Lange Commentary - 1 Kings 10:14

Lange Commentary - 1 Kings 10:14 - 10:29

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Lange Commentary - 1 Kings 10:14 - 10:29

(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)

This Chapter Verse Commentaries:

B.—The Wealth, Splendor, and Power of Solomon’s Kingdom

1Ki_10:14-29 (2Ch_9:13-28)

¹⁴Now the weight of gold that came to Solomon in one year was six hundred ¹⁵threescore and six talents of gold, Besides that he had of the merchantmen, and of the traffick of the spice [omit spice] merchants, and of all the kings of Arabia, and of the governors of the country.

¹⁶And king Solomon made two hundred targets [i.e. large shields] of beaten ¹⁷gold; six hundred shekels of gold went to one target. And he made three hundred shields of beaten gold; three pounds [manehs] of gold went to one shield: and the king put them in the house of the forest of Lebanon.

¹⁸Moreover, the king made a great throne of ivory, and overlaid it with the best gold. ¹⁹The throne had six steps, and the top of the throne was round behind: and there were stays [arms] on either side on the place of the seat, and two lions stood beside the stays [arms]. ²⁰And twelve lions stood there on the one side and on the other upon the six steps: there was not the like made in any kingdom.

²¹And all king Solomon’s drinking vessels were of gold, and all the vessels of the house of the forest of Lebanon were of pure gold; none were of silver: it was nothing accounted of in the days of Solomon. ²²For the king had at sea a navy of Tharshish with the navy of Hiram: once in three years came the navy of Tharshish, bringing gold, and silver, ivory, and apes, and peacocks. ²³So king Solomon exceeded all the kings of the earth for riches and for wisdom.

²⁴And all the earth sought to Solomon, to hear his wisdom, which God had put in his heart. ²⁵And they brought every man his present, vessels of silver, and vessels of gold, and garments, and armor, and spices, horses, and mules, a rate year by year.

²⁶And Solomon gathered together chariots and horsemen: and he had a thousand and four hundred chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen, whom he bestowed in the cities for chariots, and with the king at Jerusalem. ²⁷And the king made silver to be in Jerusalem as stones, and cedars made he to be as the sycamore [mulberry] trees that are in the vale, for abundance.

²⁸And Solomon had horses brought out of Egypt, and linen yarn [a troop]: the king’s merchants received the linen yarn [troop] at a price. ²⁹And a chariot came up and went out of Egypt for six hundred shekels of silver, and an horse for an hundred and fifty: and so for all the kings of the Hittites, and for the kings of Syria, did they bring them out by their means.

Exegetical and Critical

1Ki_10:14-15. Now the weight of gold, &c. The 666 talents have been very differently computed. According to Exo_38:25 there are 3,000 shekels in one talent, but Thenius reckons the shekel at 10 Thalers, so that the whole sum would amount to “nearly 20 millions of Thalers in gold.” Keil, who had formerly reckoned it at 1,900,875 Marks, calculates it now at “over 17 millions of Thalers,” which plainly is too high. According to this, the golden crown which David took from the head of the Ammonite king, and which weighed a talent, not reckoning the precious stones in it (2Sa_12:30), must have weighed 83½ Dresden pounds, and a talent was about 30,000 Thalers, which is simply impossible. We prefer to reckon the talent at 2,618 Thalers at present, as Winer (R.-W.-B. II. s. 562) and Bunsen (Bibelwerk I. Einl. s. 377) think; this makes 666 talents equal to 1,743,588 Thalers, a still considerable sum. We cannot see why the number 666 should be an “invented” one, in which tradition betrays itself (Thenius). There is, in any event, no allusion in Rev_13:18 to this passage, and this number has no particular signification anywhere else. It only expresses the simple sum of the various receipts. In one year, i.e., per annos singulos (Vulgate); this suits our calculation very well, but not the 20,000,000 Thalers [or $15,000,000]. Keil, without any reason, doubts the correctness of this translation, in which all old translators have agreed; for if, as he supposes, the freight of the Ophir fleet, which returned only once in three years, brought the 666 talents, it must mean in every third year. The 666 talents were the regular yearly income; but we must not necessarily suppose, with Thenius, that they were “the income of taxes laid on the Israelites themselves;” for there is no mention anywhere made of a yearly income tax. 1Ki_10:15 tells of other less defined additions to the regular revenue. The Sept. renders the difficult expression àַðְùֵׁé äַúָּøִéí by ( ÷ùñὶò ) ôῶí öüñùí ôῶí ὑðïôåôáãìÝíùí ; it appears also to have read differently. Thenius therefore conjectures it to be îֵòָðְùֵé äָøְãåּéִí , and translates: “from the contributions of the subjugated;” but in opposition to this, Bertheau remarks rightly, “ äøãåéí occurs nowhere else, and òðù ( æçìßá ) can scarcely mean a tribute laid on the conquered lands in David’s time, and as such raised by Solomon.” The expression is generally understood to mean travelling tradespeople, and as øֹëְìִéí , i.e., merchants, follows, the latter “merchants” must mean “the pedlers or inferior shop-keepers” (Keil). But this distinction is destitute of proof. The word úåּø is never used for trading; äַúָּøִéí in Num_14:6 (13:16, 17) means the men that Moses sent out to view and report upon the land. The Vulgate translates the parallel passage in 2Ch_9:14; legati diversarum gentium. So also Bertheau, “the ambassadors” by whom the presents of other kings were brought. It is impossible to ascertain the exact income Solomon received from the traffic of the merchants; but there could scarcely have been a regular commercial tax (Thenius), and custom duties are still less to be supposed. The kings äָòֶøֶá are not “kings of the mixed tribes” (Keil), but could only have been Arabian tributary kings, who were subject to Solomon; probably they belonged to the desert Arabia, or at least to a part of it, which joined the Israelitish territory (Thenius). Cf. Jer_25:20; Eze_30:5. The governors are no doubt the same as those mentioned in 1Ki_4:7-19. The revenue-sources named in 1Ki_10:15 were plainly not gold, but in various kinds of produce.

1Ki_10:16-17. And king Solomon made two hundred targets, &c. öִðָּä is the large square shield, rounded down upon its length, covering the whole body. It was usually made of wood covered with leather, but these were overlaid with gold. îָâֵï is a smaller shield, either quite round or oval, also of wood or leather covered with gold. The latter was ùָׁçåּè , i.e., not: mixed with another metal, nor pure; but: stretched, hammered broad. The word shekel is left out in giving the weight, as often happens (Gen_10:16; Gen_24:22; Gen_37:28). The 600 shekels for each large shield should come to 523 3/5 Thalers [$392–3]. If a talent is reckoned at 3,000 shekels, and the talent be equal to 2,618 Thalers [see note above], the 3 pounds for each smaller shield would be 261½ Thalers, as 3 pounds are=300 shekels, according to 2Ch_9:16. This calculation appears far more probable than that 17½ pounds of gold, worth 6,000 Thalers, were used for each shield (Thenius); or that the gold-plating of a large shield did not weigh quite 9 pounds, and that of a small one nearly 4½ pounds (Keil). These shields were borne, as 1Ki_14:27 tells us, by the body-guard; but were used probably only on special occasions, for they were more for show than for ordinary use, and served also to adorn the house of the forest of Lebanon (for which see above in 1Ki_7:2). Golden shields are also mentioned in 1Ma_6:39, and were used also by the Carthaginians (Plin. Hist. Nat., xxxv. 4).

1Ki_10:18-20. Moreover, the king made a great throne, &c. The throne was not entirely made of ivory, any more than the palaces mentioned in 1Ki_22:39; Psa_45:9; Amo_3:15, but was only inlaid with it, decorated. The wood of which it was made was overlaid with gold, and between, ivory was inserted. 2Ch_9:17 gives èָäåֹø , pure, for îåּôָï , i.e., purified. Round behind can scarcely be that “it had an arched or rounded back” (Keil); or, “it terminated in a round crown” (Ewald), but means rather that “it had a round covering attached to the back” (Thenius). Most probably the lions as well as the throne itself to which they belonged were made of wood overlaid with gold, as images of gods were made (Jer_10:3 sq.). There was not a “lion on each of the arms” of the throne (Ewald), but on each side of it ( àֵöֶì ); the twelve others stood on the six steps leading to the throne, each one facing another. The remark, there was not the like made, &c., has reference to the artistic merit of the work as well as its costliness; the statues were at least as large as life. “On the ancient Assyrian monuments there are representations of high chairs with arms and backs, also such, the backs of which were supported by figures of animals (cf. Layard, Nineveh, s. 344 sq.), but none of these chairs are like that of Solomon. Later ages only can produce more splendid thrones. Cf. Rosenmüller, Altes und Neues Morgenland, III. s. 176 sq.” (Keil).

1Ki_10:21. And all king Solomon’s drinking vessels, &c. The account of the great quantity of gold and silver in Solomon’s time does not appear in the least exaggerated when we compare those of other ancient writers about the amount of precious metal in the ancient East. Sardanapalus, for instance, had, when Nineveh was besieged, 150 golden bedsteads, 150 golden tables, a million talents of gold, ten times as much silver, and 3,000 talents had been previously divided by him among his sons (Ktesias by Athenæus, xii. p. 529). No less than 7,170 talents of gold were used for the statues and vessels of the Temple of Bel in Babylon (Münter, Rel. der Babyl., s. 51, where the passages of the ancients that refer to it are given). Alexander’s pillage of Ecbatana was valued at 120,000 talents of gold (Diodor. Sicul. Bibl. 17). Cyrus’ pillage was 34,000 pounds of gold and 500,000 pounds of silver, besides an immense number of golden vessels (Pliny, Hist. Nat. xxvii. 3; cf. Symbol. des Mos. Kult. I. s. 259 sq.).

1Ki_10:22. For the king had at sea a navy of Tharshish, &c. úַּøְùִׁéùׁ , the ancient Phœnician emporium, Tartessus, on the far side of the pillars of Hercules in south-western Spain; it is described as lying in a district which was rich in silver. Its situation has been much disputed, but the above may be taken as the correct account (see the opinions in Winer, R.-W.-B. II. s. 603). (Cf. Eze_38:13; Jer_10:9; Isa_23:10.) That, however, àֳðִé úַּøְùִׁéùׁ does not here denote ships going to Tharshish, is evident from the passage, 1Ki_22:48, “Jehoshaphat made ships of Tharshish to go to Ophir for gold (i.e., to fetch gold); but they went not, for the ships were broken at Ezion-geber (i.e., on the Arabian gulf).” Wheresoever we may look for Ophir, it was certainly not in Spain, as every one knows, but in the East, that is, in the opposite direction. The ships that Solomon and Hiram had built (1Ki_9:28) in Ezion-geber were also destined to go to Ophir, therefore could not possibly have been intended for a voyage to Spain (which was reached by the Mediterranean sea), because the way around South Africa was then unknown. The productions, too, which 1Ki_10:22 tells us the Tharshish ships brought, show beyond dispute that the voyage was not to Tharshish, for though there was plenty of silver in Tharshish, in Spain, there was no gold, and very few apes or peacocks, and but little ivory. Keil now admits this, though he once held the far-fetched idea that Jehoshaphat brought the ships built at Ezion-geber across the isthmus of Suez, transported also over land, to sail thence to Spain. The ships with which the Phœnicians used to go to the distant Tharshish were very large and strong, perhaps the largest trading vessels; and as large ships now that go far are named after the lands they sail to, for instance East-Indiamen, Greenlanders, so in Solomon’s time or that of our author, the Phœnicians called large trading vessels Tharshish ships; it had become a regular name, as the following passages show: Isa_2:16; Psa_48:8. Taking everything into the account then, we can regard the formula: ships went to Tarshish (2Ch_9:21) as only a mistaken interpretation of the expression: Tharshish fleet—a mistake that is easily accounted for, as at the time Chronicles was written the voyages of Tyrians as well as of Israelites to Ophir and Tharshish had long ceased, and the geographical position of both places was forgotten by the Jews (Keil). Though the passage under consideration does not say expressly whither the Tharshish fleet was going, 1Ki_9:28; 1Ki_22:49 show that Ophir must have been its destination. But much has been written about the situation of Ophir which has been greatly, and is still, disputed (cf. Winer, R.-W.-B. II. s. 183 sq.; Herzog, Real-Encykl. on the word). This much, however, has been settled by recent researches, that we are to look for it either in India or in South Arabia. In support of India the products named in 1Ki_10:22, and which are indigenous thereto, have been urged, and appeal has been made to the fact that the ships returned only every three years, which suggests a greater distance than Southern Arabia. But the chief import, gold, which must have been plentiful in Ophir, is not found on the Indian coast, but is met with, first, north of Cashmere. South Arabia, on the contrary, was famed for its abundance of gold, and Asia Minor imported its gold chiefly thence. The úֻëִּéִּéí , rendered peacocks by all the old translations, seem even more than the ÷ֹôִéí , i.e., apes, to point to India, for they originally came from there (Oken, Naturgesch. der Vögel, s. 625); the ivory too, which is in other places simply expressed by ùֵׁï reminds us of India. But as Ophir certainly cannot mean India, we decide, with Ewald and Keil, for South Arabia. The former supposes that Ophir, situated on the south-eastern coast of Arabia, since people made voyages thence to India, included, in common parlance, this latter land, just as the name Havilah, Gen_10:7; Gen_10:29, denoted lands that lay still farther east. Probably Solomon’s and Hiram’s ships first went to the original Ophir itself (1Ki_9:27), but later larger ships went farther, and besides the gold of Ophir brought apes, peacocks, and ivory, i.e., Indian products and articles of luxury. We may also suppose that there was even then some commerce between India and South Arabia, and that Indian products reached Ophir, whence the Ophir voyagers brought them to Palestine. This is much more probable than Keil’s supposition, which is that the products in question were African, being brought over to Ophir in the trading which took place between Arabia and the opposite coast of Ethiopia. Though there was a “species of tailed ape” in Ethiopia, there were no peacocks and no sandal-wood. Thenius very unnecessarily supposes that the same writer who wrote 1Ki_9:27 sq. could not have written this passage, because each passage speaks of the voyage to Ophir in a different manner; whence again the compilatory character of our books must follow. The first account is of the first voyage, and the second account of the later and more extended one.

1Ki_10:23-27. So king Solomon exceeded, &c. From 1Ki_10:23-29, by way of conclusion, everything that was to be said of the glory of Solomon is summed up, and at the same time some things not yet mentioned are added. For 1Ki_10:23-24 cf. 1Ki_4:29-34. According to the universal custom in the East all, who came to see and hear Solomon brought him presents, and this was repeated “year by year,” so highly had he risen everywhere in consideration. For 1Ki_10:26 cf. 1Ki_4:26, and 1Ki_9:19. In 1Ki_10:27 silver only is mentioned and not gold (which the Sept. unjustifiably adds here from 2Ch_1:15), because enough had been said already about gold. The great quantity of silver does not necessarily show that there was a silver trade with Tharshish which was rich in that metal, for there was a great deal of silver in Asia: Sardanapalus in Nineveh (see above on 1Ki_10:21), rich as he was in gold, had ten times as much silver, which he certainly did not get from Spain. The cedar-wood which came from Lebanon was as plentiful there in Jerusalem as common building timber, which was taken from sycamores (Isa_9:10), which did not grow on high mountains but very often in the lowlands of Palestine (Winer, R.-W.-B. II. s. 62 sq.), and were therefore cheap and easy to be had. The mode of expression is hyperbolical and Oriental, and cannot be taken literally any more than 1Ki_4:20.

1Ki_10:28-29. And Solomon had horses brought, &c. Verses 28 and 29 contain supplementary remarks to the account given in 1Ki_10:26 of Solomon’s war-forces, explaining how he acquired the latter, namely, by sending special merchants to trade with Egypt, which was famous for its breed of horses, and was the country of “horses and chariots” (Exo_14:6 sq.;15:1; 2Ki_18:24; Isa_31:1; Jer_46:2; Jer_46:4; Deu_17:16). îִ÷ְåֶä , which occurs twice in 1Ki_10:28, is difficult; but it can only mean collection, collexio, multitude (Gen_1:9-10; Exo_7:19; Jer_3:17). If we adhere to the masoretic punctuation we must render it as Gesenius does: “And a number of royal merchants fetched a number of the same (horses) for money;” the passage would thus contain “a kind of play on the word,” which would be here without design or meaning. The Sept. and the Vulgate regard î÷åä as denoting locality, and connect it with èîöøéí ; the departure of horses from Egypt and from Coa ( ἐê Èåêïõὲ de Coa); but neither the Bible nor any ancient translator mentions a country or town named Coa or Cawe, and yet as a place of trade it could not have been insignificant or unknown. Thenius arbitrarily and incorrectly changes the first î÷åä into îִúְּ÷åֹòַ ; Thekoa, some miles from Jerusalem, was not a trading town but a small place situated on a height and inhabited by shepherds (Winer, s. 606). The translation “remainder” (or surplusage) (Ewald) is no better than that given by some Rabbins, woven texture. The second î÷åä can have no other meaning than that of the first; it means “collection” each time, i. e., collection of horses, and the passage becomes quite clear, if, leaving the masoretic punctuation, we join the first î÷åä to the preceding words, making one sentence of them: “Concerning the bringing of horses out of Egypt, and their collection, the merchants of the king made a collection of them for a certain price.” This shows that the horses were not brought up one by one, but in droves each time. When 600 shekels were given for a chariot and 150 for a horse, the first price of course included that of the harness for two horses belonging to the chariot, and also that of a reserved horse (see above on 1Ki_4:26). The single horses at 150 shekels must have been riding-horses. We cannot tell the exact amount of this price in our money, as the value of the shekel is not fixed. If, like Winer and others, we compute it at 26 silver groschen, 150 shekels would be equal to 130 Thlr. [$97.50]; Keil agrees with this, but formerly thought, with others, that it only amounted to 65 or 66 Thlr.; Thenius gives it at 100 Thlr. The traders were called “king’s merchants,” not because they had to give an account of their dealings to the king (Bertheau) but “because they traded for the king” (Keil); as such they were respected, and distant kings employed them in procuring horses. The Hittites are not the same as those named in 1Ki_9:20, but were an independent tribe, probably in the neighborhood of Syria, as 2Ki_7:6 mentions them as in alliance with the Syrians.

Historical and Ethical

1. In the section before us the delineation of Solomon’s glory reaches its climax. No other king’s reign is treated at such length in our books as that of Solomon, which alone occupies 11 chapters. But this whole historical representation has the same end in view that this section, referring to the promise, 1Ki_3:13, expresses in the words: “King Solomon exceeded all the kings of the earth for riches and for wisdom,” i.e., all conceivable greatness, might, riches, dignity, fame, and splendor were united to such a degree in Solomon (which never happened to any king before or after), that he was looked on as the very ideal of a king throughout the East; and his “glory” became proverbial (Mat_6:29; Luk_12:26). The reason that this glory, which here reaches its highest point, is depicted just before the account of his deep fall (chap. 11), is to be found in the theocratic view of the historian, and is, in an historicoredemptive relation, of high significance. In the divine economy the Old-Testament kingdom was destined to reach its culminating point in David’s son; but as the old covenant moved generally in the form and covering of bodiliness, visibility, and outwardness, described as óÜñî by the New Testament; so the glory of the Old-Testament kingdom was a visible and external one; its highest point was determined by riches, power, fame, dignity, and splendor. Corresponding with the kingdom of Israel êáôὰ óÜñêá , it can be but a glory êáôὰ óÜñêá , i.e., a visible, external, and therefore temporal and perishable, which, like the old covenant, pointed beyond itself, to an invisible, spiritual, and therefore imperishable, eternal glory. The same Old Testament king, under whom the kingdom reached its greatest degree of glory, prepared the way for its gradual decline, and no one preached more powerfully the vanity and nothingness of all temporal splendor than he when proclaiming, it is all vanity (Ecc_1:2)! In complete contrast with the Old-Testament glory of Solomon we see the New-Testament glory of the son of David, in the most eminent sense, the true Prince of peace, who had not where to lay his head, and was crowned with praise and honor, not through riches, power, dignity, or splendor, but by the suffering of death; who became perfect through self-abnegation and obedience unto the death on the cross, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of Majesty; Whose Kingdom is everlasting and his glory imperishable (Heb_2:9; Heb_5:9; Heb_8:1; Heb_12:2; Luk_1:33).

2. Among the things related to show the splendor of Solomon’s reign, special mention is made of the throne as the symbol of royal majesty, and at the same time the centre or seat of this glory; and it is expressly added that there was not the like in any kingdom, which no doubt refers principally to the lions. The number of these lions, twelve, has reference, indisputably, to the number of the tribes of Israel above which the king was elevated and over which he reigned, and for that reason the lions stood below him on the steps of the throne. Ewald gives the following as the reason for this symbol, “indisputably because the lion was the standard of Judah.” This, however, does not appear to be so from Gen_49:9, nor from Isa_29:1 and Eze_19:2; and besides, all the twelve tribes could not be ranged under the particular banner of the tribe of Judah. Thenius thinks that the two lions next the throne were “rather the guardians of it,” and the twelve others on the steps represented “the power of the twelve tribes united in one throne.” But the lion is never mentioned as “keeping watch,” and moreover, the signification of those beside the throne could not differ from that of those before and below it. All nations have, from time immemorial, regarded the lion as the king of beasts (cf. the numerous passages of the ancients on this subject, in Bochart, Hieroz. I. ii. 1), and is therefore a fitting symbol of monarchy, which consists in “reigning and ruling” (see above on 1Ki_3:9). The lion “is the strongest among beasts” (Pro_30:30-31), and his roaring announces the coming of judgment (Amo_3:8; Amo_1:2; Rev_10:3). The two lions at the right and left of the king as he sat on the throne, denote his twofold office of governing and judging. If, then, the entire people are symbolized by the twelve lions, the meaning must be that Israel was the royal people among nations; just as the twelve oxen that bare up the molten sea signified that Israel was the nation of priests (see above in 1Ki_7:25). The people chosen by God from among all people are a nation of kings and priests (Exo_19:6; Rev_1:6; Rev_5:10); just as it culminates, as a priestly nation, in the high-priest, so it does also, as a royal one, in its king. Here we think involuntarily of the throne of Him who is both lamb and lion (Rev_5:5-6), who is the Prince of earthly kings, and has made us kings and priests to His Father, God (Rev_1:6; Rev_5:6; Rev_7:10; Rev_7:17). His people number twelve times twelve thousand (= 144,000), and these are represented by the twice twelve of the elders who stand before his throne (Rev_4:4; Rev_4:10; Rev_7:4; Rev_14:1).

Homiletical and Practical

1Ki_10:14. (a) The glory of Solomon. Wherein it lay (Power, dominion, pomp, splendor, glory, and honor, everything that men wish or desire in this world—all these we see before us in the life of this one man. But the glory of man is as the grass of the field, which fades and withers; truly, the lilies of the field exceed it in glory, for even, &c.—and Solomon himself confessed: All is vanity; I have seen all the works, &c., Ecc_1:2; Ecc_2:11; Psa_49:17-18. The world passes away, &c.). (b) Its significance for us (that we should seek after that other and imperishable glory, prepared for us by him who is greater than Solomon, Joh_17:24. Scarcely one of many thousands can attain to the glory of Solomon, but to the glory of God we are all called, 1Th_2:12; if our life be hidden with Christ in God, then “shall we when Christ,” &c., Col_3:3-4. Therefore shall we rejoice in the hope of future glory, and not only so, but in tribulations also (Rom_5:2-3) for our “light affliction, which is but for a moment,” &c., 2Co_4:17-18).—Power and dominion. (a) The responsibility involved therein (“to whom much is given, of him shall much be required, and to whom men,” &c., Luk_12:48; singular endowments bring with them singular requirements—authority is power given for the use and benefit of inferiors—wealth is bestowed upon the rich that they may relieve necessity according to their means). (b) The perils connected with it (pride and haughtiness, forgetfulness of God, and unbelief), Psa_62:11; Psa_52:9; 1Ti_6:9; Mat_16:26. Therefore envy not the rich and powerful, for they are exposed to many temptations. But godliness with contentment, &c., 1Ti_6:6. Würt. Summ.: Devout Christians may have and hold gold and silver, lands and possessions, cattle, in short everything, and with a good conscience, if only they do not misuse them by idle pomp or for the oppression of their fellow-creatures; for they are gifts and favors of God, which he lends them. The silver and the gold is mine, saith the Lord of hosts (Hag_2:8; Psa_50:10). The throne of Solomon, stately and magnificent as it was, is long since crumbled to dust, but His Throne, before whose judgment-seat we must all appear, endures to all eternity.—The man to whom God has given great wealth and high position in the world may indeed dwell in splendor; but every man sins whose expenses exceed his income, or are greater than his position in the world requires. Golden vessels are not necessaries of life, nor do they conduce to greater happiness or content than do earthen and wooden ones. It is the duty and right of a prince to bring an armed force to the defence of the country against her enemies, but prince and people must ever remember what the mighty Solomon himself says: The horse is prepared against the day of battle, but safety is of the Lord (Pro_21:31; cf. Psa_33:16-19; Isa_31:1).

Footnotes:

1Ki_10:15. [ îֵàַðְùֵׁé äַúָּøִéí , on the meaning of this difficult expression, see Exeg. Com. The versions render as follows: Vulg., the men who were over the tribute; Sept., the tribute of those subject; Chald., the wages of the artisans; Syr., simply from the artisans; and so the Arab.]

1Ki_10:15. [The ancient versions generally sustain this rendering. The Chald. alone has îַìְëֵé ñåּîְëְåָúָà “kings of auxiliary or allied nations,” which must be wrong. The Heb. word òֶøֶá is used Exo_12:38, Neh_13:3, generally of “a mixed multitude” of aliens attaching themselves to the Israelites; and Jer_25:24, specifically of the mixed races of Arabia Deserta. Hence in the parallel place 2Ch_9:14 we have òֲøָá .]

1Ki_10:17. [The Maneh = 100 shekels.]

1Ki_10:19. [The Heb. éָãåֹú undoubtedly means arms, and is so rendered by the Syr. The Chald. and Arab. give the sense of the A. V., while the Vulg. and Sept. render literally, hands.]

1Ki_10:21. [The ancient version gives without doubt the true sense; so the Vulg., Chald., and Syr. The word ñָâåּø is the part. pass. from ñָâַø to shut, close, and hence the Sept. version ÷ñõóßῳ óõãêåêëåéóìÝíá .]

1Ki_10:22. [The Sept. and Chald. adopt the single instead of the collective meaning of àֳðִé and render “a ship.”]

1Ki_10:22. [The other ancient versions (except that the Syr. and Arab. has elephants instead of ivory) concur in the sense of these words given in the ancient version; but the Vat. Sept. has instead ëßèùí ôïñåõôῶí êáὶ ðåëåêçôῶí , stones cut and graved. The Vat. Sept. also here inserts the passage omitted in Chap. 9.]

Ver, 25. [The Sept. render ðֵùֶׁ÷ (=armour) by óôἀêôÞí , oil of myrrh.]

1Ki_10:26. [The Vat. Sept. omits the first clause of 1Ki_10:26, and both recensions add to the verse the first part of 4:21. Also instead of 1,400 chariots they read 4,000 (Alex. 40,000) mares.]

1Ki_10:27. [ ùִׁ÷ְîִéí = óõêüìïñïò , óõêÜìéíïò , the mulberry-tree, now rare, but anciently very common in the low-lands of Palestine.]

1Ki_10:28. [On the meaning of îִ÷ְåֶä , here translated “linen yarn,” see Exeg. Com. The Sept. and Vulg. have taken it as a proper name.—F. G.]

If we reckon the Thaler at 75 cents, 10 Thalers, of course, are $7.50, and 20 millions of Thalers, are $15,000,000. And taking the author’s estimate of values, i.e., supposing the talent to be equal to 2,618 Thalers, the 666 talents in the text would be equal to $1,306,691.—E. H.