Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.comKeil and Delitzsch Commentary - 1 Kings 4:1 - 4:1
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
The Chief Ministers of State. - The list is introduced in 1Ki 4:1 by the general remark, that “king Solomon was king over all Israel.”
1Ki 4:2
The first of the שָׂרִים, 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 הַכֹּהֵן,” i.e., not the priest, but the administrator of the kingdom, the representative of the king before the people; like כֹּהֵן in v. 5, where this word is interpreted by הַמֶּלֶךְ רֵעֶה, with this difference, however, arising from the article before כֹּהֵן, 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 כֹּהֵן at 2Sa 8:18. The view of the Vulgate, Luther, and others, which has been revived by Thenius, namely, that כֹּהֵן is to be connected as a genitive with בֶּן־צָדֹוק 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 מַזְכִּיר 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.
1Ki 4:3
Elichoreph and Achijah, sons of Shisha, who had held the same office under David, were secretaries of state (סֹפְרִים: see at 2Sa 8:17 and 2Sa 20:25, where the different names שִׁשָׁא = שְׁיָא and שְׂרָיָה 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.
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 ἀρχή, i.e., of the priest's office, but not of the ἱερωσύνη or priestly dignity, because this was hereditary.
(Note: Τὴν ἀρχὴν ἀφείλατο, ου ̓ τῆς ἱερωσύνης ἐγύμνωσεν· τὴν γὰρ τῆς ἱερωσύνης αξίαν οὐκ ἐκ χειροτονίας ἀλλ ̓ ἐκ γονικῆς εἶχον διαδοχῆς. - Theodoret.)
1Ki 4:5
Azariah the son of Nathan was over the נִצָּבִים, i.e., the twelve officers named in vv. 7ff. Zabud the son of Nathan was כֹּהֵן (not the son of “Nathan the priest,” as Luther and many others render it). כֹּהֵן is explained by the epithet appended, הַמֶּלֶךְ רֵעֶה: 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.
1Ki 4:6
Ahishar was הַבַּיִת עַל, 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.