apostasy. History
has few titles which form so poor a claim to distinction as that of Levitic priest.
3. Further, we have two curious and significant phenomena. The title "the priest" is
given to Azariab, who is first mentioned among the court functionaries. Solomon
had not the least intention to allow either the priestly or the much loftier prophetic
functions to interfere with his autocracy. He did not choose that there should be any
danger of a priest usurping an exorbitant influence, as Hir-hor had done in Egypt,
or Ethbaal afterwards did in the court of Tyre, or Thomas 'a-Becket in the court of
England, or Torquemada in that of Spain. He was too much a king to submit to

priestly domination. He therefore appointed one who should be "the priest," for
courtly and official purposes, and should stand in immediate subordination to
himself.
4. The athan whose two sons, Azariah and Zabud, held such high positions, was in
all probability not athan the Prophet, who is rarely introduced without his
distinctive title, but athan, the younger brother of Solomon, in whose line the race
of David was continued after the extinction of the elder branch in Jeconiah. Here
again we note the union of civil with priestly functions. Zabud is called "a priest"
though he is a layman, a prince of the tribe of Judah. or was this the first instance
in which princes of the royal house had found maintenance, occupation, and high
official rank by being in some sort engaged in the functions of the priesthood.
Already in David’s reign we find the title "priests" (Kohanim) given to the sons of
David in the list of court officials-"and David’s sons were priests." In this we trace
the possible results of Phoenician influences.
5. Incidentally it is pleasing to find that, though Solomon put Adonijah to death, he
stood in close and kindly relations with his other brothers, and gave high
promotions to the sons of the brothers who stood nearest to him in age, in one of
whom we see the destined ancestor of the future Messiah. {2 Kings 18:18; Isaiah
22:15}
6. The growth of imposing officialism, and its accompanying gulf between the king
and his people, is marked by the first appearance of "the chamberlain" as a new
functionary. On him fell the arrangement of court pageants and court etiquette. The
chamberlain in despotic Eastern courts becomes a personage of immense
importance because he controls the right of admission into the royal presence. Such
officers, even when chosen from the lowest rank of slaves-like Eutropius the eunuch-
minister of Arcadius, or Olivier le Daim, the barber-minister of Louis XI-often
absorb no mean part of the influence of the sovereign with whom they are brought
into daily connection. In the court of Solomon the chamberlain stands only ninth in
order; but three centuries later, in the days of Hezekiah, he has become the greatest
of the officials, and "Eliakim who was over the household" is placed before Shebna,
the influential scribe, and Joah, the son of Asaph the recorder. {2 Samuel 20:24} He
is not mentioned in 1 Chronicles 27:25-31.
7. Last on the list stands the minister who has the ominous title of al-ham-Mas, or
"over the tribute." The Mas means the "levy," corvee, or forced labor. In other
words, Adoram was overseer of the soccagers. Saul had required an overseer of the
flocks and David a guardian of the treasury, but Adoram is not mentioned till late in
his reign. The gravamen of David’s numbering of the people seems to have lain in
the intention to subject them to a poll tax, or to personal service, such as had
become necessary to maintain the expenses of the court. It is obvious that, as royalty
developed from the conception of the theocratic king to that of the Oriental despot,
the stern warning of Samuel to the people of Israel was more and more fulfilled.
They had said, " ay, but we will have a king to reign over us, when Jehovah was
their king"; and Samuel had told them how much less blessed was bondage with

ease than their strenuous liberty. He had warned them that their king would take
their sons for his runners and charioteers and reapers and soldiers and armorers,
and their daughters for his perfumers and confectioners; and that he would seize
their fields and vineyards for his courtiers, and claim the tithes of their possession,
and use their asses, and put their oxen to his work. The word "Mas" representing
soccage, serfdom, forced labor (corvee; Germ., Frohndienst), first became odiously
familiar in the days of Solomon.
Solomon was an expensive king, and the Jewish kings had no private revenue from
which the necessary resources could be supplied. In order to secure contributions
for the maintenance of the royal establishment, Solomon appointed his twelve
Prefects. The list of them is incorporated from a document so ancient that in several
instances the names have dropped out, and only "son of" remains. The districts
entirely and designedly ignored the old tribal limits, which Solomon probably
wished to obliterate. Ben-Hur administered the hill country of Ephraim; Ben-Dekar
had his headquarters in Dan; Ben-Hesed had the maritime plain; BenAbinadab the
fertile region of Carmel, and he was wedded to Solomon’s daughter Taphath;
Baana, son of Ahilud, managed the plain of Esdraelon; Ben-Geberthe mountainous
country east of Jordan, including Gilead and Argob with its basaltic towns;
Ahinadab, son of Iddo, was officer in Mahanaim; Ahimaaz in aphtali (he was
married to Solomon’s daughter Basmath, and was perhaps the son of Zadok);
Baanah, son of David’s faithful Hushai, was in Asher; Shimei, son of Elah, in
Benjamin; Jehoshaphat in Issachar. Geber administered alone the ancient
dominions of Sihon and Og. We see with surprise that Judah seems to have been
exempted from the burdens imposed on the other districts, and if so the impolitic
exemption was a main cause of the subsequent jealousies.
The chief function of these officers was to furnish provisions for the immense
numbers who were connected with the court. The curious list is given of the
provision required for one day-thirty measures of fine flour, sixty of bread, ten fat
oxen, twenty pasture oxen, and one hundred sheep, besides the delicacies of harts,
gazelles, fallow-deer, and fatted guinea-hens or swans. Bunsen reckons that this
would provide for about fifteen thousand persons. In this there is nothing
extraordinary, though the number is disproportionate to the smallness of the
kingdom. About the same number were daily supported by the kings of the great
empire of Persia. We see how rapidly the state of royalty had developed when we
compare Solomon’s superb surroundings with the humble palace of Ishbosheth less
than fifty years earlier-a palace of which the only guard was a single sleepy woman,
who had been sifting wheat in the noontide, and had fallen asleep over her task in
the porch. {2 Samuel 4:6}
Yet in the earlier years of the reign, while the people, dazzled by the novel sense of
national importance, felt the stimulus given to trade and industry, the burden was
not painfully felt. They multiplied in numbers, and lived under their vines and fig
trees in peace and festivity. But much of their prosperity was hollow and short-lived.
Wealth led to vice and corruption, and in place of the old mountain breezes of
freedom which purified the air, the nation, like Issachar, became like an ass

crouching between two burdens, and bowing its shoulders to the yoke in the hot
valley of sensuous servitude.
"Ill fares the land, to hastening ills a prey,
Where wealth accumulates and men decay!"
It is impossible to overlook the general drift of Jewish royalty towards pure
materialism in the days of Solomon. We search in vain for the lofty spirituality
which survived even in the rough epoch of the Judges and the rude simplicity of
David’s earlier reign. The noble aspirations which throb in one Davidic psalm are
worth all the gorgeous formalism of the Temple service. Amid the luxuries of plenty
and the feasts of wine on the lees there seems to have been an ever-deepening famine
of the Word of God.
There was one innovation, which struck the imagination of Solomon’s
contemporaries, but was looked on with entire disfavor by those who had been
trained in the old pious days. Solomon had immense stables for his chariot horses
(susim), and the swift riding horses of his couriers (parashim). It seems to have been
Solomon’s ambition to equal or outshine "the chariots of Pharaoh," {Song of
Solomon 1:9} with which his Egyptian queen had been familiar at Tanis. This
feature of his reign is dwelt upon in the Arabian legends, as well as in all the
historical records of his greatness. But the maintenance of a cavalry force had
always been discouraged by the religious teachers of Israel. The use of horses in war
is forbidden in Deuteronomy. {Deuteronomy 17:16} Joshua had houghed the horses
of the Canaanites, and burned their chariots at Misre-photh-maim. David had
followed his example. Barak had defeated the iron chariots of Sisera, and David the
splendid cavalry of Hadadezer with the simple infantry of Israel. {Joshua 11:9; 1
Samuel 8:11-12; 2 Samuel 8:4} The spirit of the olden faithfulness spoke in such
words as, "Some put their trust in chariots, and some in horses; but we will trust in
the name of the Lord our God." Solomon’s successors discovered that they had not
gained in strength by adopting this branch of military service in their hilly and
rocky land. They found that "a horse is but a vain thing to save a man, neither shall
he deliver any man by his great strength." {Psalms 33:17; Psalms 76:6; Psalms
147:10}
For a time, however, Solomon’s strenuous centralization was successful. His
dominion extended, at least nominally, from Tiphzah (Thapsacus), beside the ford
on the west bank of the Euphrates, to the Mediterranean; over the whole domain of
the Philistines; and from Damascus to "the river of Egypt," that is, the Rhinokolura
or Wady el-Areesh. The names Jeroboam and Rehoboam imply that they were born
in an epoch of prosperity. But the sequel proves that it was that sort of empire
which,
"Like expanded gold, Exchanges solid strength for feeble splendor."

PARKER, "The Church Triumphant
1 Kings 4
I David we have seen, vividly enough, a picture of the Church militant. When was
David not at war? When was he not persecuted, followed hotly upon the mountains
by vengeful rivals and hostile men of various names? Did he not live often in the
rock and in the den and in the cave of the earth? Was he not often without shelter,
without food, without friends? Verily no better type for the Church militant can be
found in history, and it is questionable whether a more vivid representation of the
militant Church could be conceived by human fancy. We have heard the clash of
arms; we have watched the king fleeing away from his enemies; we have studied
much of his policy, and acquainted ourselves familiarly with his temper and his
purposes; and again we revert to David as fitly and strikingly typifying the militant
Church. The Church of Christ has often been in precisely the same circumstances
spiritually. Friendless, persecuted, hunted, hated, suffering all manner of distress
and evil, driven away in the night-time, pitilessly pursued by enemies athirst for
blood, the Church has had a weary life, a long struggle, a battle almost without
pause night or day; the Church has suffered every variety of pain, indignity,
humiliation, and loss. In proof of this read the eleventh chapter of Hebrews in the
concluding verses, and there see what the Church has been and done in many a long
age. Putting the two histories together, there can be no disagreement as to the
statement that David represents the militant Church in all the variety of its anxious
and distressing experience. Coming to Song of Solomon , we come to one who
typifies the Church triumphant. The figure must not be driven too severely; we
must take its poetry and its suggestiveness rather than its literal narrative and
course. Solomon did not begin life as David began it. Solomon was born to the
purple: David was no king"s son; he was the son of "thy servant Jesse the
Bethlehemite." Jesse probably was not a great landed owner and prince, for David
was asked with whom he had "left those few sheep in the wilderness." Which of the
two began life under the better auspices? Is it better to be born a shepherd, or a
prince? Song of Solomon , however, was a king"s Song of Solomon , and must take
all the disadvantages of high birth. Who would be born high if he could help it?
What restraint, what limitation of liberty, what fierce criticism, what unreasonable
censure, what irrational and untenable expectations, all mark the position of a man
who was born a prince. These are the disadvantages, and Solomon must encounter
them. Wherein, then, does Solomon represent the Church triumphant even
typically? surely he does so in the universality of his reign:—
"So king Solomon was king over all Israel."—( 1 Kings 4:1).
Make these words bear their very highest meaning, and we begin to approach a true
conception of the position of Jesus Christ as he sits enthroned above the riches of the
universe, ruling an obedient creation, receiving the acclaims of the nations he has
redeemed. Even this is prophesied. The prophets were bold men. They followed
their logic to its conclusions; yea, even until it became poetry, and surprised

themselves with unexpected music. We must not regard millennial glory and
millennial music as representing only imagination, fancy, a vivid or overwrought
dreaming faculty; all that is brightest, sweetest, most melodious, expresses an
underlying solidity of fact, history, reality. This is the meaning of prophecy,—
namely, that seed shall come to harvest; that the one little ear shall die, and rot, and
out of its very putrescence lift up a head sixty-fold in fruitfulness and gold-like in
beauty. The prophets said, Right shall reign; the day must come when men will see
that right is better than wrong, justice better than injustice, and peace to be
preferred above battle; and all this will be wrought out in connection with the name
of Immanuel—God with us,—whose name is the Prince of Peace: the government
shall be upon his shoulder, and all men will wish it to remain there; and so they
flung their words upon the ages, and all the centuries as they come and go are
tending in the direction of establishing peace, brotherhood, love, unity, and
sanctifying the whole by its cause—namely, the spirit and purpose of the Son of
God.
GUZIK, "A. Solomon’s cabinet and governors.
1. (1 Kings 4:1-6) Solomon’s officials.
So King Solomon was king over all Israel. And these were his officials: Azariah the
son of Zadok, the priest; Elihoreph and Ahijah, the sons of Shisha, scribes;
Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud, the recorder; Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, over the
army; Zadok and Abiathar, the priests; Azariah the son of athan, over the
officers; Zabud the son of athan, a priest and the king’s friend; Ahishar, over the
household; and Adoniram the son of Abda, over the labor force.
a. And these were his officials: Just as the story of the mothers contending over one
baby was an example of Solomon’s great wisdom, so is the rest of this chapter. The
wise way he selected, trained, empowered, and supervised leaders is an example of
his wisdom.
i. Solomon was a leader of leaders. o wise leader does it all themselves. They know
how to delegate responsibility and authority and get the job done. Solomon’s great
wisdom enabled him to see the needs to get, train, and employ the right people to
meet those needs.
b. The priest . . . scribes . . . the recorder: Solomon’s government was structured
much like that in modern nations. He had officials who served as “ministers” or
“secretaries” over their specific areas of responsibility.
i. Solomon’s leadership was organized. He knew that God is a God of design and
organization, and that things simply operate better and more efficiently when
organized.
ii. “Jehoshaphat, who had served under David (2 Samuel 8:16; 2Sa_20:24),

continued as recorder. As such he was more a chief of protocol than a
‘remembrancer’ or recorder of the past. His status was almost that of a Secretary of
State.” (Wiseman)
iii. “Since Abiathar had been exiled by Solomon (1 Kings 2:26 ff), his inclusion here
as a priest seems to be a problem. It must be remembered, however, that while
Solomon could only reassign Abiathar’s responsibility, he could not take away his
title nor his dignity as a priest.” (Dilday)
PETT, "Details of The Administrative Organisation Of Solomon As King Over All
Israel (1 Kings 4:1-21).
The splendour of Solomon’s reign is now brought out by reference to the wisdom of
his administrative appointments, and concluding with a picture of the general
prosperity of the land. The description includes both the appointment of his chief
officers (1 Kings 4:2-6), and of his district fiscal governors (1 Kings 4:7-21), together
with the nature of their tasks. Comparison may be made with David’s chief officers
in 2 Samuel 8:15-18. The repeated reference to ‘priests’ in both may suggest that old
Jebusite titles had been taken over in Jerusalem which in fact indicated that
previously such offices had been held by priests (cohanim) of the old Jebusite
religion, possibly the worship of El Elyon (Genesis 14:18), overseen by the priest-
king himself. That was why David and Solomon saw themselves as being ‘a priest
for ever after the order of Melchizedek’ (Psalms 110:4), and some of their
appointees as similar ‘priests’. They were probably seen, along with their other
duties, as having intercessory responsibilities before YHWH on behalf of God’s
people.
ow, therefore, the new appointees would be worshippers of YHWH. Azariah, the
son of Zadok, was probably the prime minister (described under the ancient
Canaanite title of ‘cohen’) with Elihoreph and Ahijah being the two secretaries of
state, Jehoshaphat being the Chancellor, Benaiah being the commander-in-chief of
the armies of Israel, Zadok and Abiathar still being High Priests (a position the
status of which was for life even though Abiathar’s authority to act may have been
removed), Azariah the son of athan (probably the athan who was the son of
David) being the superintendent of the district officers, Zabud the son of athan
being the king’s chief adviser (his ‘friend’) and also designated by the ancient title of
‘cohen’, thus possibly being also a priestly intercessor (compare how the king’s sons
had been ‘priests’ in 2 Samuel 8:18), Abishar being over the king’s household, and
Adoniram being over the forcibly enlisted labour.
It will be noted that under David the leading official who had been mentioned first
had been the commander-in-chief of the armies of Israel (2 Samuel 8:15). The
change to a Prime Minister thus now indicated emphasises that things had moved
away from the necessity of being on a war footing to a period of more peaceful
coexistence and consolidation, albeit with the commander-in-chief still being very
important.

These appointments were then followed by the appointing of ‘officers’ over the
twelve districts into which Israel/Judah was divided up, one of their purposes being
to ensure provision of ample supplies of food and drink for the royal court.
It will be noted that the first four, and the sixth, of these officials are simply
described as ‘son of’ (ben), which is unusual. It has been surmised that that was
because one edge of the tablet on which their names had been recorded had either
been broken off or had become unreadable. It is important to note, if that is the
case, that no attempt was made to invent names to make up for the loss. The writer
was scrupulous about sticking with the facts that he had, (thus underlining the
reliability of the narrative). An alternative possibility is that they were so named
because their positions were seen as hereditary, as with the similar situation
pertaining at Ugarit, with each successor bearing the name of the original holder of
the position. A third alternative is that in some circles naming oneself in this way
had become the latest craze.
Analysis.
a And king Solomon was king over all Israel (1 Kings 4:1).
b And these were the princes whom he had:
Azariah, the son of Zadok, (was) the priest;
Elihoreph and Ahijah, the sons of Shisha, (were) scribes;
Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud, (was) the recorder;
And Benaiah the son of Jehoiada was over the host;
And Zadok and Abiathar were priests;
And Azariah the son of athan was over the officers;
And Zabud the son of athan was priest, and the king’s friend;
And Ahishar was over the household;
And Adoniram the son of Abda was over the men subject to taskwork. (1 Kings 4:2-
6).
c And Solomon had twelve officers over all Israel, who provided victuals for
the king and his household, each man had to make provision for a month in the year
(1 Kings 4:7).
b And these are their names:
Ben-hur, in the hill-country of Ephraim;
Ben-deker, in Makaz, and in Shaalbim, and Beth-shemesh, and Elon-beth-hanan;
Ben-hesed, in Arubboth (to him pertained Socoh, and all the land of Hepher);
Ben-abinadab, in all the height of Dor (he had Taphath the daughter of Solomon to
wife)
Baana the son of Ahilud, in Taanach and Megiddo, and all Beth-shean which is
beside Zarethan, beneath Jezreel, from Beth-shean to Abel-meholah, as far as
beyond Jokmeam;
Ben-geber, in Ramoth-gilead (to him pertained the towns of Jair the son of
Manasseh, which are in Gilead; even to him pertained the region of Argob, which is
in Bashan, threescore great cities with walls and brazen bars);
Ahinadab the son of Iddo, in Mahanaim;

Ahimaaz, in aphtali (he also took Basemath the daughter of Solomon to wife);
Baana the son of Hushai, in Asher and Bealoth;
Jehoshaphat the son of Paruah, in Issachar;
Shimei the son of Ela, in Benjamin;
Geber the son of Uri, in the land of Gilead, the country of Sihon king of the
Amorites and of Og king of Bashan; and he was the only officer who was in the land
(1 Kings 4:8-19).
a Judah and Israel were many, as the sand which is by the sea in multitude,
eating and drinking and making merry, and Solomon ruled over all the kingdoms
from the River to the land of the Philistines, and to the border of Egypt. They
brought tribute, and served Solomon all the days of his life (1 Kings 4:20-21).
ote that in ‘a’ it is emphasised that Solomon was king over all Israel, his chief
domain, while in the parallel he also ruled from the Euphrates to the border of
Egypt, but in some cases through kings of some of these areas who were his vassals.
In ‘b’ we have the list of leading officials, and in the parallel the list of the governors
of the administrative districts. Centrally in ‘c’ we have indicated the means of
provisioning the royal court.
1 Kings 4:1
‘And king Solomon was king over all Israel.’
Solomon now reigned in glory over all Israel. The details that follow are not,
however, to be seen as signifying the situation at the beginning of his reign. As ever
the account is not chronological but topical. It will be noted, for example, that some
of the officials were married to Solomon’s daughters. It is true, of course that they
might have been appointed before they did marry them, and that the daughters may
only have been twelve years of age with their husbands as older men, but
nevertheless at least a few years would appear to be required. When Solomon came
to the throne he may have been anywhere between, say, sixteen to twenty two. We
are never told his age at the time when he came to the throne.
PULPIT, "SOLOMO 'S STATE A D COURT OFFICIALS.—The account of
Solomon's marriage and entry upon his religious and judicious functions is
appropriately followed by a description of his court, of the great functionaries of the
realm, of his royal state and magnificence, and, lastly, of his varied and
unprecedented wisdom. It must not be supposed, however, from the occurrence of
the lists in this particular place, that they necessarily represent the appointments of
the early part of Solomon's reign. The mention of two of the married daughters of
the king (1 Kings 4:11, 1 Kings 4:15) has been generally thought to prove that the
record belongs to a much later period, and it certainly affords a powerful
presumption in favour of a later date. Too much stress, however, must not be laid on
this consideration, as the girls of the East marry early, and these may well have been
given to officers much their seniors, who had long been in office, and who had
merited this distinction (cf. Joshua 15:16; 1 Samuel 17:25; 1 Samuel 18:17) by the
important services they had rendered to the State. Ewald sees in these lists
unmistakeable evidence of compilation from the public archives. But see

Introduction, sect. 6. If the historians of Israel were the prophets, nothing is more
natural than that they should record such details of the Augustan age of their race.
1 Kings 4:1
So King Solomon was king over all Israel [All later kings ruled but a part of the
land of Israel, as also did David at first.]
BI, "So King Solomon was king over all Israel.
A kingdom unified
Charles Albert, we are told, went to help the Milanese. The Austrians, vastly
outnumbering, drove him back toward Turin, defeated him at Novara, swayed renewed
sceptre over the revolted provinces. The king abdicated in favour of his son, Victor
Emanuel. When the young king accepted the crown he pointed his sword toward the
Austrian camp and said, “By the grace of God there shall be a united Italy.” It seemed
then but an empty boast. Yet his prophecy turned to fact. Marshal Radetjsky proposed to
him the abolishment of the constitutional charter granted to the people by his father,
and advised him to follow the Austrian policy of unbridled oppression. But the young
king declared that, sooner than subscribe to such conditions, he was ready to renounce,
not one crown, but a thousand. “The house of Savoy,” he said, “knows the path of exile,
but not the path of dishonour.” Right noble answer! Better anything than disloyalty to a
high ancestry, than falseness to the laws of the kingdom of which he had been made the
leader.
The Church triumphant
Make these words bear their very highest meaning, and we begin to approach a true
conception of the position of Jesus Christ as He sits enthroned above the riches of the
universe, ruling an obedient creation, receiving the acclaims of the nations He has
redeemed. Even this is prophesied. The prophets were bold men. They followed their
logic to its conclusions; yea, even until it became poetry, and surprised themselves with
unexpected music. We must not regard millennial glory and millennial music as
representing only imagination, fancy, a vivid or overwrought dreaming faculty; all that is
brightest, sweetest, most melodious, expresses an underlying solidity of fact, history,
reality. The prophets said, Right shall reign; the day must come when men will see that
right is better than wrong, justice better than injustice, and peace to be preferred above
battle; and all this will be wrought out in connection with the name of Immanuel—God
with us—whose name is the Prince of Peace. (J. Parker, D. D.)
2 And these were his chief officials:

Azariah son of Zadok—the priest;
BAR ES, "Azariah, the son of Zadok, the priest - “The priest” here belongs to
Azariah, not to Zadok. The term used ‫כהן‬ kôhên means sometimes a priest, sometimes a
civil officer, with perhaps a semi-priestly character. (See 2Sa_8:18 note.) In this place it
has the definite article prefixed, and can only mean “the high priest.” Azariah, called
here the “son,” but really the “grandson,” of Zadok, seems to have succeeded him in the
priesthood 1Ch_6:10. His position as high priest at the time when this list was made out
gives Azariah the foremost place in it.
CLARKE, "These were the princes which he had; Azariah the son of Zadok
the priest - These were his great, chief, or principal men. None of them were princes in
the common acceptation of the word.
GILL, "And these were the princes which he had,.... That were in office about
him, in the highest posts of honour and trust:
Azariah the son of Zadok the priest: or rather his grandson, since Ahimaaz was the
son of Zadok, and Azariah the son of Ahimaaz, 1Ch_6:8; though another Zadok may be
meant, and his son not a priest but a prince, as the word may be rendered, and was
Solomon's prime minister of state, and the rather, since he is mentioned first.
JAMISO , "these were the princes — or chief officers, as is evident from two of
them marrying Solomon’s daughters.
Azariah the son of Zadok the priest — rather, “the prince,” as the Hebrew word
frequently signifies (Gen_41:45; Exo_2:16; 2Sa_8:18); so that from the precedency
given to his person in the list, he seems to have been prime minister, the highest in office
next the king.
K&D, "1Ki_4:2
The first of the ‫ים‬ ִ‫ר‬ ָ‫,שׂ‬ princes, i.e., chief ministers of state or dignitaries, mentioned
here is not the commander-in-chief, as under the warlike reign of David (2Sa_8:16;
2Sa_20:23), but, in accordance with the peaceful rule of Solomon, the administrator of
the kingdom (or prime minister): “Azariah the son of Zadok was ‫ן‬ ֵ‫ּה‬ⅴ ַ‫”,ה‬ i.e., not the
priest, but the administrator of the kingdom, the representative of the king before the
people; like ‫ן‬ ֵ‫ּה‬ⅴ in v. 5, where this word is interpreted by ְ‫ך‬ ֶ‫ל‬ ֶ ַ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ֶ‫ע‬ ֵ‫,ר‬ with this difference,
however, arising from the article before ‫ן‬ ֵ‫ּה‬ⅴ, that Azariah was the Kohen par excellence,

that is to say, held the first place among the confidential counsellors of the king, so that
his dignity was such as befitted the office of an administrator of the kingdom. Compare
the explanation of ‫ן‬ ֵ‫ּה‬ⅴ at 2Sa_8:18. The view of the Vulgate, Luther, and others, which
has been revived by Thenius, namely, that ‫ן‬ ֵ‫ּה‬ⅴ is to be connected as a genitive with ‫ּוק‬‫ד‬ ָ‫ן־צ‬ ֶ
in opposition to the accents, “Azariah the son of Zadok the priest,” is incorrect, and does
not even yield any sense, since the connection of these words with the following
Elichoreph, etc., is precluded by the absence of the copula Vav, which would be
indispensable if Azariah had held the same office as the two brothers Elichoreph and
Achijah.
(Note: The objection by which Thenius tries to set aside this argument, which has
been already advanced by Houbigant, viz., that “if the first (Azariah) was not also a
state scribe, the copula would be inserted, as it is everywhere else from v. 4 onwards
when a new office is mentioned,” proves nothing at all, because the copula is also
omitted in v. 3, where the new office of ‫יר‬ ִⅴְ‫ז‬ ַ‫מ‬ is introduced.)
Moreover, Azariah the son of Zadok cannot be a grandson of Zadok the high priest,
i.e., a son of Ahimaaz the son of Zadok, as many infer from 1 Chr. 5:34-35 (1Ch_6:8-9);
for, apart from the fact that Zadok's grandson can hardly have been old enough at the
time for Solomon to invest him with the chief dignity in the kingdom, which would
surely be conferred upon none but men of mature years, we can see no reason why the
Azariah mentioned here should not be called the son of Ahimaaz. If the Zadok referred
to here was the high priest of that name, Azariah can only have been a brother of
Ahimaaz. And there is no real difficulty in the way, since the name Azariah occurs three
times in the line of high priests (1 Chr. 5:36, 39), and therefore was by no means rare.
BE SO , "1 Kings 4:2. These were the princes which he had — The principal
officers employed under him. Azariah the son — Or the grandson; of Zadok —
1 Chronicles 6:8-9. The priest — The second priest, or the priest that attended upon
Solomon’s person, in holy offices and administrations. Or, as the Hebrew word here
rendered priest may be, and is often, translated prince, in Scripture, this Azariah
might be the highest officer of the state, next to the king; or the chief minister of
state, by whom the great affairs of the kingdom were managed and prepared for the
king’s consideration.
ELLICOTT, "(2) And these were.—The officers described are of two classes—those
attached to Solomon’s Court, and those invested with local authority.
The princes are evidently Solomon’s high counsellors and officers, “eating at the
king’s table.” The word is derived from a root which means to “set in order.” It is
significant that whereas in the lists of David’s officers in 2 Samuel 8:16-18; 2 Samuel
20:23-26, the captain of the host stands first, and is followed in one list by the
captain of the body-guard, both are here preceded by the peaceful offices of the
priests, scribes, and the recorder.
Azariah the son of Zadok the priest.—In 1 Chronicles 6:9-10, we find Azariah
described as the son of Ahimaaz, and so grandson of Zadok; and the note in 1 Kings

4:10 (which is apparently out of its right place) seems to show that he was high
priest at the time when the Temple was built. The title the “priest” in this place must
be given by anticipation, for it is expressly said below that “Zadok and Abiathar
were now the priests.” The use of the original word, Cohen (probably signifying
“one who ministers”), appears sometimes to retain traces of the old times, when the
priesthood and headship of the family were united, and to be applied accordingly to
princes, to whom perhaps still attached something of the ancient privilege. Thus it is
given to the sons of David in 2 Samuel 8:18, where the parallel passage in 1
Chronicles 18:17 has a paraphrase, “chief about the king,” evidently intended to
explain the sense in which it is used in the older record. We may remember that
David himself on occasions wore the priestly ephod (see 2 Samuel 6:14). Possibly in
this sense it is applied in 1 Kings 4:5 to Zabud, the “king’s friend” (where the
Authorised Version renders it by “principal officer”). But in this verse there is every
reason for taking it in the usual sense. Azariah was already a “prince” before he
succeeded to the high priesthood. The mingling, of priestly and princely functions is
characteristic of the time.
PETT, "1 Kings 4:2-6
‘And these were the princes whom he had:
Azariah, the son of Zadok, (was) the priest;
Elihoreph and Ahijah, the sons of Shisha, (were) scribes;
Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud, (was) the recorder;
And Benaiah the son of Jehoiada was over the host;
And Zadok and Abiathar were priests;
And Azariah the son of athan was over the officers;
And Zabud the son of athan was priest, and the king’s friend;
And Ahishar was over the household;
And Adoniram the son of Abda was over the men subject to taskwork.’
We have here a list of the chief officials (sarim - compare Judges 8:6; Judges 8:14,
and the Egyptian sr.w) in the land. First comes Azariah, the son of Zadok. He was
‘the cohen’ (priest). As we have seen this title was probably taken over from the old
Jebusite officialdom, where all the leading officials were ‘priests’ under the ‘king-
priest’. Thus ‘the priest’ would come next in authority to the king-priest. Solomon,
as David before him, had taken on himself the title ‘priest for ever after the order of
Melchizedek’ (Psalms 110:4), for both he and David acted as intercessory priests
(see 1 Kings 8:22-53; 2 Samuel 24:10; 2 Samuel 24:17). Thus his chief official was
also given the title of ‘the priest’. He was basically the Prime Minister, but may well
also have had intercessory duties.
“The son of Zadok.” He was possibly the grandson (‘son of’ is always vague and
often means ‘descendant of’) of Zadok the Priest, being the son of Ahimaaz (1
Chronicles 6:8-9). Or he may have been another Azariah (a common name in the
priestly families) who was brother to Ahimaaz. It will be noted how many of the
leading officials we are dealing with are descended from previous leading officials.
There had in fact been such ‘princely families’ from the earliest days (e.g. umbers

1:4-16).
“Elihoreph and Ahijah, the sons of Shisha, were scribes.” The title ‘scribe’ could be
given both to the highest officials in the land, and to humble copyists and letter
writers. There were probably two Scribes (secretaries of state) because one saw to
‘home affairs’ to do with Israel/Judah and the other with ‘foreign affairs’ to do with
the wider empire. The one who took the latter position may well have been required
to be an expert in ‘foreign languages’ (compare 2 Kings 18:26). By the time of
Hezekiah there was one ‘Scribe’ who was one of the three leading officials in the
land (2 Kings 18:18) because by then there was no empire.
“Elihoreph.” The name could mean ‘God of Autumn’ (the God Who provides
through harvest) or it may have been a Canaanite name ‘borrowed’ by Shisha who,
of course, lived in the former Canaanite city of Jerusalem. It need not indicate
Canaanite descent, although Shisha may have taken a Jebusite wife who had
become a Yahwist. Alternatively it may have been given to him on appointment, as
being seen as suitable for someone engaged in foreign correspondence. It is similar
to the Hurrian name E(h)liarip. Ahijah (Yah is my brother’) was a relatively
common Hebrew name.
“The sons of Shisha.” Shisha was probably the same as ‘Seraiah the scribe’ (2
Samuel 8:17). In 2 Samuel 20:25 he was called Sheva. In 1 Chronicles 8:16 this
becomes Shavshah. These are probably simply variants of his official name received
on appointment. Ancient names were very flexible. Alternately Shisha (compare
Egyptian ss) may simply mean ‘official scribe’, with Seraiah being his original name
Thus these also are at least semi-hereditary appointments.
“Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud, (was) the recorder.” This was as he had been under
David (2 Samuel 8:16). The recorder is ‘he who causes to be heard’. Thus he was
responsible for disseminating the king’s will vocally among the people and ensuring
that it was responded to. He may also have recorded the day to day events related to
the king. A similar figure in Egypt regulated the ceremonies of the palace and gave
audience to people with the king, and transmitted and explained royal commands.
“And Benaiah the son of Jehoiada was over the host.” As we know he had been
commander of David’s bodyguard and had taken over the position of commander-
in-chief from Joab (1 Kings 2:35).
“And Zadok and Abiathar were priests.” These were both official High Priests, the
former, descended from Aaron through Eliezer, appointed, probably by Saul, over
the Tabernacle, and later presiding at the Sacred Tent in Jerusalem, the latter by
David, for he was descended from Aaron through Ihamar and was the only
surviving son of the previous High Priest slain by Saul at ob, and had fled with the
Ephod to David, and would for a time have been High Priest in Ziklag, then in
Hebron, and then in Gibeon. The High Priesthood was for life, so that once
appointed a man remained High Priest until death ( umbers 35:25; umbers
35:28), even though he had been relieved of his duties as Abiathar had been (1 Kings

2:35).
“And Azariah the son of athan was over the officers.” He was probably Solomon’s
nephew, being the son of his brother athan (2 Samuel 5:14). He presumably had
responsibility over the district ‘officers’ mentioned below.
“And Zabud the son of athan was priest, and the king”s friend.’ Another nephew
of Solomon’s, Zabud (‘bestowed’) was also called ‘cohen’ and was the king’s chief
adviser (‘friend’, compare Hushai the Gittite in 2 Samuel 16:16-19; 1 Chronicles
27:23). The title ‘king’s friend’ is also mentioned in Amarna (Canaanite) texts. As
‘cohen’ he may well also, like Azariah above, have shared in the intercessory
responsibilities which fell on the king.
“Ahishar was over the household.” Solomon’s household was huge, as what follows
indicates. Ahishar therefore had responsibility for overseeing the whole. The non-
mention of his father’s name may suggest that he was a ‘commoner’, appointed
because of his special abilities having in mind the needs of the king’s household. The
title would later be applied to the Prime Minister (see 2 Kings 15:5; 2 Kings 18:18;
Isaiah 22:20-22 with Isaiah 36:3), replacing the title ‘cohen’ (see on Azariah above),
but we must not read that into Ahishar’s role. The title has been found on a seal
impression excavated at Lachish.
“Adoniram the son of Abda was over the men subject to taskwork.” This may be the
same man as the one who was appointed by David (2 Samuel 20:24) and survived up
to the beginning of Rehoboam’s reign (1 Kings 12:18). At one time he had ‘five
hundred and fifty’ slave-masters (1 Kings 9:23). Enforced labour was a necessary
part of being a great king, for it was the only means by which large building
projects could go forward (compare the warning in 1 Samuel 8:16). The worst
aspect of this kind of servitude was limited to ‘foreigners’ (1 Kings 9:15; 1 Kings
9:21-22; 2 Samuel 12:31; 2 Chronicles 2:18) but the need became so great that native
Israelites were also drafted in (1 Kings 5:13 ff), although in their case on a part time
basis, and it was this, and their treatment while involved, as much as anything else
that resulted in the disaffection that caused the later division of the kingdom
PULPIT, "And these were the princes [i.e. ministers, officers. Cf. 2 Samuel 8:15-18,
and 2 Samuel 20:23-26] which he had, Azariah the son [i.e; descendant, probably
grandson. See on 1 Chronicles 6:10] of Zadok the priest. [We are here confronted by
two questions of considerable difficulty. First, to whom does the title "priest" here
belong, to Azariah or to Zadok? Second, what are we to understand by the term, a
spiritual, or a more or less secular person— ἱερεύς or βουλευτής? As to
1. the Vulgate (sacerdotis) and apparently the Authorized Version, with the
Rabbins, Luther, and many later expounders, connect the title with Zadok (who is
mentioned as priest in verse 4), and understand that Azariah, the son of the high
priest Zadok, was, together with the sons of Shisha, one of the scribes (verse 3). It is
true that this view obviates some difficulties, but against it are these considerations.

2. What are we to understand by "the priest "— ‫ֵן‬‫ה‬ֹ ‫ַכ‬‫ה‬ ? It is urged by Keil, Bähr, al.
that this cannot mean "priest" in the ordinary sense of the word, still less "high
priest," for the following reasons:
(4) if we are to understand by "the priest" in verse 2, "prime minister;" by
"priests" in verse 4, "high priests," and by "priest" in verse 5, "principal officer,"
language has no certain meaning.
3 Elihoreph and Ahijah, sons of Shisha—
secretaries;
Jehoshaphat son of Ahilud—recorder;
BAR ES, "Shisha, or Shavsha 1Ch_18:16, seems also to have been called Sheva 2Sa_
20:25, and Seraiah 2Sa_8:17.
The “scribes” were probably royal “secretaries” (margin), who drew up the king’s
edicts, wrote his letters, and perhaps managed his finances 1Ki_12:10. They were among
his most influential councillors.
By “recorder” or “remembrancer” (margin), we must understand “court annalist”
(marginal reference “a”).
CLARKE, "Elihoreph and Ahiah - scribes - Secretaries to the king.
Jehoshaphat - recorder - Historiographer to the king, who chronicled the affairs of
the kingdom. He was in this office under David see 2Sa_20:24.
GILL, "Elihoreph and Ahiah, the sons of Shisha, scribes,.... Their father Shisha,
the same with Sheva, was scribe only in David's time; and he being dead very probably,
both his sons were continued in the office as secretaries of state, Solomon having more
business for such an office, see 2Sa_20:25;
Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud, the recorder; who was in the same office in the
times of David, and now held it under Solomon, 2Sa_8:16.

JAMISO , "scribes — that is, secretaries of state. Under David, there had been only
one [2Sa_8:17; 2Sa_20:25]. The employment of three functionaries in this department
indicates either improved regulations by the division of labor, or a great increase of
business, occasioned by the growing prosperity of the kingdom, or a more extensive
correspondence with foreign countries.
recorder — that is, historiographer, or annalist - an office of great importance in
Oriental courts, and the duties of which consisted in chronicling the occurrences of every
day.
K&D, "1Ki_4:3
Elichoreph and Achijah, sons of Shisha, who had held the same office under David,
were secretaries of state (‫ים‬ ִ‫ר‬ ְ‫ּפ‬‫ס‬: see at 2Sa_8:17 and 2Sa_20:25, where the different
names ‫א‬ ָ‫שׁ‬ ִ‫שׁ‬ = ‫א‬ָ‫י‬ ְ‫שׁ‬ and ‫ה‬ָ‫י‬ ָ‫ר‬ ְ‫שׂ‬ are also discussed). - Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud was the
chancellor, as he had already been in the time of David (2Sa_8:17 and 2Sa_20:24). The
rendering of Thenius, “whilst Jehoshaphat was chancellor,” is grammatically impossible.
BE SO , "1 Kings 4:3-4. Scribes — That is, secretaries of state. He chose two,
whereas David had but one, either because he observed some inconveniences in
trusting all the important matters of his government in one band; or because he had
now more employment than David had, this being a time of great peace and
prosperity, and his empire being enlarged, and his correspondences with foreign
princes more frequent. Zadok and Abiathar were the priests — That is, the high-
priests, namely, successively, first Abiathar, and then Zadok.
ELLICOTT, "(3) Sons of Shisha.—In 1 Chronicles 18:16 “Shavsha,” and in 2
Samuel 20:25 “Sheva,” is mentioned as the scribe of David. Probably these are
variations of the same name, and the office may have become virtually hereditary.
The “scribe,” or (see Margin) “secretary,” is constantly referred to as a high officer,
issuing the king’s edicts and letters, and acting in his name, like our “Secretaries of
State.”
Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud is named in 2 Samuel 8:16; 2 Samuel 20:24, and 1
Chronicles 18:15 as having been under David also the “recorder” or
“remembrancer”—probably the annalist who drew up and preserved the archives
of the kingdom.
PULPIT, "Elihoreph and Ahiah, the sons of Shisha [probably the same person who
is mentioned in 2 Samuel 20:25 as Sheva; in 2 Samuel 8:17, as Seraiah; and in 1
Chronicles 18:16, as Shavsha, David's scribe. The office thus descended from father
to sons. The variations in this name are instructive. Compare Kishi and Kushaiah,
Abijah and Abijam, Michaiah and Maachah, Absalom and Abishalom, etc. ames
written ex ore dictantis are sure to differ. See below on 1 Chronicles 18:12], scribes
[the scribes, ‫ים‬ִ‫ְד‬‫פ‬ֹ ‫,ס‬ were Secretaries of State: they wrote letters and proclamations,

drew up edicts, and apparently kept the accounts (2 Kings 12:10 ). Their position in
the list indicates their importance]; Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud, the recorder.
[He held the same office under David, and is mentioned in all three lists (2 Samuel
8:17; 2 Samuel 20:25; 1 Chronicles 18:15). The recorder or "remembrancer"
(marg.) was, perhaps, "chancellor" (Keil), or keeper of the king's conscience, rather
than, as is generally supposed, chronicler of public events, and keeper of the
archives. See Introduction, sect. 6.]
4 Benaiah son of Jehoiada—commander in chief;
Zadok and Abiathar—priests;
BAR ES, "It is curious to find Abiathar in this list of princes, after what has been
said of his disgrace 1Ki_2:27, 1Ki_2:35. Some have supposed that after a while Solomon
pardoned him. Perhaps the true explanation is that the historian here enumerates all
those who were accounted “princes” in any part of Solomon’s reign.
GILL, "And Benaiah the son of Jehoiada was over the host,.... General of the
army in the room of Joab, 1Ki_2:35;
and Zadok and Abiathar were the priests; so they were when Solomon came to the
throne; but Abiathar was deposed by him after some time, though he might retain the
name afterwards, and be employed, as Ben Gersom thinks, in case of necessity, in the
room of Zadok, or, however, be employed as a common priest at Jerusalem, upon a
reconciliation with Solomon; though Kimchi thinks another Abiathar is meant, which is
not so likely.
HE RY 7-19, "III. The purveyors for his household, whose business it was to send in
provisions from several parts of the country, for the king's tables and cellars (1Ki_4:7)
and for his stables (1Ki_4:27, 1Ki_4:28), that thus, 1. His house might always be well
furnished at the best hand. Let great men learn hence good house-keeping, to be
generous in spending according to their ability, but prudent in providing. It is the
character of the virtuous woman that she bringeth her food from afar (Pro_31:14), not
far-fetched and dear-bought, but the contrary, every thing bought where it is cheapest. 2.
That thus he himself, and those who immediately attended him, might be eased of a
great deal of care, and the more closely apply themselves to the business of the state, not
troubled about much serving, provision for that being got ready to their hand. 3. That
thus all the parts of the kingdom might be equally benefited by the taking off of the
commodities that were the productions of their country and the circulating of the coin.

Industry would hereby be encouraged, and consequently wealth increased, even in those
tribes that lay most remote from the court. The providence of God extends itself to all
places of his dominions (Psa_103:22); so should the prudence and care of princes. 4.
The dividing of this trust into so many hands was prudent, that no man might be
continually burdened with the care of it nor grow exorbitantly rich with the profit of it,
but that Solomon might have those, in every district, who, having a dependence upon
the court, would be serviceable to him and his interest as there was occasion. These
commissioners of the victualling-office, not for the army or navy (Solomon was engaged
in no war), but for the household, are here named, several of them only by their
surnames, as great men commonly call their servants: Ben-hur, Ben-dekar, etc., though
several of them have also their proper names prefixed. Two of them married Solomon's
daughters, Ben-Abinadab (1Ki_4:11) and Ahimaaz (1Ki_4:15), and no disparagement to
them to marry men of business. Better match with the officers of their father's court that
were Israelites than with the sons of princes that were strangers to the covenant of
promise. The son of Geber was in Ramoth-Gilead (1Ki_4:19), and Geber himself was in
the country of Sihon and Og, which included that and Mahanaim, 1Ki_4:14. He is
therefore said to be the only officer in that land, because the other two, mentioned 1Ki_
4:13, 1Ki_4:14, depended on him, and were subordinate to him.
JAMISO , "Benaiah ... was over the host — formerly captain of the guard. He
had succeeded Joab as commander of the forces.
Zadok and Abiathar were the priests — Only the first discharged the sacred
functions; the latter had been banished to his country seat and retained nothing more
than the name of high priest.
K&D, "1Ki_4:4
On Benaiah, compare 1Ki_2:35 and the Commentary on 2Sa_23:20. On Zadok and
Abiathar, see at 2Sa_8:17. It appears strange that Abiathar should be named as priest,
i.e., as high priest, along with Zadok, since Solomon had deposed him from the priestly
office (1Ki_2:27, 1Ki_2:35), and we cannot imagine any subsequent pardon. The only
possible explanation is that proposed by Theodoret, namely, that Solomon had only
deprived him of the ᅊρχή, i.e., of the priest's office, but not of the ᅷερωσύνη or priestly
dignity, because this was hereditary.
(Note: Τᆱν ᅊρχᆱν ᅊφείλατο, ου ʆ τᇿς ᅷερωσύνης ᅚγύµνωσεν· τᆱν γᆭρ τᇿς ᅷερωσύνης αξίαν
οᆒκ ᅚκ χειροτονίας ᅊλλ ʆ ᅚκ γονικᇿς εᅼχον διαδοχᇿς. - Theodoret.)
ELLICOTT, "(4) Zadok and Abiathar . . . the priests.—Abiathar, though disgraced
and practically deposed, was still regarded theoretically as priest (much as Annas is
called “high priest” in the Gospels), for the priesthood was properly for life.
PULPIT, "And Benaiah the son of Jehoiada [see on 1 Kings 1:32] was [the A. V.
supplies was and were quite needlessly in this and succeeding verses. This is simply
a list of Solomon's princes and of the offices they discharged] over the host [cf. 1

Kings 2:35]: and Zadok and Abiathar were the priests [the mention of Abiathar's
name after his deposition (1 Kings 2:27, 1 Kings 2:35) has occasioned much remark,
and has even led to the belief that he was subsequently pardoned and restored to
office (Clericus). Theodoret remarks quite truly, τὴν ἀρχὴν ἀφείλατο οὐ τῆς
ἱερωσύνης ἐγύµνωσεν, and similarly Grotius. But a simpler explanation is that his
name is put down here because he had been high priest, though for a brief period
only, under Solomon. See above on 1 Kings 2:2.]
5 Azariah son of athan—in charge of the district
governors;
Zabud son of athan—a priest and adviser to the
king;
BAR ES, "The son of Nathan - It is uncertain whether the Nathan of this verse is
the prophet or the son of David 2Sa_5:14. While on the one hand the position of “king’s
friend” is more likely to have been held by a contemporary, which the prophet’s son
would have been, than by one so much younger as the son of a younger brother; on the
other hand the title “cohen” seems to point to a member of the royal family. (See the
next note.) Azariah who was “over the officers” was chief, that is, of the “officers”
mentioned in 1Ki_4:8-19, as appears from the identity of the term here used with the
title by which they are designated in 1Ki_4:7.
Principal officer - Or, “cohen.” The fact that the title ‫כהן‬ kôhên was borne by sons of
David 2Sa_8:18, who could not be “priests” in the ordinary sense of the word, seems to
identify the Nathan of this verse with David’s son 2Sa_5:14 rather than with the
prophet.
CLARKE, "Azariah - was over the officers - He had the superintendence of the
twelve officers mentioned below; see 1Ki_4:7.
Zabud - was principal officer - Perhaps what we call premier, or prime minister.
The king’s friend - His chief favourite - his confidant.
GILL, "And Azariah the son of Nathan was over the officers,.... The twelve
officers who provided food for Solomon's household after mentioned:

and Zabud the son of Nathan; another of the sons of Nathan the prophet: for he
being a principal instrument of settling Solomon on the throne, had interest enough to
promote his sons to the chief places of honour and trust: and this here
was principal officer, and the king's friend; a chief minister about him, very
intimate with him, that kept him company, privately conversed with him, was in his
secrets, and admitted to great privacy and nearness to him.
JAMISO , "over the officers — that is, the provincial governors enumerated in
1Ki_4:17-19.
principal officer, and the king’s friend — perhaps president of the privy council,
and Solomon’s confidential friend or favorite. This high functionary had probably been
reared along with Solomon. That he should heap those honors on the sons of Nathan
was most natural, considering the close intimacy of the father with the late king, and the
deep obligations under which Solomon personally lay to the prophet.
K&D, "1Ki_4:5
Azariah the son of Nathan was over the ‫ים‬ ִ‫ב‬ ָ ִ‫,נ‬ i.e., the twelve officers named in vv. 7ff.
Zabud the son of Nathan was ‫ן‬ ֵ‫ּה‬ⅴ (not the son of “Nathan the priest,” as Luther and
many others render it). ‫ן‬ ֵ‫ּה‬ⅴ is explained by the epithet appended, ְ‫ך‬ ֶ‫ל‬ ֶ ַ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ֶ‫ע‬ ֵ‫:ר‬ privy
councillor, i.e., confidential adviser of the king. Nathan is not the prophet of that name,
as Thenius supposes, but the son of David mentioned in 2Sa_5:14. Azariah and Zabud
were therefore nephews of Solomon.
BE SO , "1 Kings 4:5-6. The son of athan was over the officers — Over those
twelve officers named 1 Kings 4:7, &c., who were all to give up their accounts to
him. The Hebrew word, ‫נצבים‬ nitsabim, here, and 1 Kings 4:7, rendered officers,
signifies any governors, or commanders of the higher sort. See 2 Chronicles 8:10.
Zabud the son of athan — The prophet, who had been so highly instrumental in
establishing Solomon on the throne; was principal officer — Possibly president of
the king’s council. The Hebrew word is ‫,כהן‬ cohen, which, 1 Kings 4:2, and
generally, is rendered priest, although, as we have observed there, it may also be
translated prince. And the king’s friend — His confidant, with whom he used to
communicate his most secret counsels. Ahishar was over the household — Steward
of the king’s house. Over the tribute — The personal tribute, or levy of men, as
appears by comparing this with 1 Kings 5:13-14 ; it being very fit that there should
be some one person to whom the chief conduct or inspection of that great business
should be committed.
ELLICOTT, "(5) Son of athan.—Probably athan, son of David, and own brother
of Solomon (1 Chronicles 3:5), is here intended; for the title Cohen, here given to
Zabud, is expressly ascribed in 2 Samuel 8:18 to the “sons of David;” and athan
the prophet always has his title, “the prophet,” appended to his name wherever first
mentioned in this book. (See 1 Kings 1:8; 1 Kings 1:10; 1 Kings 1:22; 1 Kings 1:32,

&c.)
Azariah is the “chief of the officers”—that is, chief over the twelve officers
mentioned below (1 Kings 4:7-19)—living, however, at Court.
Zabud, besides the title of Cohen, has that of “the king’s friend,” previously given to
Hushai (2 Samuel 15:37; 2 Samuel 16:16), and apparently indicating special
intimacy and wisdom as a “privy counsellor.”
PULPIT, "And Azariah the son of athan [Azariah was clearly not an uncommon
name (verse. 2, and cf. 1 Chronicles 2:39; 1 Chronicles 5:1-26 :36-40 Hebrews;
A.Hebrews 6:9-14), especially in the high priest's family. Keil and Bähr pronounce
somewhat positively that this athan is not the prophet of that name, but athan
the son of David (2 Samuel 5:14; Luke 3:31). It is quite impossible to decide with
certainty which is meant, if either, though Zechariah 12:12 undoubtedly favours the
supposition that the latter is here intended] was over the officers [the twelve prefects
mentioned in Zechariah 12:7 sqq.]: and Zabud the son of athan was principal
officer [Heb. priest, Vulg. sacerdos. Singularly, as before, the LXX. (Vat.) omits the
word. The expression can hardly mean "the son of athan the priest," but it may
either signify that "Zabud ben athan, a priest, was king's friend," or that (as in
the A. V.) he was a priest and king's friend. But the former is every way preferable.
I find it easier to believe that the true import of 2 Samuel 8:18 the passage which is
cited (sometimes along with 2 Samuel 20:26, where the LXX; however, has ἱερεύς)
to prove that there were secular "priests"—is not yet understood, than to hold (with
Gesenius, Ewald, etc.), that there were sacrificing priests who were not of the sons of
Aaron (cf. 2 Chronicles 26:18), or that the word ‫ֵן‬‫ה‬‫,כ‬ the meaning of which was
thoroughly fixed and understood, can have been familiarly applied, except in the
strictly conventional way already indicated, to lay persons], and [omit] the king's
friend. ["This appears to have been now a recognized office (2 Samuel 15:37; 2
Samuel 16:16; 1 Chronicles 27:33)," Rawlinson.]
6 Ahishar—palace administrator;
Adoniram son of Abda—in charge of forced
labor.

BAR ES, "Over the household - Comptroller of the household, like the “Steward”
of the Persian court. On the importance of this office, see 2Ki_18:18, and compare Isa_
22:15-25.
The tribute - The marginal reading, “levy,” is preferable. The reference is to the
forced laborers whom Solomon employed in his great works (marginal reference).
CLARKE, "Ahishar was over the household - The king’s chamberlain.
Adoniram - was over the tribute - What we call chancellor of the exchequer. He
received and brought into the treasury all the proceeds of taxes and tributes. He was in
this office under David; see 2Sa_20:24.
GILL, "And Abiathar was over the household,.... Steward of the household:
and Adoniram the son of Abda was over the tribute, over those that collected
the tribute, as the Targum, whether from the people of Israel or other nations, or both;
this man was in the same post in David's time, 2Sa_20:24.
JAMISO , "Ahishar was over the household — steward or chamberlain of the
palace.
Adoniram — or Adoram (2Sa_20:24; 1Ki_12:18), or Hadoram (2Ch_10:18),
was over the tribute — not the collection of money or goods, but the levy of
compulsory laborers (compare 1Ki_5:13, 1Ki_5:14).
K&D, "1Ki_4:6
Ahishar was ‫ת‬ִ‫י‬ ַ ַ‫ה‬ ‫ל‬ ַ‫,ע‬ over the palace, i.e., governor of the palace, or minister of the
king's household (compare 1Ki_16:9; 2Ki_18:18, and Isa_22:15), an office met with for
the first time under Solomon. Adoniram, probably the same person as Adoram in 2Sa_
20:24, was chief overseer of the tributary service. He was so in the time of David also.
ELLICOTT, "(6) Over the household,—like the “High Steward” of a modern
Court. In 2 Kings 18:18 we have the same three officers mentioned (“Eliakim, who
was over the household, and Shebna the scribe, and Joah the son of Asaph the
recorder”).
Adoniram . . . over the tribute (or “levy”),—evidently the head of Solomon’s great
public works. (See 1 Kings 5:14.) The name is elsewhere given as Adoram. It is to be
noticed that in the enumeration of David’s officers in the early part of the reign (2
Samuel 8:16-18) no such officer is found; but that in the latter part of his reign the
list contains the name of Adoram (2 Samuel 20:24). It has been thought that the
numbering of the people recorded in 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21, was in

preparation for such forced work, and hence was odious to Joab and others. In 1
Kings 12:18 we read how the holder of this office, being naturally most unpopular
with those who had felt the burden of Solomon’s splendour, was stoned to death in
the insurrection against Rehoboam.
To this list the Greek Version adds: “Eliab the son of Shaphat was over the body-
guard.” As the office of captain of the body-guard is found in the other lists, and is
too important to be omitted, it is possible that this addition corrects some defect in
the Hebrew text. Yet it is also possible that no successor to Benaiah was appointed,
as experience had shown, in the crushing of the rebellion of Adonijah, how easily the
captaincy of the body-guard might become a quasi-independent power.
PULPIT, "And Ahishar was over the household [steward and manager of the
palace. We meet this office here for the first time, an evidence of the growing size
and magnificence of the court (cf. 1 Kings 18:3; 2 Kings 18:18; Isaiah 22:15). That
such an officer was needed, the fact mentioned below (on 1 Kings 4:23) as to the
enormous size of the royal household will prove]: and Adoniram [see on 1 Kings
12:18] the son of Abda was over the tribute. [Marg. "levy," i.e; the forced labour (1
Kings 5:13, 1 Kings 5:14). See on 1 Kings 12:3.]
7 Solomon had twelve district governors over all
Israel, who supplied provisions for the king and
the royal household. Each one had to provide
supplies for one month in the year.
BAR ES, "The requirement of a portion of their produce from subjects, in addition
to money payments, is a common practice of Oriental monarchs. It obtained in ancient,
and it still obtains in modern, Persia.
CLARKE, "Twelve officers - The business of these twelve officers was to provide
daily, each for a month, those provisions which were consumed in the king’s household;
see 1Ki_4:22, 1Ki_4:23. And the task for such a daily provision was not an easy one.

GILL, "And Solomon had twelve officers over all Israel,.... Not with respect to
the twelve tribes of Israel, for it does not appear that they had each of them a tribe under
them, but some particular places in a tribe; but with respect to the twelve months of the
year, in which each took his turn:
which provided victuals for the king and his household: each man his month
in a year made provision; furnished food of all sorts out of the country in which they
presided for the space of one month in a year; by which means there was always a plenty
of provisions at court for the king's family, and for all strangers that came and went, and
no one part of the land was burdened or drained, nor the price of provisions raised;
these seem to be the twelve "phylarchi", or governors of tribes, Eupolemus (r), an
Heathen writer, speaks of, before whom, and the high priest, David delivered the
kingdom to Solomon; though in that he was mistaken, that they were in being then,
since these were officers of Solomon's creating.
JAMISO , "1Ki_4:7-21. His twelve officers.
Solomon had twelve officers over all Israel — The royal revenues were raised
according to the ancient, and still, in many parts, existing usage of the East, not in
money payments, but in the produce of the soil. There would be always a considerable
difficulty in the collection and transmission of these tithes (1Sa_8:15). Therefore, to
facilitate the work, Solomon appointed twelve officers, who had each the charge of a
tribe or particular district of country, from which, in monthly rotation, the supplies for
the maintenance of the king’s household were drawn, having first been deposited in “the
store cities” which were erected for their reception (1Ki_9:19; 2Ch_8:4, 2Ch_8:6).
K&D, "Solomon's Official Persons and Their Districts. - 1Ki_4:7. Solomon had
(appointed) twelve ‫ים‬ ִ‫ב‬ ָ ִ‫נ‬ over all Israel, who provided (‫לוּ‬ ְⅴ ְ‫ל‬ ִⅴ) for the king and his house,
i.e., supplied provisions for the necessities of the court. These prefects are not to be
regarded as “chamberlains,” or administrators of the royal domains (Michaelis and
Ewald), for these are mentioned in 1Ch_27:25. under a different title. They are “general
receivers of taxes,” or “chief tax-collectors,” as Rosenmüller expresses it, who levied the
king's duties or taxes, which consisted in the East, as they still do to the present time, for
the most part of natural productions, or the produce of the land, and not of money
payments as in the West, and delivered them at the royal kitchen (Rosenmüller, A. und
N. Morgenland, iii. p. 166). It cannot be inferred from the explanation given by
Josephus, ᅧγεµόνες καᆳ στρατηγοί, that they exercised a kind of government, as Thenius
supposes, since this explanation is nothing but a subjective conjecture. “One month in
the year was it every one's duty (‫ד‬ ָ‫ח‬ ֶ‫א‬ ‫ל‬ ַ‫ע‬ ‫ה‬ֶ‫י‬ ְ‫ה‬ִ‫)י‬ to provide.” The districts assigned to the
twelve prefects coincide only partially with the territories of the tribes, because the land
was probably divided among them according to its greater or smaller productiveness.
Moreover, the order in which the districts are enumerated is not a geographical one, but
probably follows the order in which the different prefects had to send the natural
productions month by month for the maintenance of the king's court. The description
begins with Ephraim in 1Ch_27:8, then passes over in 1Ch_27:9 to the territory of Dan
to the west of it, in 1Ch_27:10 to the territory of Judah and Simeon on the south, in

1Ch_27:11 and 1Ch_27:12 to the territory of Manasseh on this side from the
Mediterranean to the Jordan, then in vv. 13 and 14 to the territory of Manasseh on the
other side of the Jordan, thence back again in vv. 15 and 16 to the northern parts of the
land on this side, viz., the territories of Naphtali and Asher, and thence farther south to
Issachar in v. 17, and Benjamin in v. 18, closing at last in v. 19 with Gilead.
COFFMA , "THE CHIEF TAX COLLECTORS OF SOLOMO 'S
GOVER ME T
"And Solomon had twelve officers over all Israel, who provided victuals for the king
and his household: each man to make provision for a month in the year. And these
are their names: Ben-hur in the hill-country of Ephraim; Ben-deker in Makaz and
in Shaalbim, and Bethshemesh, and Elon-beth-hanan; Ben-hesed, in Arubboth (to
him pertained Socoh, and all the land of Hepher); Ben-abinadab, in all the height of
Dor (he had Taphath the daughter of Solomon to wife); Bana the son of Ahilud, in
Taanach and Megiddo, and all Bethshean which is beside Zarethan, beneath
Jezreel, from Bethshean to Abel-meholah, as far as beyond Jokmeam; Ben-geber, in
Ramoth-gilead (to him pertained the towns of Jair the son of Manasseh, which are
in Gilead; even to him pertained the region of Argob, which is in Bashan, threescore
great cities with walls and brazen bars; Ahinadab the son of Iddo, in Mahanaim;
Ahimaaz, in aphtali (he also took Basemath the daughter of Solomon to wife);
Bana the son of Hushai, in Asher and Bealoth; Jehoshaphat the son of Paruah, in
Issachar; Shimei the son of Ela, in Benjamin; Geber the son of Uri in the land of
Gilead, the country of Sihon king of the Ammorites and of Og king of Bashan; and
he was the only officer that was in the land."
"To all intents and purposes, this list of names is unidentifiable."[7] We would also
like to add that there could be no possible Christian interest in this list. These were
the men unequivocably described by Keil as "tax collectors,"[8] and their names are
therefore of the same interest to God's people today as a list of the principal agents
of the I.R.S. in the U.S.A. They were the ones who extorted the enormous taxation
that supported the bloated Solomonic government.
ELLICOTT, "(7) Provided victuals for the king and his household.—This denotes
the collection of revenue—mostly, no doubt, in kind—for the maintenance of the
Court and household and guards of the king; and perhaps may have included also
the management of the royal domain lands, such as is described under David’s reign
in 1 Chronicles 26:25-31. It is curious that in five cases only the patronymic of the
officer is given, probably from some defect in the archives from which this chapter
is evidently drawn. The office must have been of high importance and dignity, for in
two cases (1 Kings 4:11; 1 Kings 4:15) the holders of it were married into the royal
house. The provinces over which they had authority—nine on the west and three on
the east of Jordan—coincide only in a few cases with the lands assigned to the
several tribes. It is not unlikely that by this time much of the tribal division of
territory had become obsolete although we see from 1 Chronicles 27:16-22, that for
chieftainship over men, and for levy in war, it still remained in force.

PARKER, "So far, then, we feel no difficulty in this typology. ow observe the
perfect appointments of Solomon"s kingdom:—
"And Solomon had twelve officers over all Israel, which provided victuals for the
king and his household: each man his month in a year made provision. And these
are their names."—( 1 Kings 4:7-8).
And then comes the honourable list. Even here we get some hint of the order which
shall prevail in the Messianic kingdom: every man in his place, every man doing his
simple duty, or discharging his complex responsibilities; willing to be a master,
willing to reign with princes; willing to go on errands, willing to light a lamp, or
willing to take the highest offices in the Church: all done in the spirit of order,
because done in the spirit of obedience and love, and all expressing the new-born
sense of moral harmony and acquiescence in the eternal fitness of things. The
servants of Christ will not choose their places. They are not peevish and petulant
men who say unless they can go first they will not go at all. When a man says Song
of Solomon , he dispossesses himself of the Christian name, and he crucifies the Son
of God afresh, and puts him to an open shame. The servants of Christ say, "Lord,
what wilt thou have me to do? Is it to stand at this door? Is it to run with this
message? Is it to arise at midnight and flee away to tell some soul a word of heaven
that he needs to hear? or is it to stand first in all the procession, and to be the leader
of the people? What thou wilt—not what I will. To be what thou wilt have me is to
be in heaven. Lord, undertake for me, appoint me my position, define my duty, and
give me grace to bow in dishonour or to stand in princely dignity before men who do
not know thee." That is the Christian spirit, and until that spirit is realised by
Christian believers, and carried into effect by the Christian Church, we shall have
rupture, distrust, controversy, and final disappointment of the bitterest kind.
GUZIK, "2. (1 Kings 4:7-19) Solomon’s governors.
And Solomon had twelve governors over all Israel, who provided food for the king
and his household; each one made provision for one month of the year. These are
their names: Ben-Hur, in the mountains of Ephraim; Ben-Deker, in Makaz,
Shaalbim, Beth Shemesh, and Elon Beth Hanan; Ben-Hesed, in Arubboth; to him
belonged Sochoh and all the land of Hepher; Ben-Abinadab, in all the regions of
Dor; he had Taphath the daughter of Solomon as wife; Baana the son of Ahilud, in
Taanach, Megiddo, and all Beth Shean, which is beside Zaretan below Jezreel, from
Beth Shean to Abel Meholah, as far as the other side of Jokneam; Ben-Geber, in
Ramoth Gilead; to him belonged the towns of Jair the son of Manasseh, in Gilead;
to him also belonged the region of Argob in Bashan; sixty large cities with walls and
bronze gate-bars; Ahinadab the son of Iddo, in Mahanaim; Ahimaaz, in aphtali;
he also took Basemath the daughter of Solomon as wife; Baanah the son of Hushai,
in Asher and Aloth; Jehoshaphat the son of Paruah, in Issachar; Shimei the son of
Elah, in Benjamin; Geber the son of Uri, in the land of Gilead, in the country of
Sihon king of the Amorites, and of Og king of Bashan. He was the only governor

who was in the land.
a. Twelve governors over all Israel: These men were responsible for taxation in their
individual districts. The districts were not strictly separated by tribal borders, but
often according to mountains, land, and region.
i. Solomon’s leadership was creative. We can imagine that in the past, twelve
governors would be apportioned strictly along tribal lines. Solomon knew that the
way you did it before wasn’t necessarily the best way to do it. He was willing to try
new things.
ii. “The absence of reference to Judah in this list could be explained by ‘there was
only one official in the home-land’ (i.e. Judah, RSV) - that is, these twelve districts
were additional to Judah, which remained unchanged, some say untaxted.”
(Wiseman)
b. Each one made provision for one month of the year: Taxes were paid in grain and
livestock, which were used to support the royal court and the central government.
Each governor was responsible for one month of the year.
i. Solomon’s leadership was not oppressive. It doesn’t seem too much to do one-
twelfth of the work, so each of these governors didn’t feel overwhelmed by the
burden of raising so much in taxes.
PETT, "1 Kings 4:7
‘And Solomon had twelve officers over all Israel, who provided victuals for the king
and his household, each man had to make provision for a month in the year.’
Solomon also divided up Israel (excluding Judah) into twelve regions over whom he
placed district ‘tax collectors or governors’ (literally ‘those appointed’). One of their
major responsibilities was that of collecting the king’s taxes, mainly in the form of
produce, and in each case it included ensuring that sufficient provisions were made
available to the king’s vast household for one moon period out of twelve. But this
would undoubtedly also have required the official to exercise control in other
spheres, for they would not act directly themselves, delegating the main collection to
others, and would require a wide authority in order to carry out what would not
have been something welcomed by the Israelites. They were learning what having a
king really involved.
The situation in Israel was by this time far too complicated to allow a simple
division of the Israelites into tribes, and the divisions were thus not simply based on
tribal divisions, even if that had been possible with the situation as it was, with so
many movements and counter-movements of sections of tribes having taken place
since the Conquest. On the other hand tribal divisions undoubtedly played their
part with regard to tribes that had maintained their own independent identity.
Solomon was not trying to break down tribal identity. He was seeking to efficiently

(from his point of view) organise the whole area of Israel so as to ensure that the
needs of his court were continually met, taking into account the complexities or
otherwise of each area. On the other hand there were also the great Canaanite cities
such as Taanach and Megiddo, and other similar large Canaanite enclaves, which
had to be taken into account, and had to be brought into the system. These had in
many cases been brought within Israel more by absorption than conquest as a result
of the activities described in Judges 1:27-36, and by such as Saul and David, and
had probably in the course of it been forced to submit to Yahwism. All these had to
be brought within the sphere of Solomon’s administration. They would also be more
used to such tight administration having suffered under kings for centuries.
The list commences with the hill country of Ephraim, which being situated where it
was, and being the land first settled by the Israelites (if we ignore Judah) in
comparatively virgin territory, was the most secure and prominent area among the
northern tribes, and this is then followed by six areas mainly designated in terms of
Canaanite cities, after which come areas named after tribes which had clearly not
been so affected by having Canaanite cities among them, and had maintained their
prominence and independence in the face of all the changes that had taken place,
and were seen as administratively capable. Thus Ephraim, aphtali, Asher,
Issachar and Benjamin were seen as still compact enough, and independent enough,
to form their own units, whereas other areas were more fragmented and had to take
in the Canaanite conclaves, and be run from them.
Transjordan had three ‘appointed officers’, but the division was not simply on the
basis of tribal boundaries. The first was stationed in Ramoth-gilead, which was in
the upper territory of Gad, and the district covered the northern part of the
country, including the area allocated to the half tribe of Manasseh. The second was
in Mahanaim, from where Ish-bosheth had ruled Israel, and where David had
established himself during Absalom’s rebellion. This was also located in the
territory of Gad, and covered the central section of Transjordan. The third covered
the larger southern area and gathered up all parts not covered by the other two, the
area being described as ‘the land of Gilead’ (ever a vague description to us due to
the many geographical uses of the term Gilead), and was so complex an area that it
had to be explained in terms that sound as if it contained the whole of Transjordan,
with the result that it had to be explained that he was the only officer in that
particular area.
Alternately, the latter phrase ‘and one officer over the land’ might refer to the
‘officer’ over Judah (the Assyrians spoke of their homeland as ‘the land’) which is
otherwise not mentioned. It could, however, be argued that Judah may rather have
been centrally controlled directly from Jerusalem by one of the ‘chief officials’
described above. It may have been responsible for the thirteenth moon period which
had to be inserted at regular intervals through the years in order to keep the seasons
under control (twelve moon periods not making up a full year).
The remaining nine appointed officers were set over nine regions west of the Jordan
Rift Valley, partly on the basis of principle cities or other regional descriptions, and

1 kings 4 commentary

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

Similaire à 1 kings 4 commentary

Similaire à 1 kings 4 commentary (20)

Plus de GLENN PEASE

Plus de GLENN PEASE (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

1 kings 4 commentary