Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadPulpit Commentary - 1 Kings 4:1 - 4:19
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Ki_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.]
1Ki_4:2
And these were the princes [i.e. ministers, officers. Cf. 2Sa_8:15-18, and 2Sa_20:23-26] which he had, Azariah the son [i.e; descendant, probably grandson. See on 1Ch_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.
(1) The accents.
(2) The Chaldee and LXX. ( ὁ ἱερεύς Cod. Alex.; Cod. Vat. omits the words) Versions.
(3) Hebrew usage, according to which the patronymic is regarded as almost parenthetical.
(4) The fact that in every other case in this list the title is predicate nominative (verses 3-6).
(5) The position of Azariah's name, first in the list—a position which would hardly be assigned to a scribe.
(6) The absence of any copula () å , which, it is submitted, would be required if Azariah and the sons of Shisha alike were scribes. The question is one of some nicety, but the balance of evidence is distinctly in favour of connecting the title with Azariah, i.e; "Azariah son of Zadok was the priest." This brings us to
2. What are we to understand by "the priest "— äÇëÉäÅï ? 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:
(1) Because the high priests of Solomon are mentioned presently, viz; Abiathar and Zadok, and the Jews never had three high priests.
(2) Because the Azariah who was high priest under Solomon for the words of 1Ch_6:10, "He it is that executed the priest's office," etc, must belong to the Azariah of verse 9, and have got accidentally misplaced—was the son of Ahimaaz, not of Zadok.
(3) Because no grandson of Zadok could then be old enough to sustain the office of high priest.
(4) Because in one passage (2Sa_8:18, compared with 1Ch_18:17) ëÉäÂðÄéí is used of privy councillors and of the sons of David, who cannot have been sacrificing priests. Keil consequently would understand that Azariah was "administrator of the kingdom, or prime minister." Similarly Bähr. But in favour of the ordinary meaning of the word are these powerful considerations:
(1) All the versions translate the word by "priest," i.e; they understand by the term a spiritual person.
(2) Whatever may be the case with ëÉäÅï , äÇëÉäÅï , "the priest" (par excellence) can only be understood of the high priest.
(3) It is extremely doubtful whether ëÉäÅï is ever used except in the sense of ἱερεύς , Rawlinson, who says it sometimes indicates "a civil officer, with perhaps a semi-priestly character," refers to Gesenius sub hac voce, who, however, distinctly affirms that the word only means priest, and accounts for the application of the term to the sons of David (2Sa_8:18) on the supposition that the Jews had priests who were not of the tribe of Levi. The question is discussed with great learning by Professor Plumptre (Dict. Bib; art. "Priest"), who suggests that "David and his sons may have been admitted, not to distinctively priestly functions, such as burning incense (Num_16:40; 2Ch_26:18), but to an honorary, titular priesthood. To wear the ephod in processions (2Sa_6:14) at the time when this was the special badge of the order (1Sa_22:18), to join the priests and Levites in their songs and dances, might have been conceded, with no deviation from the Law, to the members of the royal house." There is one difficulty however in the way of accepting this ingenious and otherwise sufficient explanation, namely, that it seems hardly likely that the title of priest would be freely accorded by Hebrew writers to men who were expressly excluded from all "distinctively priestly functions," especially after the use of the same word in the preceding verse (17) to designate the high priest. And I venture to suggest that the discharge by David's sons of the semi-priestly functions just referred to occasioned so much remark as to head to the application of the term "priest" to them in a special conventional sense; in fact, that it became a sort of soubriquet, which rather implied that they were not priests than that they were. (Notice the order of 2Sa_8:18, Hebrews) And observe
(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.
(5) The mention of Azariah as "the priest" in the same list with Zadok and Abiathar is easily accounted for. We know that Abiathar was deposed at the beginning of Solomon's reign (1Ki_2:27), and Zadok must then have been an old man. Their names consequently are recorded (verse 4) because they were high priests for a brief period of the reign, but Azariah is mentioned first as "the priest" because he was high priest during most of the time.
(6) "Azariah the son of Zadok" is quite compatible with the fact that Azariah was really the son of Ahimaaz. áÅÌï is constantly used in the sense of "descendant," and especially "grandson." (Gen_29:5 : Gen_31:28, Gen_31:55 : and see on Gen_2:8,"the son of Gera.") Zadok is no doubt mentioned as better known than Ahimaaz, and probably because Azariah succeeded him directly in the office.
(7) The age of Azariah must be uncertain, and Solomon's reign was a long one.
(8) The position of his name—first—accords well with the idea that he was high priest, which I conclude that he was. It is worthy of remark that in the lists of David the military officers of the kingdom occupy the first place; in those of Solomon, the civil and religious dignitaries. "The princes of Solomon are, with one exception (verse 4) ministers of peace."—Wordsworth.
1Ki_4:3
Elihoreph and Ahiah, the sons of Shisha [probably the same person who is mentioned in 2Sa_20:25 as Sheva; in 2Sa_8:17, as Seraiah; and in 1Ch_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. Names written ex ore dictantis are sure to differ. See below on 1Ch_18:12], scribes [the scribes, ñÉôÀãÄéí , were Secretaries of State: they wrote letters and proclamations, drew up edicts, and apparently kept the accounts (2Ki_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 (2Sa_8:17; 2Sa_20:25; 1Ch_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.]
1Ki_4:4
And Benaiah the son of Jehoiada [see on 1Ki_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. 1Ki_2:35]: and Zadok and Abiathar were the priests [the mention of Abiathar's name after his deposition (1Ki_2:27, 1Ki_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 1Ki_2:2.]
1Ki_4:5
And Azariah the son of Nathan [Azariah was clearly not an uncommon name (verse. 2, and cf. 1Ch_2:39; 1Ch_5:1-26 :36-40 Hebrews; A.Heb_6:9-14), especially in the high priest's family. Keil and Bähr pronounce somewhat positively that this Nathan is not the prophet of that name, but Nathan the son of David (2Sa_5:14; Luk_3:31). It is quite impossible to decide with certainty which is meant, if either, though Zec_12:12 undoubtedly favours the supposition that the latter is here intended] was over the officers [the twelve prefects mentioned in Zec_12:7 sqq.]: and Zabud the son of Nathan was principal officer [Heb. priest, Vulg. sacerdos. Singularly, as before, the LXX. (Vat.) omits the word. The expression can hardly mean "the son of Nathan the priest," but it may either signify that "Zabud ben Nathan, 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 2Sa_8:18 the passage which is cited (sometimes along with 2Sa_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. 2Ch_26:18), or that the word ëäÅï , 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 (2Sa_15:37; 2Sa_16:16; 1Ch_27:33)," Rawlinson.]
1Ki_4:6
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. 1Ki_18:3; 2Ki_18:18; Isa_22:15). That such an officer was needed, the fact mentioned below (on 1Ki_4:23) as to the enormous size of the royal household will prove]: and Adoniram [see on 1Ki_12:18] the son of Abda was over the tribute. [Marg. "levy," i.e; the forced labour (1Ki_5:13, 1Ki_5:14). See on 1Ki_12:3.]
1Ki_4:7
And Solomon had twelve officers [lit; persons "placed" or "set over" others, i.e; superintendents. The term is used of Doeg (1Sa_22:9). They were twelve, not because of the twelve tribes, but the twelve months] over all Israel, which provided victuals for [Heb. nourished] the king and his household: each man his month in a year made provision [lit; a month in the year it was (i.e; devolved) upon each to nourish. It has been thought by some that these superintendents were also governors of provinces ( ἡγενισισόνες καὶ σταηγοί , Jos. Ant. 8.2, 3), as well as purveyors. But of this nothing is said in the text. Their principal function was to collect the royal dues or taxes which were evidently paid, as they still are in the East, in kind].
1Ki_4:8
And these are their names [the order is not geographical, nor do the districts correspond, except roughly, with the territories of the tribes. The order is probably that of the months for which they were severally responsible, and the districts were marked out according to the capabilities of the country.]: The son of Hur [Heb. as marg; Ben Hur. Of the twelve prefects, five are only known by their patronymics, for it is hardly likely that these are proper names, like Ben-hanan and Ben-zoheth (1Ch_4:20). No satisfactory explanation of this curious circumstance has hitherto been given. The most probable is that in the document from which this list was compiled, the part of the page containing the missing names had been accidentally destroyed], in mount Ephraim. [See on 1Ki_12:25. This district, which practically coincided with the territory of Ephraim, was one of the most fertile in Palestine. Hence, possibly, it stands first.]
1Ki_4:9
The son of Dekar [Ben. Dekar], in Makaz [unknown otherwise], and in Shaalbim [Jos_19:42; Jdg_1:35] and Beth-shemesh [called Irshemesh, Jos_19:41. Now 'Ain Shemes], and Elon-beth-hanan. [Elon, Jos_19:43. Probably Beth-hanan is a different place, the "and" () å having accidentally dropped out of the text. The LXX. ( ἕως Βηθανὰν ) favours this view. It has been identified by Robinson with Beit Hunun. This second district embraces Daniel]
1Ki_4:10
The son of Hesed [Ben. Hosed], in Aruboth (Heb. Arubboth, unknown]; to him pertained Sochoh [there were two cities of this name, one in the mountain (Jos_15:48), and one in the "valley" (the Shefelah, Jos_15:33, Jos_15:35), and both in the tribe of Judah, from which, therefore, this third district was taken], and all the land of Hepher. [Jos_12:17. Ewald holds that this place was in Manasseh, and that "it is impossible in the twelve districts to find any portion of… Judah." But see above.]
1Ki_4:11
The son of Abinadab [Ben Abinadab. Possibly the Abinadab of 1Sa_16:8; 1Sa_17:13. If so, this officer, who married Solomon's daughter, was also his cousin], in [Heb. omits] all the region [ ðÈôÈä , height; the term is only used in connection with Dor] of Dor [Jos_11:2; Jos_12:23; Jos_17:11. Dor, now represented by the miserable village of Tantura, lies on the strand of the Mediterranean, north of Caesarea. A "spur of Mount Camel, steep and partially wooded, runs parallel to the coastline, at the distance of about a mile and a half" (Porter). This is the "height of Dor." Thenius supposes this fourth district embraced the plain of Sharon. Josephus (8. 2. 3.) limits this prefecture to the sea coast, which may well include Sharon. Indeed, without it, this district would have been destitute of cornlands] which had Taphath, the daughter of Solomon, to wife. ["It has always been a practice amongst Oriental potentates to attach to themselves the more important of their officers by giving them for wives princesses of the royal house .... The practice of polygamy has generally enabled them to carry out this system to a very wide extent" (Rawlinson).
1Ki_4:12
Baana, the son of Ahilud [cf. 1Ki_4:3. Probably the recorder's brother], to him pertained [the original, true to its character as a list, omits these words, simply giving the name of the officer and then the towns of his district or province] Taanach and Megiddo [similarly associated, Jos_12:21; Jdg_5:19; Jdg_1:27. These towns, which became famous in later Jewish history (2Ki_23:29; 2Ch_35:22), lay at the foot of the E. spurs of Carmel, on the margin of the plain of Esdraelon. See Conder's "Tent Work in Palestine," p. 67] and all Bethshean [Jos_17:11, Jos_17:16; Jdg_1:27. Otherwise Bethshan (1Sa_31:10, 1Sa_31:12; 2Sa_21:12), now Beisan. The LXX. here translate the word ὁ οῖκος Σὰν ; elsewhere they write βαιθσὰν or βαιθσὰμ , and in Jdg_1:27 explain ἥ ἐστι Σκυθῶν πόλις , hence its later name Scythopolis. Rawlinson, by an oversight, interprets the name to mean "house of the sun," which is the translation of Bethshemesh. Bethshan prob. means "house of rest." "The site of the town is on the brow of the descent by which the great plain of Esdraelon drops down to the level of the Ghor." The present writer was much struck by its situation. See Conder, pp. 233, 234. The text shows that it gave its name to the adjoining district], which is by Zartanah [probably the Zaretan of Jos_3:16 and the Zarthan (same word in the Heb.) of 1Ki_7:46, which place is called Zeredathah in 2Ch_4:17, and is probably the Zererath of Jdg_7:22. (The variations in spelling are again to be noticed). Here Solomon cast the Temple vessels. By some it is identified with Kurn Sartabeh, a few miles below Bethshan. It is noticeable (in connexion with Jos_3:1-17.16) that at this point the Jordan valley narrows (Keil). It occupies high ground and commands an extensive view (Robinson)] beneath [or below] Jezreel [Wordsworth remarks that "Jezreel, now Zerin, is a lofty site." But the idea of "beneath" is not that of depression, but of geographical position = the district southeast of Jezreel] from [LXX. and from) Bethshean to Abelmeholah [lit. meadow of the dance. It lay ten miles south of Bethshean. It is mentioned in connexion with Zererath (Zaretan) in Jdg_7:22, but is best known as the home of Elisha (1Ki_19:16)] even unto the place that is beyond [Heb. unto the other side of] Jokneam. [Properly, Jokmeam. Identified by the Survey with Tell Keimun. A Levitical town (1Ch_6:68) probably the same as Kibzaim (cf. Jos_21:22). This district coincided practically with the tribe of Manasseh. It embraced a part (see verse 17) of the fertile plain of Esdraelon and of the Jordan valley.]
1Ki_4:13
The son of Geber [possibly son of the Geber mentioned in 1Ki_4:19] in Ramothgilead [two districts east of the Jordan are now enumerated. And first, the territory of Gad. Bamoth-gilead was a Levitical city (Deu_4:43; Jos_21:38). Its selection as a city of refuge (Jos_20:8), and as the seat of Bengeber's prefecture, together with the constant wars waged for its possession (1Ki_22:3; 2Ki_8:28; 2Ki_9:14) show that it was a position of great strength and importance]; to him pertained the towns of Jair [the Havoth Jair are strictly the lives (i.e; villages, because men live there) of Jair. So Gesenius, who cites Eisleben and similar names] the son Manasseh [it is doubtful whether the judge of that name (Jdg_10:3) or Jair, the son of Segub (called a "son of Manasseh" in Num_32:41, because his grandmother was a daughter of the great Machir, though his father belonged to Judah, 1Ch_2:21), is intended. Probably it is the latter. (They can hardly be one and the same person, though they are often identified, as, e.g; in the Speaker's Comm. on Jdg_10:3. But they belong to different periods.) Curiously enough, the Havoth Jair are mentioned in connexion with each (see Num_32:41; Deu_3:4, Deu_3:5, Deu_3:14; Jos_13:30; 1Ch_2:22; Jdg_10:4), but in every ease except the last the reference is to the son of Segub. As the judge was probably one of his descendants, it is not surprising that the judge's sons should possess some of the villages of Jair], which are in Gilead; to him also pertained the region [ çÆáÆì , lit; measuring cord, came to signify the region measured] of Argob [elsewhere "the Argob," i.e; the stony. This is the region subsequently known as Trachonitis, now called the Lejah. It is distinguished here and in Jos_13:30, and 1Ch_2:22 from the Gileadite district just mentioned, with which it is sometimes confounded. Both seem to have been conquered by Jair, but the towns of the former bore the name of Havoth Jair and these of Bashan Havoth Jair. Cf. Deu_3:4, Deu_3:5,Deu_3:14 with Num_32:41. The latter consisted of threescore cities, with walls, gates, and bars. This remarkable district, twenty-two miles in length by fourteen in breadth, is "wholly composed of black basalt, which appears to have issued from innumerable pores in the earth in a liquid state .... Before cooling, its surface was violently agitated, and it was afterwards shattered and rent by convulsions .... Strange as it may seem, this ungainly and forbidding region is thickly studded with deserted cities and villages"] which is in Bashan, threescore great cities with walls and brazen bars. [These words are a reminiscence of Deu_3:4, Deu_3:5.]
1Ki_4:14
Ahinadab the son of Iddo [probably the seer of that name, 2Ch_9:29] had Mahanaim [Heb. to Mahanaim, as marg. That is, went, or was appointed, to Mahanaim. Rawlinson understands that his district was "from the places last mentioned to Mahanaim," but for this the usus loquendi of the writer would lead us to expect òÇã . For Mahanaim, see Gen_32:2; Jos_13:26].
1Ki_4:15
Ahimaaz [probably the son of Zadok, 2Sa_15:27; 2Sa_17:17] was in Naphtali; he also [like Ben-Abinadab, 2Sa_17:11] took Basmath the daughter of Solomon to wife.
1Ki_4:16
Banaah [or Baana, the second prefect of that name (1Ki_4:12). The names are identical in the Hebrew. In 2Sa_4:2 the name is Baanah] the son of Hushai [the Archite, David's friend. Cf. 2Sa_15:32] was in Asher and Aloth. [No town or district of this name is known. Probably the word should be Bealoth, as in the LXX; Syr; and Vulg. Our translators have taken the initial áÀÌ for a prefix, but it is almost certainly part of the name. There was a Baaloth in Judah (Jos_15:24) and a Baaloth in Dan (ibid. 19:44), but neither of these can be meant here.]
1Ki_4:17
Jehoshaphat the son of Paruah, in Issachar. [He had consequently the plain of Esdraelon, with the exception mentioned above, 1Ki_4:12.]
1Ki_4:18
Shimei the son of Elah [by some identified with the Shimei of 1Ki_1:8. But see note there], in Benjamin. [It is noteworthy that Shimei was a Benjamite name, 2Sa_16:5, 2Sa_16:11.]
1Ki_4:19
Geber the son of Uri was in the country of Gilead [i.e; he presided over the parts not already assigned to Bengeber (perhaps his son) and Ahinadab. Gilead is often used (see Deu_34:1; Jdg_20:1) to designate all the country east of the Jordan. And so apparently here, for] the country of Sihon king of, the Amorites, and of Og king of Bashan] embraced the whole trans-Jordanic region, Deu_3:8; Num_21:24-35 : cf. Psa_135:11; Psa_136:19, Psa_136:20]; and he was the only officer which was in the land. [This cannot mean "the only officer in Gilead," notwithstanding the great extent of territory—the usual interpretation—for that would contradict Psa_136:13, Psa_136:14. Nor can can it mean the only officer in his district, or portion, of Gilead, for that is self-evident, and the remark would apply equally to all the other prefects. And we are hardly justified in translating ðÀöÄéá àÆçÈã "he was the first (i.e; superior), officer" (set over those mentioned above, Psa_136:13, Psa_136:14), as Schulze. àÆçÈã is used as an ordinal number, but it is only in connexion with days and years (Gesen. s.v.) Some, following the LXX. ( εἷς ἐν γῇ ̓Ιούδα ) would detach Judah from Psa_136:20, where it must be allowed it occurs with a suspicious abruptness, and where the absence of the copula, so usual in the Hebrew, suggests a corruption of the text, and would connect it with this verse, which would then yield the sense, "and he was," (or "there was") "one officer which purveyed in the land of Judah." it is to be observed, however, that though no mention has as yet been made of Judah in any of the districts, yet the prefecture of Ben Hesed (Psa_136:10) appears to have extended over this tribe, and the remark consequently seems superfluous. (Can it be the object of the writer to show that the royal tribe was not favoured or exempted from contributing its share?) On the whole, the difficulty would seem still to await a solution. We can hardly, in the teeth of Psa_136:7, suppose with Ewald, al. that a thirteenth officer is here intended.
I. THE FIRST PLACE IS FILLED BY GOD'S PRIEST (1Ki_4:2). The minister of religion takes precedence of the ministers of state. The universal tendency is to put man first and God second. Solomon—if this list preserves the order of his arrangenments—put God first, in the person of His high priest. Under the theocracy the king was a sort of summus episcopus. It was meet that next to the anointed Prince should stand the anointed Pontiff.
II. PRIORITY IS GIVEN TO THE OFFICERS OF PEACE (1Ki_4:3, 1Ki_4:4). Scribes come before warriors. In David's day it was otherwise. But there has been an advance, and here is the proof of it. War is essentially barbarous. Among savage tribes warfare is chronic. As men become wiser and more civilized, the appeal to brute force is less frequent. Wiser, for war means unwisdom somewhere. More civilized, for the history of civilization tells how the wager of battle, which is now confined to nations, was once employed by tribes, provinces, and private persons. So that, in this particular, the wise son was greater than the pious father. For this reason Solomon may build the temple which his father's blood-red hand may not touch. For this reason the son, not the father, is the favourite type of the Prince of Peace. One of the world's greatest generals (Napoleon) said there were but two great powers, the sword and the pen, and that, in the long run, the former was sure to be overcome by the latter. Solomon would seem to have been of the same opinion. The "scribes" and the "recorder" precede the "captain of the host."
III. MANY PLACES ARE FILLED BY THE FUNCTIONARIES OF HIS FATHER (1Ki_4:3, 1Ki_4:4, 1Ki_4:6, and cf. 1Ki_4:16). An Eastern autocrat generally appoints his associates of the harem (1Ki_12:10), his personal favourites, to positions of trust. Solomon showed his wisdom in retaining the faithful servants of his predecessor (compare the folly of Rehoboam, 1Ki_12:8), and his example thus confirms his precept (Pro_27:10), "Thine own friend and thy father's friend forsake not."
IV. SOME PLACES ARE FILLED BY HIS OWN SONS-IN-LAW (1Ki_4:11, 1Ki_4:15). This does not argue nepotism, or favouritism as the hand of the king's daughter was often bestowed as the reward of distinguished services (1Sa_17:25; 1Sa_18:17, 1Sa_18:27). It may have been the due recognition of fidelity and ability. In any case the alliances would strengthen Solomon's throne.
"The friends thou hast, and their adoption, tried,
Grapple them to thy heart with hooks of steel."
Alien princes would, no doubt, have been proud to espouse Solomon's daughters, but he preferred to marry them to faithful subjects. Blood is thicker than water.
V. ALL PLACES OF TRUST WERE FILLED BY PERSONS OF PIETY. The number of priests' or prophets' sons employed by Solomon is very remarkable (1Ki_4:4, 1Ki_4:5, 1Ki_4:14, and possibly 15). He knew that those who were taught in the law of the Lord would best keep and best enforce the law of the realm. Those who "fear God" are those who "honour the king" (1Pe_2:17). Witness Joseph, Obadiah, Daniel, and the three Hebrew children. Even irreligious masters know the value of God-fearing servants. God blesses the house of Potiphar for the sake of its pious steward. Piety involves probity and excludes peculation and malfeasance.
VI. EVERY OFFICER HAD HIS PLACE AND KEPT IT. There were definite duties, definite districts. The prefectures were so many parishes. Each was responsible for his own and for that only. Order is Heaven's first law. The prosperity of Solomon's reign may have been largely due to his system and method. There is a hierarchy and a due order in heaven. The angels would almost seem to have their districts (Deu_32:8, LXX.) The great King gives "to every man according to his work" (Mar_13:34).
1Ki_4:7-19
I. THEIR RESPECTIVE POSITIONS. The officers of Solomon were princes (1Ki_4:2); the officers of Jesus were peasants and fishermen. Ability, energy, etc; dictated Solomon's choice; humility, dependence, weakness, our] Blessed Lord's (Mat_18:3, Mat_18:4; Mat_23:11; and cf. Mat_11:11). "Not many mighty, not many noble are called," etc. (1Co_1:26). "Unlearned and ignorant men" (Act_4:13).
II. THEIR RESPECTIVE REPUTATIONS. The officers of Solomon were reverenced and feared; the apostles of our Lord ,were despised and defamed. Each of the twelve prefects was, no doubt, a little potentate. The court of Abinadab in Mahanaim, or Shimei in Benjamin, would be a copy in miniature of that of the king in Jerusalem. And we know what the Eastern tax-gatherer is like, what despotic powers he wields, etc. Witness the Pashas and Valis of Turkey. How different were the twelve apostles. The contrast could not well be greater. "Hated of all men," esteemed "the filth and offscouring of all things; .... a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men" (1Co_4:9-13). What the life of an apostle was like we may learn from 2Co_11:24-29. "Behold, they which are gorgeously apparelled and live delicately are in king's courts" (1 Luk_7:25). "Behold, we have forsaken all and followed thee" (Mat_19:27).
III. THEIR RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS. The twelve officers presided over tribes; the twelve apostles ministered to continents. The whole of Palestine is about the size of Wales, and this strip of territory was divided into twelve parts. Compare with this the apostolic commission, "GO ye into all the world," etc. "Ye shall be witnesses unto me .... unto the uttermost part of the earth" Judaism was tribal religion; the faith of Christ is for humanity.
IV. THEIR RESPECTIVE FUNCTIONS.
1. The twelve officers were receivers-general; the twelve apostles were general givers. The first took from the people to give to the king: the latter received from their King to bestow on the people. To the former, the subjects of Solomon brought taxes or tribute; the latter have obtained blessings and gifts from their Lord for men. (Cf. Act_1:8; Act_2:18; Act_8:18; 1Ti_4:14; 2Ti_1:6, etc.) "It is more blessed to give," etc.
2. The officers nourished the king (2Co_11:27, Heb.) and his armies: the apostles fed the Church. (Cf. Act_20:28.) The 14,000 dependants of the court, the 4000 charioteers, the 12,000 horsemen, all were maintained by the twelve purveyors. Through the apostles, the Lord fed, now 4000, now 7000, and through them, their doctrine and their successors, He still feeds, with word and sacrament, the millions of the Church. So far the comparison is largely in favour of the prefects. As regards this world's gifts and dignities, they bear away the palm. In their lifetime they received their good things and the apostles evil things. But an old authority—it is the dictum of Solon to Croesus (Herod. 1:30-38)—warns us to pronounce on no man's fortune or happiness until we have seen the end. And the real end is not in this world. Let us therefore consider
(1) What is the verdict of posterity? And
(2) What will be the issue of futurity as to these two classes? Here we observe -
I. THE NAMES OF SOME OF THE PREFECTS ARE FORGOTTEN; THE NAMES OF THE APOSTLES ARE IN EVERLASTING REMEMBRANCE. The fame of Solomon's twelve was shortlived. Several of them are now known to us only by their patronymics. Those much dreaded satraps, before whom subjects trembled, their very names are in some cases lost in oblivion. But the apostolic college, every member is still famed, reverenced, loved throughout the whole round world. Their names are heard, Sunday by Sunday, in the Holy Gospel (cf. Mat_26:18). Better still, their "names are written in heaven" (Luk_10:20; cf. Php_4:3). As to
II. THE TWELVE APOSTLES WILL JUDGE THE TWELVE PREFECTS. In their time, the latter sate on twelve thrones, each in his capital city, ruling the twelve tribes of Israel. But their glory, like that of the Roman general's pageant, "lacked continuance." In the midst of their brief authority
"Comes the blind Fury with the abhorred shears
And slits the thin-spun life."
The dominion of the apostles is in the future. It belongs to the "regeneration." "When the Son of Man"—the true Son of David—"shall sit on the throne of his glory," then shall they "sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes," etc. (Mat_19:28). The despised fishermen shall judge the high and mighty officers—yes, and magnificent Solomon himself. Even now, it may be, their glory is in part begun.
"Lo, the twelve, majestic princes
In the court of Jesus sit,
Calmly watching all the conflict
Raging still beneath their feet."
Shall we follow the officers of Solomon, or the twelve apostles of the Lamb? Shall we, that is, desire earthly advancement, high position, contemporary fame, or shall we count all as dross that we may "win Christ and be found in Him" (Php_3:8-11). "What shall it profit a man, if he gain," etc. We cannot all be ἡγενισισόνες καὶ στρατήγοι , still less can we all wed kings' daughters. But we may all sit with Christ upon His throne (Rev_3:21); may all receive the crown of life (Rom_2:10); may all be "called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb" (Rev_19:7-9).