I
Kings 4
Solomon’s
State and Court Officials (vs. 1-19)
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
(vs. 11, 15) has been generally
thought to prove that the record belongs to a much later period,
and it certainly affords
a
powerful presumption in favor 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 (Joshua 15:16; I Samuel 17:25; 18:17) by
the important services
they had rendered to the State. If
the historians of
more natural than that they should record such details of the Augustan age
of their race.
1 “So king Solomon
was king over all
of the
2 “And these were the princes which he had; Azariah
the son of Zadok the priest,”
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 (v. 4) ministers of
peace.”
And these were the
princes [i.e. ministers, officers. Compare II Samuel 8:15-18,
and
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 - hiereus - priest or βουλευτής
-
bouleutaes - counselor? 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 v. 4), and understand that Azariah,
the
son of the high priest Zadok, was, together with the
sons of Shisha, one
of
the scribes (v. 3). It is true that this view obviates some difficulties,
but
against it are these considerations.
Vaticanus versions omits the words ὁ
ἱερεύς (the
priest)
c.
Hebrew usage, according to which the patronymic is regarded as
almost parenthetical.
d. The fact that in every other case in this list the title is
predicate
nominative (vs. 3-6).
e. The position of Azariah’s name, first in the list — a position which
would hardly be assigned to a scribe.
f. The absence of any
copula (ו),
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 favor 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”— הַכֹּהֵן? It is urged by
Keil, Bahr, al. that this cannot mean “priest” in the
ordinary sense of the
word, still less “high priest,” for the following reasons:
Abiathar and Zadok, and the Jews never
had three high priests.
b. Because the Azariah who was high priest under Solomon for the words
of 1 Chronicles 6:10, “He it is that executed the priest’s
office,” etc,
must belong to the Azariah of v. 9,
and have got accidentally misplaced
— was the son of Ahimaaz, not of Zadok.
c. Because no grandson of Zadok could then be old enough to sustain the
office of high priest.
d. Because in one passage (II Samuel 8:18, compared with 1 Chronicles
18:17)
כֹּהֲנִים is used of privy councilors 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
Bahr. But in favor 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 כֹּהֵן, הַכֹּהֵ, “the
priest” (par
excellence) can only be understood of the high priest (ch. 1:8, 38;
Exodus
29:30; Leviticus 21:21; II Kings 11:9, 15; 22:4, 8, 10,
12, 14. Compare
II Chronicles 26:17).
(3) It is extremely doubtful whether כֹּהֵן is ever used except in the sense of
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 (under
this word), who, however, distinctly affirms
that the word
only means priest, and accounts for the application of the
term to the sons
of David (II Samuel 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 (Numbers 16:40;
II Chronicles 26:18),
but to an honorary, titular priesthood. To wear the
ephod in
processions (II Samuel 6:14) at the time when this was the
special badge
of the order (1 Samuel 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 (ibid. v. 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 (nickname), which rather
implied that
they were not priests than that they were. (Notice the order
of II Samuel 8:18,
Hebrew) And observe
(4) if
we are to understand by “the priest”
in v. 2, “prime minister;” by
“priests” in v. 4,
“high priests,” and by “priest”
in v 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 (ch. 2:27), and Zadok
must then
have been an old
man. Their names consequently are recorded (v. 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. בֵּן is constantly used
in the sense
of “descendant,”
and especially “grandson.” (Genesis 29:5: 31:28, 55:
and see on ch.
2:8,”the son of
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 (v. 4)
ministers of peace.”
The
Servants of Solomon (v. 2)
“All Scripture is… profitable
for instruction,” (II Timothy 3:16) A bare list of names
may teach some lessons. We shall find in this list, first,
some proofs of Solomon’s wisdom,
and
secondly, some
principles to guide our own conduct. First, however, let us remember
that to select faithful and efficient
servants is one of the most difficult tasks of rulers.
(This is quite evident in the current leadership of the
The welfare of the whole State depends very largely on the
choice. “Mine eyes shall
be upon the faithful of
the land, that they may dwell with me: he that walketh
in
a perfect way, he shall serve
me. He that worketh
deceit shall not dwell within
my house: he that telleth lies shall not tarry in my sight. I will early destroy all
the wicked of the land;
that I may cut off all wicked doers from the city of the
LORD.” (Psalm
101:6-8.) Now observe that here”
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. (This
the mistake of the populace of the United
States of
OVERKILL” – CY – 2010)
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 favorite 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.”
HIS FATHER (vs. 3, 4, 6, and compare. v. 16). An Eastern autocrat
generally appoints his associates of the harem (ch. 12:10), his
personal favorites, to positions of trust. Solomon showed
his wisdom in
retaining the faithful servants of his predecessor (compare the folly of
Rehoboam, (ch. 12:8), and his
example thus confirms his precept
(Proverbs
27:10), “Thine own friend and thy father’s friend forsake
not.”
11, 15). This does not argue nepotism, or favoritism as the
hand of the
king’s daughter was often bestowed as the reward of
distinguished services
as mentioned above. 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.
PIETY. The number of priests’ or prophets’ sons employed by
Solomon is
very remarkable (vs. 4, 5, 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 “honor the king”
(I Peter
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. (Genesis
39:1-6) –
Piety involves probity and excludes peculation and malfeasance.
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
(Deuteronomy 32:8, Septuagint)
The great
King gives “to every man according to his work” (Mark
13:34).
3 “Elihoreph and Ahiah, the sons of Shisha,
scribes; Jehoshaphat the son of
Ahilud, the recorder.” Elihoreph and
Ahiah, the sons of Shisha [probably
the same
person who is mentioned in II Samuel 20:25 as Sheva;
in ibid. 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. Names
written ex ore dictantis (from the mouth of the dictates) are
sure to differ. See below
on
v. 12], scribes [the scribes, סֹפְדִים,, were
Secretaries of State: they wrote letters
and
proclamations, drew up edicts, and apparently kept the accounts (II 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 (II Samuel 8:17; 20:25; 1 Chronicles
18:15).
The recorder or “remembrancer”
(margin) 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.
4 “And Benaiah the son of Jehoiada
was over the host: and Zadok and
Abiathar were the
priests:” And Benaiah
the son of Jehoiada [see on ch.
1:32]
was [the Authorizrd Version 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 [compare ch. 2:35]: and Zadok
and Abiathar were the priests [the mention of Abiathar’s name after his
deposition (ch. 2:27, 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 v. 2.]
5 And Azariah the son of Nathan was over the officers: and Zabud
the son of Nathan was
principal officer, and the king's friend:”
And Azariah the son of Nathan [Azariah
was clearly not an uncommon name
(v. 2, and compare 1 Chronicles 2:39; 6:36-40 Hebrew; Authorized Version
6:9-14),
especially in the high priest’s family. Keil
and Bahr
pronounce somewhat positively that this Nathan is not the prophet of
that
name, but Nathan the son of David (II Samuel 5:14; Luke 3:31). It
is
quite impossible to decide with certainty which is meant, if either, though
Zechariah 12:12 undoubtedly favors the supposition that the
latter is
here intended] was over the
officers [the twelve prefects mentioned in
vs. 7 sqq.]: and Zabud the son
of Nathan was principal officer [Hebrew
priest, Vulgate sacerdos. Singularly, as before, the Septuagint 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 Authorized Version) 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 II Samuel 8:18 the passage which is cited (sometimes along
with
ibid. ch.
20:26, where the Septuagint, 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 (compare II Chronicles 26:18), or that the word כּהֵן, 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 (II Samuel 15:37; 16:16; 1 Chronicles 27:33),”
6 “And Ahishar
was over the household: and Adoniram the son of
Abda was over the tribute.” And Ahishar was over the
household:
We meet this office here for the first time, an evidence of
the growing size
and
magnificence of the court (ch.18:3; II Kings 18:18; Isaiah 22:15) -
That such an officer was needed, the fact mentioned below
(on v. 23) as to
the
enormous size of the royal household will prove]: and Adoniram [see on
ch.12:18] the son of Abda was over the tribute. [Margin
“levy,” i.e., the
forced labor ch. 5:13-14).
7 “And Solomon had twelve
officers over all
victuals for the king and
his household: each man his month in a year
made provision.”And Solomon had twelve officers [literally,
persons
“placed” or “set over”
others, i.e., superintendents. The term is used of Doeg
(1 Samuel 22:9).
They were twelve, not because of the twelve tribes, but the
twelve months] over all
nourished] the king and his
household: each man his month
in a year
made provision [literally, 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 (ἡγεμόνες 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].
8 “And these are their names: The
son of Hur, in
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 [Hebrew as margin, Ben Hur.
Of the twelve
prefects, five are only known by their patronymics (a name from
their father
or
ancestor), for it is hardly likely that these are proper names, like Ben-hanan
and
Ben-zoheth (1 Chronicles 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
This district, which practically coincided with the
one
of the most fertile in
9 “The son of Dekar,
in Makaz, and in Shaalbim,
and Bethshemesh, and
Elonbethhanan.” The son of Dekar [Ben. Dekar], in
Makaz [unknown
otherwise], and in Shaalbim [Joshua 19:42; Judges 1:35] and
Beth-shemesh [called Irshemesh, Joshua 19:41.
Now ‘Ain Shemes],
and Elon-beth-hanan. [Elon, ibid. v.43. Probably Beth-hanan is a
different place, the “and” (ו) having accidentally dropped out of the text.
The Septuagint (ἕως Βηθανὰν - hoes Baethanan) favors this
view. It has been
identified by Robinson with Beit Hunun. This second district embraces Dan.
10 “The son of Hesed, in Aruboth; to him
pertained Sochoh, and all the
of Hepher:” The
son of Hesed [Ben. Hosed], in
Aruboth (Hebrew Arubboth,
unknown]; to him
pertained Sochoh [there were two cities of
this name,
one
in the mountain (Joshua 15:48), and one in the “valley” (the
Shefelah, Joshua ibid. vs. 33, 35), and both in the tribe
of
which, therefore, this third district was taken], and
all the
[Joshua 12:17. Ewald holds that
this place was in Manasseh, and that
“it is impossible in the twelve
districts to find any portion of…
see
above.]
11 “The son of Abinadab, in all the region of Dor;
which had Taphath
the daughter of
Solomon to wife:” The son of Abinadab [Ben
Abinadab.
Possibly the Abinadab of 1 Samuel 16:8; 17:13. If so, this officer, who married
Solomon’s daughter,
was also his cousin], in [Hebrew
omits] all the region [פָה,
height; the term is
only used in connection with Dor] of Dor [Joshua
11:2;
12:23; 17:11. Dor, now represented by the
miserable
lies on the strand of the Mediterranean, north of
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
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).
12 “Baana the son of Ahilud; to him pertained Taanach
and
and all Bethshean, which is by Zartanah
beneath Jezreel, from Bethshean
to
Abelmeholah, even unto the
place that is beyond Jokneam:
Baana, the son of Ahilud [compare v. 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, Joshua 12:21; Judges 5:19; 1:27. These towns, which
became famous in later Jewish history (II Kings 23:29; II
Chronicles
35:22), lay at the foot of the E.
spurs of
of
Esdraelon. See Conder’s
“Tent Work in
Bethshean [Joshua 17:11, 16;
Judges 1:27. Otherwise Bethshan
(1 Samuel 31:10, 12; II Samuel 21:12),
now Beisan. The Septuagint here
translate the word ὁ οῖκος Σὰν
- ho oikos San -; elsewhere
they write βαιθσὰν -
baithsan or βαιθσὰμ - baithsan - , and in Judges 1:27 explain ἥ
ἐστι Σκυθῶν
πόλις - ae esti Skuthon polis - 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 proably 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 (in 1861) 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 Joshua 3:16 and the Zarthan (same word in the Hebrew) of here
ch. 7:46, which place is called Zeredathah
in II Chronicles 4:17, and is
probably the Zererath of Judges 7:22.
(The variations in spelling are
again to be noticed). Here Solomon cast the
identified with Kurn Sartabeh
(but see quart. Stat. of Pal. Explor.
Fund,
July, 1874, and Conder,
pp. 233, 234), a few miles below Bethshan. It is
noticeable (in connexion with Joshua 3.16)
that at this point the
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 [Septuagint and from) Bethshean to Abelmeholah [literally meadow of the
dance. It lay ten miles
south of Bethshean. It is mentioned in connection
with Zererath (Zaretan)
in Judges 7:22, but is best known as the home
of
Elisha (ch.19:16)] even unto the place that is beyond [Hebrew -
unto the other side of] Jokneam. [Properly, Jokmeam.
Identified by the
Survey (Conder, p. 68) with Tell
Keimun. A Levitical
town (1 Chronicles 6:68)
probably the same as Kibzaim (compareJoshua 21:22). This district coincided
practically with the tribe of Manasseh. It embraced a part (see v. 17)
of the fertile
plain of Esdraelon and of the
13 “The son of Geber, in Ramothgilead; to him
pertained the towns of Jair
the son of Manasseh, which are in
of Argob, which is in
The son of Geber [possibly son of the Geber
mentioned in v. 19] in Ramothgilead [
two
districts east of the
Bamoth-gilead was a Levitical city
(Deuteronomy 4:43; Joshua 21:38). Its selection
as
a city of refuge (Joshua 20:8), and as the seat of Ben-geber’s
prefecture,
together with the constant wars waged for its possession (ch. 22:3;
II Kings 8:28; 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 (Judges 10:3) or Jair, the son of Segub
(called a “son of Manasseh” in
Numbers 32:41, because his
grandmother was a daughter of the great Machir,
though his father
belonged to
latter. (They can hardly be one and the same person, though they
are often
identified, as, e.g., in the Speaker’s Commentary on Judges
10:3. But they
belong to different periods.) Curiously enough, the Havoth Jair are
mentioned in connection with each (see Numbers 32:41; Deuteronomy
3:4, 5, 14;
Joshua 13:30; 1 Chronicles 2:22; Judges 10:4), but in every
case 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
literally, 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
Joshua 13:30, and 1 Chronicles 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
3:4, 5,14 with Numbers 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”
(Porter, “
Bib. 1:104)] which
is in
brazen bars. [These words are a
reminiscence of Deuteronomy 3:4-5.]
14 “Ahinadab
the son of Iddo had Mahanaim:” Ahinadab the
son of Iddo
[probably the seer of that name,
II Chronicles 9:29] had Mahanaim [Hebrew -
to Mahanaim, as in the margin. 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 (common usage in speaking)
of
the writer would lead us to expect עַד. For Mahanaim, see Genesis 32:2;
Joshua 13:26].
15 “Ahimaaz
was in Naphtali; he also took Basmath
the daughter of
Solomon to
wife:” Ahimaaz [probably
the son of Zadok, II Samuel 15:27;
17:17] was in Naphtali; he also [like Ben-Abinadab,
v. 11] took Basmath
the
daughter of Solomon to
wife.
16 “Baanah
the son of Hushai was in Asher and in Aloth:”
Banaah [or Baana, the second prefect of that name (v. 12).
The names are identical in the Hebrew. In II Samuel 4:2 the
name is
Baanah] the
son of Hushai [the Archite,
David’s friend. Compare II Samuel
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 Septuagint, Syriac, and
Vulgate. Our translators have taken the initial בְּ for a prefix, but it is
almost
certainly part of the name. There was a Baaloth
in
and
a Baaloth in Dan (ibid.
19:44), but neither of these can be meant here.]
17 “Jehoshaphat
the son of Paruah, in Issachar:” He had consequently
the
plain of Esdraelon, with the exception mentioned
above, v. 12.]
18 “Shimei
the son of Elah, in Benjamin:” Shimei the
son of Elah
[by some identified with the Shimei of chapter 1:8. But see note there],
in Benjamin. [It is noteworthy that Shimei
was a Benjamite name,
II Samuel 16:5, 11.]
19 “Geber
the son of Uri was in the country of
Sihon king of the Amorites,
and of Og king of
only officer which
was in the land.” Geber the son of Uri
was in the country
of
(perhaps his son) and Ahinadab.
Judges 20:1) to designate all the country east of
the
here, for] the country of Sihon king of, the Amorites, and of Og
king of
Numbers 21:24-35: compare Psalm 135:11; 136:19-20]; and he was the
only officer which was
in the land. [This cannot mean
“the only officer in
interpretation — for that would contradict vs. 13-14. Nor can can it
mean the only officer in his district, or portion, of
evident, and the remark would apply equally to all the other
prefects. And
we
are hardly justified in translating נְצִיב
אֶחָד “he was the first (i.e.,
superior), officer” (set over those mentioned above, vs. 13-14), as
Schulze. סך
אֶחָד is used as an ordinal
number, but it is only in connection with
days and years (Gesenisus s.v.) Some,
following the Septuagint (εῖς ἐν γῇ
Ἰούδα -
eis en gae Iouda - ) would detach
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
however, that though no mention has as yet been made of
the
districts, yet the
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
favored 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
v. 7, suppose with Ewald, al. that a thirteenth
officer is here intended.
The Twelve Prefects and the Twelve Apostles (vs. 7-19)
“And Solomon had twelve officers over all
closely he foreshadows our blessed Lord, the
twelve officers of Solomon
can hardly fail to remind us of the twelve
Apostles of the Lamb. It may be
instructive to compare their dignities, functions,
etc. Observe:
·
THEIR RESPECTIVE POSITIONS. The officers of Solomon
were
princes (v. 2); the officers of Jesus were peasants and
fishermen. Ability,
energy, etc.,
dictated Solomon’s choice; humility, dependence, weakness,
our Blessed
Lord’s (Matthew 18:3-4; 23:11; and compare 11:11). “Not
many mighty, not many noble are called,” etc. (1 Corinthians 1:26).
“Unlearned
and ignorant men”
(Acts 4:13).
·
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
tax-gatherer is
like, what despotic powers he wields, etc. Witness the
Pashas and Valis of
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” (1 Corinthians 4:9-13). What the life of
an apostle was like
we may learn
from II Corinthians 11:24-29. “Behold, they which are
gorgeously apparelled and
live delicately are in king’s courts” (Luke
7:25). “Behold, we have forsaken all and followed thee” (Matthew
19:27).
·
THEIR RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS. The
twelve officers
presided over tribes; the twelve apostles ministered to
continents.
The
whole of
divided into
twelve parts. Compare with this the apostolic commission,
“GO
ye into all the world and preach the gospel,” 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.
·
THEIR RESPECTIVE FUNCTIONS.
Ø 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. (Compare Acts 1:8; 2:18;
8:18; 1 Timothy 4:14; II Timothy 1:6, etc.) “It is more blessed to give
than receive.”
(Acts 20:35)
Ø The officers nourished the king (v.
27, Hebrew) and his armies:
the
apostles fed the Church. (Compare Acts
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 favor 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 (Herodotus
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:
·
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
short-lived. 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 (compare Matthew 26:18).
Better still,
their “names are written in heaven” (Luke 10:20; compare
Philippians
4:3). As to:
·
THE TWELVE APOSTLES WILL JUDGE THE
TWELVE PREFECTS.
In their time,
the latter sat on twelve thrones, each in his
capital city,
ruling the twelve tribes 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. (Matthew 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” (Philippians 3:8-11). “What shall it profit a man,
if he gain the whole world and lose his own
soul?,” etc. We
cannot all be
ἡγεμόνες καὶ σταηγοί, (rulers or governors) still less can we all wed kings’
daughters. But we may all sit with Christ upon
His throne (Revelation 3:21);
may all
receive the crown of life
(Romans 2:10); may all be “called unto the
marriage
supper of the Lamb” (Revelation 19:7-9).
Solomon’s Rule, State,
and Wisdom (vs. 20-34)
The remainder of this chapter, which describes to us the extent and character of
Solomon’s sway (vs. 20-21, 24, 25), the pomp and provision of his household
(vs. 22-23, 26-28), and his profound and varied wisdom (vs. 29-34), has every
appearance of a compilation from different sources. It scarcely has the order and
coherence which we should find in the narrative of a single writer.
20 “
eating and
drinking, and making merry.”
sand which is by the
sea in multitude [a reminiscence of Genesis 13:16; 22:17;
32:12 (compare here,
ch. 3:8). In the reign of Solomon these
promises had their
fulfillment], eating and
drinking, and making merry. [Compare 1 Samuel 30:16.
The Hebrew
here begins a new chapter. The Septuagint omits vs. 20-21, 25-26,
and
places vs. 27- 28, “and those officers,”
etc., after the list of prefects, v. 19.]
In the reign of Solomon, (1014 B.C.) God’s promises to Abraham (1872 B.C.)
were fulfilled 858
years later – see Genesis 22:17.
21 “And Solomon reigned over all kingdoms from the river
unto the
land of the Philistines, and unto the border of
presents, and served Solomon all the days of his
life.” And Solomon reigned
[Hebrew - was reigning] over all kingdoms [Hebrew -
the kingdoms. That is, as
suzerain, as is explained presently. So that Psalm 72:10-11 had
its fulfillment]
from the river [i.e., the
Exodus 23:31; II Samuel 10:16. In Genesis 15:18 it is
called “the
great river, the river
Hebrew. It is found in the parallel passage, II Chronicles 9:26,
and
perhaps we may safely supply it here. Its omission may have been
occasioned by the recurrence of the same word (עַד) presently. Some
would render, “reigned… over the land,” etc., supplying בְּ] in
thought from
above. But “unto” seems to be required after “from.” Compare v.
24] the land
of the Philistines [this, i.e., the Mediterranean shore, was the
western
border of his realm], and
unto the border of
1913 B.C. – another promise of God fulfilled – Genesis
15:18 – in ch. 8:56,
Solomon says “Blessed be the Lord, that hath given rest unto His people
all His good
promise, which He promised by the hand of Moses
his servant”
also compare Joshua 21:45, 23:14-16 – all
God’s promises will be fulfilled, even
to the end of time – CY – 2010) [this was his southern boundary. We have here
a reference to Genisis 15:18, the promise which now first received its fulfilment]:
they brought presents [i.e., tribute. Similar expressions, II Samuel 8:2; II
Kings
17:3-4, and especially
Psalm 72:10. What the presents were we are told in ch.
10:25,
where, however, see note], and served Solomon all the days of his life.
The daily
consumption of the royal household is now related to show the
grandeur and luxury of the
court. And it agreed well with the greatness
of
the
kingdom. The lavish provision of Oriental palaces was evidently a
subject of wonder and of boasting to the ancients, as the
inscriptions and
monuments show.
In
foreshadowing
of the Golden Age of the world, Jesus Christ ruling the earth
in the Millennium - “and behold, a greater than Solomon is
here” – (Matthew
12:42)
What if you are not
around to experience it? (see Matthew 8:11-12;
Luke 13:28-30;
Revelation 21:22-27;
The daily consumption of the royal household is now related to show the grandeur
and luxury of the court. And it agreed well with the greatness of the kingdom. The
lavish provision of Oriental palaces was evidently a subject of wonder and of boasting
to the ancients, as the inscriptions and monuments show.
22 “And Solomon's provision for one day was
thirty measures of fine
flour, and threescore
measures of meal,” And Solomon’s provision
[margin - bread, but לֶחֶם, strictly signifies any kind of food] for one day
was thirty measures [Hebrew - cors.
The כֹּר was
both a liquid and a dry measure
(ch.
5:11) and was the equivalent to the homer (Ezekiel 45:14), but its precise
capacity is doubtful. According to Josephus, it contained
eighty-six gallons;
according to the Rabbins, forty-four] of fine flour and threescore measures of
meal. [Thenius calculates that this
amount of flour would yield 28,000 lbs.
of
bread, which (allowing 2 lbs. to each person) would give 14,000 as the
number of Solomon’s retainers. This computation, however, could
have
but
little value did not his calculations, based on the consumption of flesh,
mentioned presently (allowing 1.5 lbs. per head), lead to the same
result.
23 “Ten fat oxen, and twenty oxen
out of the pastures, and an hundred sheep,
beside harts, and
roebucks, and fallow deer, and fatted
fowl.” Ten fat
[Hebrew -
fatted, i.e., for table] oxen, and twenty fat oxen
out of the pastures,
and an hundred sheep,
beside harts and roebucks [or gazelles] and fallowdeer
[Roebucks. The name Yahmur is still current in
and fatted fowl [This word (בַּרְבֻּדִים) occurs nowhere else. The meaning most
in
favor is geese.]
24 “For he had dominion over all
the region on
this side the river,
from Tiphsah (a
town on the west side of the
to Azzah, over all the kings on this side the river: and he had peace on all
sides round about him.” For [the connection seems to be:
Solomon could well
support such lavish expenditure, because] he had dominion over all the region
on this side [בְּעֵבֶר strictly means, on the other side, beyond (עָבַר,
transiit). But here it must obviously mean on the west side,
for Solomon’s
rule did not extend east of the
(Joshua 5:1; 9:1; 12:7; 1 Chronicles 26:30; Ezra
8:36; Nehemiah 2:7) is generally
accounted for on the supposition that the writers were living in
of
the captivity; but this appears to be by no means certain. (See, e.g., Ezra
4:10-11.)
The truth seems to be, not that “the expression belonged to
the time of the captivity,
but
was retained after the return and without regard to its geographical
signification, but that from the first it was employed, now of one side,
now of
the
other, of the
in
Numbers 22:1; 32:32; “and even in the same chapter is used first of one and
then
of
the other Deuteronomy 3:8, 20, 25” (Speaker’s Commentary on Deuteronomy 1:1),
and
that it was subsequently applied, with similar variations of meaning, to the
apparently the town on the west bank of the
Thapsacus.
It derived its name from the fact that the river at that point was
fordable פָּסַח ; = pass over; תִּפְסַה = crossing. A bridge of boats was
maintained here by the Persians. It was here that the river was
forded by
Cyrus and the Ten Thousand, and was crossed by the armies
of Darius
Codomannus and Alexander] to
Azzah [i.e.,
southernmost city of
last town in
kings on this side the
river [“Petty
kings were numerous at this time in all
the
countries dependent upon
II Samuel 8:3-10; I Kings 20:1. The “kings on this side the
river” were
those of
his servants] round about him [in fulfillment of 1
Chronicles 22:9. The
objection of Thenius that this statement
contradicts that of ch. 11:23, sqq.,
is
hardly deserving of serious notice. The reign of Solomon, on the whole,
was
undoubtedly a peaceful one.
25 “And
under his fig tree,
from Dan even to
Solomon.” And
of
which in v. 20 suggests a corruption or confusion of the text] dwelt
safely [Hebrew - confidently. Compare Judges 8:11; 1
Samuel 12:11],
every man under his vine
and under his fig tree,” – a proverbial expression (see
II Kings 18:31, where it is used by Rabshakeh;
Micah 4:4; Zechariah 3:10)
to denote rest and the
undisturbed enjoyment of the fruits of the earth -
In invasions, raids, etc., it is still the custom of the
East to cut and
carry off all the crops, and fruits. Wordsworth notices that the
vine often
“clustered on the walls of houses
(Psalm 128:3), or around and over the
courtyards”, from Dan even to
to
the extreme southern (not eastern, as the American translator of Bahr)
boundary, Judges 20:1; 1 Samuel 3:20; II Samuel 3:10] -all
the days of Solomon.
The
Golden Age (vs. 20-25)
It has been cynically said that men always
place the golden age in the past
or in the future. Possibly they are not so
far wrong after all. For, if our
historian is true, there has been such a
period in the history of the world.
And if the Holy Gospel is true, there will
be such a period hereafter. The
reign of Solomon was the Augustan, the
golden age, of
Jesus,
of which Solomon’s empire was a foreshadowing, will be the golden
age of the world. Let us then consider what light the first
period — the
past — throws upon the future; in what respects,
that is to say, the sway of
Solomon is a type and prefigurement
of the holy and beneficent rule of our
Redeemer. Observe:
·
THE MONARCH.
Ø
He was the wisest of men. This was the root of the universal prosperity.
He was capax imperii (capable of government); he
had the understanding
to judge that
great people (ch. 3:9). From a throne established in
equity
and
intelligence (Psalm 72:2) flowed a tide of blessing through the land.
But “Messiah
the Prince” is the
Incarnation of Wisdom. He is “made
unto us wisdom” (1
Corinthians 1:30). In Him “are hid all the treasures
of wisdom and knowledge”
(Colossians 2:3). He
is “the
wisdom of God”
(1 Corinthians 1:24).
Ø
He ruled in the fear of the Lord. The precept of his father (II Samuel
23:3) was not
forgotten (ch. 3:6-9). Compare the account of
Messiah’s
reign — the
reign of the Branch of the root of Jesse in Isaiah
2:2-5. This “King shall reign in righteousness”
(ibid. ch.
32:1).
·
THE EMPIRE.
Ø
Its extent. He had dominion from “the river to the border of
“from Tiphsali even to Azzah.” The petty kings brought presents and
did fealty
(sworn loyalty). Now observe how Psalm 72.,
descriptive or
prophetic of
the reign of Solomon, is also prophetic of the reign of our
blessed Lord.
Of Him alone is it strictly true that “He shall have
dominion from sea to sea,” etc. (v. 8), that “all kings shall fall down
before Him,” etc. True, His enemies do not yet “lick
the dust” (v. 9),
for “we
see not yet all things put under Him” (Hebrews 2:8;
I Corinthians
15:24-28)), but we
know that all power is given to
Him in heaven
and in earth (Matthew 28:18), and that “the kingdoms
of this world” shall “become the kingdoms of our Lord and of
His
Christ” (Revelation
11:15).
Ø
Its duration. Solomon’s was a long reign, and would have been much
longer (ch. 3:14) had he been faithful But He who shall
possess “the
throne of his father David shall reign over the house of
Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end” (Luke 1:32-33;
compare Daniel 2:44;
7:14, 27; Psalm 145:13; Micah 4:7).
·
THE SUBJECTS.
Ø
Their number. They were “many,” “as the sand which is by
the sea in
multitude.” Compare Daniel 7:10, “ten thousand times ten thousand
stood before Him,” and Revelation 5:11; 7:9, “a great
multitude which
no man could number.”
Ø
Their character. Solomon’s sway extended over Gentiles as
well as
Jews (vs. 21, 24). A foreshadowing of the inclusion of Gentiles in the
Acts 26:23;
28:28; Romans 11:15; Ephesians 3:6; 2:14, etc.
There are three particulars, however, in
which the subjects of our
Lord will differ from those of Solomon.
o
There
will be no bondage, no forced labor, none to bear burdens.
o
The
free labor of love will require no rest (ch. 5:14).
The
servants who
serve Him “rest not day and night” (Revelation 4:8),
yet keep perpetual sabbath
(Hebrews 4:9.)
o
All shall be holy. No Jeroboam shall “lift up his hand” against
the
Lord. HE
SHALL BE ALL AND IN ALL!
·
THE REIGN.
Ø
It was peaceful (v. 24; compaere ch. 5:4 and 1 Chronicles 22:9). In
Messiah’s reign they shall “beat theft swords into
ploughshares,” etc.
(Isaiah 2:4).
Into His court “neither foe entereth nor friend
departeth.”
He
is the King and Prince of Peace (Hebrews 7:2).
Ø
It was joyous and prosperous. “Eating and drinking and making merry.”
The vine and
the fig tree may remind us of the tree of life with its twelve
manner of
fruits; the security (v. 25) of the pillars in the
(Revelation
3:12). “In his days
compare Isaiah
11:6-9). That golden age lasted “all the days of Solomon”
(v. 25). That which is to come shall be coeternall with THE
ENDLESS
LIFE
OF THE SON OF GOD! (Hebrews 7:16; John 14:19; Psalm 16:11).
A
Prosperous Reign (vs. 20-25)
This chapter presents a general view of
the prosperity of Solomon’s reign,
much of which was owing to the extraordinary,
glory of the reign of David.
Such a rule as David’s sowed seeds of
blessing m the land which
it was
Solomon’s privilege to reap. David united the kingdoms of
commonwealth. David laid the foundation, Solomon
developed the fabric
and adorned it. Each succeeding
generation inherits the good stored up for
it by those that went before. Happy they who are the descendants of a
noble ancestry. If it is true that “the sins of the fathers are visited on
the
children,” etc., equally true is it that “the good
men do lives after them.”
We all reap the fruits of the care and
toll and suffering of our fathers.
“Other men labor and we enter into their
labors.” (John 4:38)
The text suggests:
·
THE GRANDEUR OF A MULTITUDINOUS PEOPLE. “
Israel
were many, etc. What is the secret of the feeling of
solemnity akin to
awe with which
we gaze upon a vast concourse of human beings? It is the
fullness of
life — not mere physical force, but thinking, emotional life, with
all its latent
capacities that impresses us. But think of a great nation —
what a world of
busy, many-sided life is here! What complex relations;
what slumbering
energies; what rich resources; what mines of undeveloped
thought;
what tides of feeling; what boundless possibilities of good or evil,
of
glory or of shame! Consider
the mutual action and reaction of the
individual and
corporate life in such a nation; the conditions of its well
being; the
tremendous responsibility of those who are set to guide its
forces, to
guard its interests, to control its destinies. We can understand the
trembling of
spirit Moses felt when he looked on the thronging host of
people upon me?” etc. (Numbers 11:11). So with Solomon — “Who is
able to judge this thy so great a people?” (ch.
3:9). Rulers who
show that they
are alive to the dread significance of their position claim our
deepest
sympathy. Well may we pray for them (1 Timothy 2:2) that
they
may be inspired by the right spirit, prompted by purest motives,
never
allowed to fall into the sin
“Of making their high place the lawless perch
Of winged ambitions.”
·
THE FAR REACHING INFLUENCE OF A WISE AND
RIGHTEOUS RULE. “And Solomon reigned over all
kingdoms,” etc.
(v. 21). These
were tributary kingdoms. It was not the division of one
great empire
into many provinces, but the recognition by outlying
principalities
of the superior sovereignty of the Hebrew monarch. What
was the cause
of this widespread influence? Won by force of arms in
David’s reign, it
was retained, probably, by force of good government and
beneficent
policy.
entered, under
Solomon, On a remarkable career as a commercial people
— Solomon
himself a royal merchant. Note his sagacity in “making
affinity” with the king of
Hiram, king of
As far as we
can judge, it was not so much the result of overmastering
force, but of a policy by which the bonds of
mutual confidence and
helpfulness
were strengthened. We are reminded
that this is the real
stability of
any nation — the spirit of justice, integrity, beneficence that
inspires it,
coupled with the disposition to form friendly and helpful
relations. The
influence that arises from the display of military strength is
not worthy to
be compared with this. “Righteousness exalteth
a nation”
(Proverbs 14:34).
“The
throne is established by righteousness”
( ibid.
16:12). Every nation is
strong and influential just in proportion as its
internal order
and external relations are conformed to the law of righteousness.
·
THE PEACE THAT IS THE RESULT OF
RIGHTEOUSNESS. “He
had peace on all sides round about him” (v. 24). This was the fulfillment
of a prophecy
that attended his very birth. David, the “man of war,”
yearned for a
time of peace, and the yearning expressed itself in the names
he gave his
sons — Absalom, “the father of peace;” Shelomoh, Solomon,
“the peaceful one.” The peacefulness of Solomon’s reign was
the natural
outcome of his
own personal characteristics, and of the policy he adopted.
“When
a man’s ways please the Lord, He maketh even his
enemies to be at
peace with him” (Proverbs 16:7). It is a false maxim of
international life, “If
you
want peace prepare for war” —
multiply the means and provocations
of strife!
Maintain an attitude of distrust, defiance, menace! Men have
strange
confidence in the pacifying effect of desolating force. They
“make a solitude and call it peace,” forgetting that tranquility
thus gained
does but cover
with a deceptive veil the latent seeds of hostility and revenge.
How much better
the Scripture idea, “The work of righteousness shall be
peace,” etc. (Isaiah
32:17); “The
fruit of righteousness is sown in peace
of them that make peace” (James 3:18).
·
THE SECURITY THAT SPRINGS FROM PEACE (v. 25). “And
Judah
and Israel dwelt safely,” etc. — this became almost a proverbial
expression (II
Kings 18:3 of the good of life, the fruit of honest labor,
under
the protection of imp1; Micah 4:4; Zechariah 3:10).
It suggests the
quiet enjoyment artial law. This
is the result of peace. Often
urged that war
is an education in some of the nobler elements of national
character;
safeguard against luxury and indolent self indulgence, etc. But
may not these
good results be bought at too terrible a price? Are there no
other fields
for the healthy development of a nation’s energies? — no
foes
of ignorance,
and vice, and social wrong, to say nothing of forms of
beneficent
world wide enterprise, that call them forth in manly exercise? It
is the
reign of peace that fosters the industries that enrich the life of a
people, and
the beneficent activities that beautify it. ‘Tis this that “makes
the country
flourish and the city smile.” The happy condition of things here
described is
said to have lasted through “all the days of Solomon;” chiefly
true of the
earlier part of his reign. Sins and disasters involved the latter
part in gloom.
So far, however, we have in it
a prophecy of the reign of
David’s “greater Son.” Psalm 72. has its partial fulfillment in the days of
Solomon; but the grandeur of its prophetic
meaning is realized only in the
surpassing glory
of His kingdom who is the true “Prince of righteousness
and
peace.”
26 “nd
Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve
thousand horsemen.” And
Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses [40,000 is
certainly a clerical error, probably for 4000 (i.e., אַרְבָּיעים for אַרְבָּעָה). For:
(1) in the parallel passage in Chronicles the number is stated as
4000.
(2) 4000 agrees, and
40,000 does not, with the other numbers here given.
The chariots, e.g., numbered 1400;
the horsemen 12,000. Now for 1400
chariots the proper allowance of horses would be about 4000. We see
from
the
monuments that it was customary to yoke two horses (seldom three) to
a
chariot; but a third or supernumerary horse was provided to meet
emergencies or accidents. 4000 horses would hence be a liberal
provision
for
Solomon’s chariots, and it would also agree well with the number of his
cavalry. 12,000 cavalry and 40,000 chariot horses are out of all
proportion.
As to stalls, it seems clear that in ancient, as in modern
times, each horse
had
a separate crib (Vegetins in Bochart,
quoted by Keil). Gesenius,
however, understands by אֻרְות,, not stalls, but teams, or pairs] for his
chariots [or chariotry: the word is singular and collective] and twelve
hundred horsemen [rather, horses, i.e., riding or cavalry, as
distinguished
from chariot horses above. See note on ch. 1:5. It has been supposed that this
warlike provision is mentioned to account for
the peace of Solomon’s reign, and
was designed to overawe the tributary
kings. But
it is more probable that the idea
of the historian was, partly to exhibit the
pomp and circumstance of
king, and partly to record a contravention of
the law (Deuteronomy
17:16), which
was one of the precursors of his fall.
27 “And
those officers provided victual for king Solomon, and for all that
came unto king Solomon's table, every man in
his month: they lacked nothing.”
And
those [rather, these, i.e., the officers
mentioned vs. 7-19]
officers provided victual for [Heb. nourished] king Solomon and for all
that came unto king Solomon’s
table [we can hardly see here (with Keil)
“a further proof
of the blessings of peace.” The words were probably
suggested by the mental wonder how the cavalry,
etc., could be
maintained, and so the author states that this great
number of horses and
horsemen depended on the twelve purveyors for
their food] every man in
his month; they lacked nothing [rather, suffered nothing to be
lacking.
So Gesenius.; and the context seems to require it].
28 “Barley
also and straw for the horses and dromedaries brought they unto
the place where the officers were, every man
according to his charge.”
Barley
also [the food of horses at the present day in
the East,
where oats are not grown - and straw for the horses and
dromedaries
[margin mules
or swift beasts. Coursers, or fleet horses of superior breed are
intended. רֶכֶשׁ = Germ. Renner. These coursers were for the use of the king’s
messengers or posts. See Esther 8:10, 14] brought they unto the place where
the officers were [“officers” is not in
the Hebrew. The Septuagint and Vulgate
supply “king “(the verb is singular, “was”). But the true meaning is to be gathered
from ch. 10:26.
There we learn that the horses
were distributed in different towns
throughout the
land. To these different depots, therefore, the purveyors must
forward the
provender, “unto the place where it should be” (יִהְיֶה),] every
man according to his charge.
29 “And
God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding exceeding much,
and
largeness
of heart, even as the sand that is on the sea shore.”
- in fulfilment of the promise of ch.
3:12 - wisdom and understanding (חָכְמָה,
wisdom, knowledge; תְּבוּנָה), discernment, penetration. The historian, after
describing the prosperity
of the realm, proceeds to speak of the personal endowments
of its head
- and largeness of heart exceeding much
- the Easterns speak of the heart
where we should talk of head or intellect. (ch. 3:9,
12; 10:24. Compare
Matthew 15:19; Ephesians 1:18 (Greek); Hebrews 4:12). The “large
heart”
is the ingenium capax,
as Thenius. These different words indicate the
variety
and scope of his talents, in agreement with v. 33 - as
the sand that is on the
seashore. [Same expression in Genesis 22:17;
32:12; 41:49] (God is
consistent
throughout time and so is He with us! CY - 2022)
30
“And Solomon's wisdom excelled the wisdom
of all the children of
the east country, and all the wisdom of
excelled [or exceeded; same word as in v. 29] the wisdom of all the children
of the east country [By the Beni-Kedem we are hardly to
understand a distinct
tribe on the banks of the
is identified with
mountains of Kedem (Numbers 23:7)
are evidently those of
also true that “the children of the
East” are apparently distinguished from
the Amalekites and Midianites
(Judges 6:8, 33; 7:12; 8:10). It is
probable, nevertheless, that the name is here employed to
designate all the
Arabian tribes
east and southeast of
Temanites, Chaldeans. What their
wisdom was like, we may see in the
Book of Job. Compare Jeremiah 49:7; Obadiah 1:8] and all the wisdom of
differed very considerably from the wisdom of Kedem, being scientific
rather than gnomic (Isaiah 19:11-12; 31:2, 8; Acts 7:22) and
including geometry, astronomy, magic, and medicine. See
Josephus Antiquities.
8:2.5; Herodotus. 2:109. 160. Wilkinson, “Ancient
Egyptians” vol. 2. pp. 316-465.
31 “For
he was wiser than all men; than Ethan the Ezrahite,
and Heman, and
Chalcol, and Darda, the
sons of Mahol: and his fame was in all nations round
about.” For (Hebrew - and) he was wiser than all men - It is very doubtful
whether the names mentioned presently are those of
contemporaries] than Ethan
the Ezrahite,
and Heman,
and Chalcol, and Darda [It is impossible to say whether
these are the same
persons as the Ethan and Heman and Chalcol and Dara of
1 Chronicles
2:6, or the Ethan and Heman who were David’s singers.
The resemblance
is certainly remarkable. Not only are the names practically
the same (Dara may well be a
clerical error: many manuscripts, together with the
Syriac and Arabic, read Darda), but
they occur in the same order. Our first
impression, consequently, is that the two lists represent the
same persons,
and if so, these four sages were the “sons” of Zerah,
the son of
(Genesis 38:30).
But against this it is urged that Ethan is here called the
Ezrahite, as are both Ethan and Heman
in the titles of Psalms 89, and 88.
respectively. The resemblance, however, of Ezrahite
(אֶזְרָתִי,) to Zerahite
(זַרְתִי) is so close as to suggest identity rather than
difference. There is,
perhaps, more weight in the objection that Chalcol and Darda are here
distinctly said to be “the sons of Mahol,” though here again it has been
observed that Mahol (מָחול) means pipe or dance, and the “sons
of
Mahol,” consequently, may merely be a synonym,
agreeably to Eastern
idiom (Ecclesiastes 12:4, with which compare II
Samuel 19:35), for
“musicians.” We
may therefore allow that the four names may be those of
sons (i.e., descendants) of Zerah. But the question now presents itself: Are
Ethan and Heman
to be identified with the well known precentors
(choir
leaders) of David? Against their identity are
these facts:
1. That Ethan the singer (1 Chronicles 6:31) is described as
the son of
Kishi (ibid.
v. 44), elsewhere called Kushaiah (ibid. ch.
15:17), and of the
family of Merari; as a
Levite that is, instead of a descendant of
Heman, who is called the singer, or musician (ibid. ch.
6:33), and the “king’s seer”
(ibid.
ch. 25:5) is said to be a son of Joel, a grandson
of the prophet Samuel, and
one of the Kohathite
Levites (ibid. ch.
15:17). The first impression in this
case, therefore, is that they must be distinct.
But it should be remembered
a. that the sons — in the strict sense — of Zerah
are nowhere else named
for their wisdom,
whereas the royal singer and seer probably owed their
appointments to
their genius, and
b. that
though Levites, they may have been incorporated (possibly like
Jair,
through marriage — see note on v. 13 above, and compare Ezra 2:61)
into
the tribe of
belonging
to the family of
and Elkanah the Levite is called an Ephraimite
in 1 Samuel 1:1, because
in
his civil capacity he was incorporated into the tribe of Ephraim.”
It must be admitted, however,
that the natural interpretation of
1 Chronicles 2:6 is that the “sons” of Zerah there mentioned were his
immediate
and actual descendants, and not Levites who long centuries
afterwards
were somehow incorporated into his family. But the question
is
one of so much nicety that it is hardly possible to come to a positive
conclusion] and his fame [Hebrew - name]
was in all [Hebrew - all the]
nations
round about. [compare ch. 10:24, etc.]
The
Greatest, Wisest, Meanest of Mankind (v. 31)
It is a spirited and glowing description
which the historian here gives of
Solomon’s wisdom. We may believe that it was
not without a pardonable pride that he
recounted the rich endowments and the
widespread fame of
But it is really one of the saddest chapters in
the whole of Scripture — and one
of
the most instructive.
Manifold as were his gifts, marvelous as was his wisdom,
they
did not preserve him from falling. It is a strange, shuddering contrast, the
record of his singular powers and faculties (vs. 29-34), and the story of his shameful
end (ch.11:1-14) How came it to pass that a man so highly
gifted and blessed of God
made
such complete shipwreck of faith and good conscience; that over the grave
of the very greatest and wisest of men
must be written, “Fallen,
fallen, fallen, fallen
from his high estate”? The causes of Solomon’s fall:
(1) The character of his
wisdom; and
(2) The causes of his fall. As to (1), observe:
·
IT WAS UNPRECEDENTED AND HAS SINCE BEEN
UNEQUALLED. The sages of Hebrew antiquity, the shrewd
Arabians, the
sagacious
Egyptians, he has eclipsed them all. “Wiser
than all men,” such
was the
judgment of his contemporaries. And such is also the verdict of
posterity. At
the present day, among Jews, Christians, and Mohammedans,
no fame equals
his. Among the wise men of the world Solomon stands
facile princeps. (easily first;
acknowledged leader)
·
IT WAS PRODIGIOUS (enoromous). To the writer it seemed inexhaustible,
illimitable. He
can only compare it to “the sand that is
on the sea shore;”
and he could
hardly use a more forcible illustration of its boundless and
infinite
extent.
·
IT WAS VARIED AND COMPREHENSIVE. It was both scientific
and
sententious. He was at once philosopher and poet. Nothing was too
great and
nothing too small for him. It is seldom that a man excels in more
than one or two
branches of knowledge, but Solomon was distinguished in
all. He could discourse with equal
profundity of the cedar and the hyssop,
of
beast and bird. It was lofty, it was wide, it was
deep.
·
IT WAS TRUE WISDOM. Not superficial, and not mere book
learning. Book. worms are often mere pedants.
Students often know little
of the world
and know less of themselves. But Solomon knew man (“The
proper study of
mankind is man”) knew himself. He needed not the charge,
γνῶθι σεαυτὸν - gnothi
seauton - know yourself. He was not
one of the
μετεωροσοφισται whom the Attic poet justly
ridicules (Aristoph. Nub.
360).
His writings proved that he had studied the world, and
was familiar with the
heart. pedants
.
·
IT WAS GOD GIVEN WISDOM
(v. 29; compare vs. Daniel 2:21).
Not “the wisdom of this world which is foolishness with God”
(1 Corinthians 3:8), and which “descendeth not
from above” (James
3:15), but
that which the Supreme wisdom teacheth. (Compare Proverbs
2:6.) Solomon was truly θεοδίδακτος
- theodidaktos - God taught!
·
IT WAS GOD-FEARING WISDOM. “The fear of the
Lord,” he says,
“is the beginning of wisdom.” (Compare Proverbs 1:7; 9:10.)
There is
a
wisdom (falsely so called) which dishonors and despises God. This did
not Solomon’s. The Proverbs point men to the Lord.
·
HIS WISDOM STILL WARNS AND TEACHES THE WORLD.
Some of the thousand and five
songs (Psalm 72:126.) are still chanted
by the Catholic Church. (It is significant, though, how few
of this vast
number remain to us. David was not as wise as Solomon, nor so
prolific a
writer, but his songs have survived in considerable
numbers. They are
among the greatest treasures of Christendom. Piety is before
wisdom.
“Knowledge shall
vanish away,” but “charity never faileth.” - I Corinthians
13:8) Some of his Proverbs are
still read to the congregation. He still warns
the young and the sensual (chps. 2-7.) He is fallen, but
his words stand.
Now turn we
to:
(2) The causes of his fall.
How came this wisest of men, without
fellow
before or since, whose wisdom was so profound, so real, so
boundless,
whose wisdom came from God and led to God, and who though dead
yet
speaketh, how came he of all men to go astray? Was it not:
developed
and
cultivated at the
expense or to the
neglect of the spiritual
life. “His wives turned away his heart” (ch.
11:4). But how came one of so
much
wisdom to let his wives turn it away? Because the wisdom had dwarfed
and
overshadowed the soul; because
the moral did not keep pace with the
intellectual
growth, and it became
flaccid and yielding. It is dangerous for
wisdom to increase unless piety
increases with it.
The higher the tower, the
broader
should be its foundations. If all the weight and width is at the top,
it
will come to the ground with a crash. Even so, if wisdom is not to
destroy
its possessor, the basis of love and piety must be broadened.
“Knowledge
bloweth up, but charity buildeth
up” (I Corinthians 8:1). The head
of
a colossus needs the trunk of a colossus to sustain it.
leaned
to his own understanding that this giant form fell prostrate (Proverbs
3:5-6).
It was because he forgot his warnings against the strange woman
that he
fell a prey to strange women (Proverbs 2:16-19; 5:3-5, 20-23;
6:24-29; 7:1-27). The keeper of the vineyards did not keep his own (Song of
Solomon 1:6). He was not true to himself, and
he soon proved false to his God.
After preaching to others, he himself became a castaway. (I Corinthians 9:27)
A
solemn warning this to every preacher and teacher that he should not do
“As some ungracious pastors do,
Show men the steep and thorny road to heaven,
While, like a puffed and reckless libertine,
Himself the primrose path of dalliance tread
And recks not his
own rede.”
HIS GIFTS.
There was no decay of
mental power; the force was unabated,
but
it was misdirected. Pride
took her place at the helm.
It is pride, not
sensuality,
that accounts for his army of wives and concubines. But if
pride
brought them, pleasure kept them. And when he put his heart into their
keeping,
they turned him about at their will (James 3:3-4). The heart carries
the intellect along with it. (Here again compare his own words,
Proverbs
16:18;
4:23; Daniel 5:20.) Magnificent Solomon, unequalled in wisdom, how
art
thou fallen from heaven! Aye, and if we could but draw aside the veil; if we
could
but visit the spirits in prison (I Peter 3:19), we might perchance find among
them
one clothed of yore “in
purple and fine linen”
(Luke 16:19; 12:27), and
who
“fared sumptuously every day,” and looking into the anguished face
might
find it was none other than the brilliant and illustrious son of David,
the
chosen type of the Messiah, the very wisest and greatest of mankind.
“The
wisest, greatest, meanest of mankind.” We know of whom these
words
were spoken. But their true application is not to
chancellor,
but to
32 “And he spake three
thousand proverbs: and his songs were a thousand and five.”
Of the former, less than one-third are
preserved in the Book of
Proverbs (see Proverbs 1:1; 25:1); the
rest are lost to us. The Book of
Ecclesiastes,
even if the composition of Solomon, can
hardly be described as proverbs. Of his songs
all have perished, except the Song of Solomon, and possibly Psalms
72; 127; (see the
titles), and, according to some, Psalm 128.
33 “And he spake of trees, from the cedar tree that is in
unto the hyssop that springeth
out of the wall: he spake also of
beasts, and of fowl, and of creeping things, and of fishes.”
And he spake of [i.e.,
discoursed, treated, not necessarily
wrote] trees
[In his proverbs and songs he exceeded the children of the
East. But his knowledge was not only
speculative, but scientific. In his
acquaintance with natural history he outshone the
Egyptians, v. 20],
from the cedar tree that is in
Jews had a profound admiration for all trees, and of these they justly
regarded the cedar as king. Compare Judges 9:15;
Psalm 80:10; 104:16;
Song of Solomon 5:15;Ezekiel
31:3] unto the hyssop that
springeth
out of the wall [His knowledge, i.e., embraced the
least
productions of nature as well as the greatest. The
common hyssop
(Exodus 12:22; Leviticus 14:4) can hardly
be intended here, as that
often attains a considerable height (two feet),
but a miniature variety or
moss like hyssop in appearance, probably Orthotrichura saxatile]:
he
spake
also of beasts, and of fowl, and of creeping things, and of fishes.
[“The usual Biblical
division of the animal kingdom” (Rawlinson). The
arrangment is hardly according to manner of motion
(Bahr). If anything, it
is according to elements — earth, sky, sea.
The Voice of Nature Speaking for God (v. 33)
This is given as an example of the wisdom
for which Solomon was justly
famed. His information was at once accurate and
far reaching. Nothing
escaped the notice of his observant eye, nothing
was too insignificant to
deserve his attention. The “hyssop” which was
remarkable neither for size
nor beauty, neither for fragrance nor
utility, as well as the noble “cedar,”
was the subject of his research and
discourse.
·
THE GERM OF HIS KNOWLEDGE WAS FROM GOD. He was
enriched with
natural capacities above the average, as the preceding
chapter shows.
Men do differ widely in keenness of perception, in
retentiveness
of memory, in power of imagination, in love or dislike for the
studies of
natural science. A remembrance of this is of peculiar value to us
in the training
of children. The dullard in mathematics may prove the
scholar in
classics, etc. The wisdom of the Divine arrangement which
makes
differences between us in our natural tastes and capacities is seen in
this, that it
is on the one hand a blessing to society, enabling all spheres of
life to be filled, and on the other a means of
culture to character, by calling
forth
our sympathy, our forbearance, and our generosity in rejoicing over
the
triumphs of others.
·
THE GROWTH OF HIS KNOWLEDGE WAS FROM
STUDY.
Solomon did not
have all the mysteries of nature unveiled to him by
revelation. No
“royal road to learning” existed then, or ever. His
studiousness as
a youth may be fairly inferred from his strenuous
exhortations to
diligence and his frequent rebukes of sloth. Out of the
depths of
personal experience he declared that the “hand of the diligent
maketh rich” — in thought, as well as in purse. See also Proverbs 10:5;
19:24; 26:13,
etc. Press home on the young the value of habits of diligence.
Illustrate by
examples from biography. It would be interesting to know
with certainty
the substance of Solomon’s discourses. Probably he knew
more than any
other of his own day of horticulture, physiology, and
kindred topics.
But the reference is not so much to scientific treatises and
orderly
classifications as to the ethical use he made of the phenomena of
nature. This
may be inferred, partly from the fact that in those days, and in
Eastern lands,
this rather than that would be accounted “wisdom;” and
partly from
such writings of his as are still extant — certain of the Psalms,
the Song of
Solomon, and the Proverbs. Study the text in the light thrown
by these books,
and it will be seen that through Solomon’s wisdom the
voice of Nature
spoke to his people for God, in the same fashion as in far
nobler
tones it spoke afterwards through Him who made the lilies whisper
of God’s care, and the fallow
fields speak of Christian duty. Inanimate
things and dumb
creatures spoke to Solomon’s people through him, and
should speak to
us.
·
THE CREATURES OF GOD SPEAK TO US OF
DIVINE CARE.
Solomon, like
his father, could say, “The heavens declare the glory of
God;” or
like One greater than himself, “Consider the lilies of the field,”
etc. See how he
speaks (Proverbs 16:15) of the cloud of the latter rain
that rifled out
the ears of corn; of the dew upon the grass (ibid. 19:12);
of the gladness
of nature, when the winter is past and the rain is
over and gone (Song
of Solomon 2:11-13). To see God’s hand in all
this is true
wisdom. The phenomena are visible to pure intellect, but He
who is behind
them can only be “spiritually discerned.” Many now are
losing sight of
God because the mental perception only is employed, and
believed to be
necessary. Once the world
appeared to men as the
expression of
God’s thought, the outcome of His will. Now some look on
it as you may look
on a friend who is not dead so far as natural life is
concerned, but
is worse than dead, because intelligence and will are gone,
and he is an
idiot! May we be aroused
by the Divine Spirit to yearn for the
lost
Father, for the vanished heaven.
·
THE CREATURES OF GOD SPEAK TO US OF HUMAN
DEPENDENCE. Neither “hyssop” nor “cedar”
can grow without
Heaven’s
benediction, and of every “beast,” and “fowl,” and “creeping
thing,” and “fish,” it may be said, “these
all wait upon Thee.” Man, with all
his attainments
and powers, cannot create a single element required by his
life. He
can use God’s gifts, but they are God’s gifts still; and because He
is good, our Lord bids us
learn the lessons of content and trust
(Matthew
6:25-34). We depend on these creatures in the natural world
for food,
clothing, shelter, etc., and they only live because God cares for
them.
·
THE CREATURES OF GOD SPEAK TO US OF DAILY
DUTIES.
How often in
Proverbs we are reminded of that. Agur, who had
wisdom
similar to that
of Solomon, speaks of the diligence of the ant, of the
perseverance of
the spider, of the strength in union of the locusts, of the
conscious
weakness and provided shelter of the conies. Solomon speaks of
the blessing
that came to the keeper of the fig tree (Proverbs 27:18) as
an encourament to servants to be faithful and diligent. Adduce
similar
examples.
·
THE CREATURES OF GOD SPEAK TO US OF MORAL
DANGERS. Take three examples of this.
Ø
In Song
of Solomon 2:15 Solomon alludes to “the little foxes who
so stealthily approach and spoil the vines
and their tender grapes”
as illustrations of the small evils
which desolate men’s hearts and
homes. Apply this.
Ø
Then
in Proverbs 24:30-34 he draws a picture of a neglected garden,
grown over with
thorns and nettles, and shows how looking on it he
“received instruction,” and warning against sloth.
Ø
Again
turn to ibid. ch.
23:32, where, speaking of intoxicating drink,
he says, “at
last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder.”
It was in this
way he referred to the animals and plants around him.
·
THE CREATURES OF GOD SPEAK TO US OF SOCIAL EVILS. In
those days, as
in other days, foolish favorites, and unworthy.men,
were
exalted to
places of trust and honor. Seeing it Solomon draws again on
his observance
of nature; and having noted the disorder and injury caused
by untimely
storms, says, “As snow in summer, and as rain in harvest, so
honor is not seemly in a fool” (Proverbs 26:1). Another example of this
teaching occurs
in ibid. ch.
28:3. A heavy rain after long drought,
raising the
streamlets to floods, would sweep away the mud-built dwellings
of the poor and
the harvest already reaped; and to those who had seen that
the wise king
said, “A poor man that oppresseth the poor is like
a sweeping
rain which leaveth
no food.”
·
THE CREATURES OF GOD SPEAK TO US OF NOBLE
POSSIBILITIES. Solomon saw growth around him on every
side. The
seed dropped in
the crevice of a wall was not forgotten, but appeared in
the “hyssop;”
and the sapling, which a child could break, at last became the
great “cedar
of Lebanon.” God’s benediction and man’s toil
developed life;
and
the feeblest was not forgotten, the smallest not despised. We can
imagine how
from such facts Solomon would draw lessons of trust and
hope.
·
IN
CONCLUSION let us learn
from the subject the following lessons:
Ø
Never be afraid of the teachings of
natural science. Show how geology,
botany,
astronomy, etc., are regarded by some Christians with terror, as if
their influence
would affect the spiritual truths revealed of God.
Demonstrate the
folly of this. Let theology recognize the sisterhood of
science. (Science
was commanded by God when He told man to
“subdue the
earth” [find out its secrets] -
Genesis 1:28 - CY - 2022)
Ø
Never become absorbed in pursuits which
are merely intellectual. The
soul of man
needs more than his intellect can win. The “hunger and thirst
after righteousness” ONLY A LIVING GOD CAN SATISFY! Use the
suggestions of nature
as the witnesses of God.
Ø
Never neglect the wonderful works of God. Many a frivolous life
would
be redeemed
from emptiness and boredom if young people were trained
to observe
and take interest in the habits of animal life and the marvels
of inanimate
existence. But let us walk through
this fair world as
those
who follow Christ, and then from the fragrant lilies and golden
harvest
fields He will speak to us of our Father in
heaven.
34 “And there came of all people (Hebrew - the peoples; nations) to hear the
wisdom of Solomon (ch. 10:1), from all kings of the earth (i. e., messengers,
ambassadors, as in the
next chapter), which had heard of his
wisdom.”
Both Jewish and Mohammedan writers abound in
exaggerated or purely fabulous
accounts of Solomon’s attainments and gifts. We may
see the beginning of these in
Josephus,
street to attend church
where Jesus is met and “BEHOLD, A GREATER THAN
SOLOMON IS HERE!” – CY - 2010)
Solomon was a
zoologist, he spake of beasts.
He was an
ornithologist - he spoke of birds.
He was an
entomologist - he talked of insects.
He was an
ichthyologist - he spoke of fishes.
But in
Jesus Christ, the Messiah the Prince, is the incarnation of Wisdom –
He is “made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and
sanctification, and
redemption” -
(I Corinthians 1:30) and “in Him are hid all the treasures of
wisdom
and knowledge” (Colossians
2:3).
There is a wisdom in this world that is “foolishness with God”
(I Corinthians 3:8)
and there is a wisdom which “descendeth not from above” –(James 3:15)
For example:
How bad off is secularism in
in spell check wanted to replace Immanuel with e-mail.
"Excerpted text Copyright AGES Library,
LLC. All rights reserved.
Materials are
reproduced by permission."
This material can
be found at:
http://www.adultbibleclass.com
If this exposition
is helpful, please share with others.
.
]