Verses 1-21
Details of The Administrative Organisation Of Solomon As King Over All Israel (1 Kings 4:1-21 ).
The splendour of Solomon’s reign is now brought out by reference to the wisdom of his administrative appointments, and concluding with a picture of the general prosperity of the land. The description includes both the appointment of his chief officers (1 Kings 4:2-6), and of his district fiscal governors (1 Kings 4:7-21), together with the nature of their tasks. Comparison may be made with David’s chief officers in 2 Samuel 8:15-18. The repeated reference to ‘priests’ in both may suggest that old Jebusite titles had been taken over in Jerusalem which in fact indicated that previously such offices had been held by priests (cohanim) of the old Jebusite religion, possibly the worship of El Elyon (Genesis 14:18), overseen by the priest-king himself. That was why David and Solomon saw themselves as being ‘a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek’ (Psalms 110:4), and some of their appointees as similar ‘priests’. They were probably seen, along with their other duties, as having intercessory responsibilities before YHWH on behalf of God’s people.
Now, therefore, the new appointees would be worshippers of YHWH. Azariah, the son of Zadok, was probably the prime minister (described under the ancient Canaanite title of ‘cohen’) with Elihoreph and Ahijah being the two secretaries of state, Jehoshaphat being the Chancellor, Benaiah being the commander-in-chief of the armies of Israel, Zadok and Abiathar still being High Priests (a position the status of which was for life even though Abiathar’s authority to act may have been removed), Azariah the son of Nathan (probably the Nathan who was the son of David) being the superintendent of the district officers, Zabud the son of Nathan being the king’s chief adviser (his ‘friend’) and also designated by the ancient title of ‘cohen’, thus possibly being also a priestly intercessor (compare how the king’s sons had been ‘priests’ in 2 Samuel 8:18), Abishar being over the king’s household, and Adoniram being over the forcibly enlisted labour.
It will be noted that under David the leading official who had been mentioned first had been the commander-in-chief of the armies of Israel (2 Samuel 8:15). The change to a Prime Minister thus now indicated emphasises that things had moved away from the necessity of being on a war footing to a period of more peaceful coexistence and consolidation, albeit with the commander-in-chief still being very important.
These appointments were then followed by the appointing of ‘officers’ over the twelve districts into which Israel/Judah was divided up, one of their purposes being to ensure provision of ample supplies of food and drink for the royal court.
It will be noted that the first four, and the sixth, of these officials are simply described as ‘son of’ (ben), which is unusual. It has been surmised that that was because one edge of the tablet on which their names had been recorded had either been broken off or had become unreadable. It is important to note, if that is the case, that no attempt was made to invent names to make up for the loss. The writer was scrupulous about sticking with the facts that he had, (thus underlining the reliability of the narrative). An alternative possibility is that they were so named because their positions were seen as hereditary, as with the similar situation pertaining at Ugarit, with each successor bearing the name of the original holder of the position. A third alternative is that in some circles naming oneself in this way had become the latest craze.
Analysis.
a And king Solomon was king over all Israel (1 Kings 4:1).
b And these were the princes whom he had:
Azariah, the son of Zadok, (was) the priest;
Elihoreph and Ahijah, the sons of Shisha, (were) scribes;
Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud, (was) the recorder;
And Benaiah the son of Jehoiada was over the host;
And Zadok and Abiathar were priests;
And Azariah the son of Nathan was over the officers;
And Zabud the son of Nathan was priest, and the king’s friend;
And Ahishar was over the household;
And Adoniram the son of Abda was over the men subject to taskwork. (1 Kings 4:2-6).
c And Solomon had twelve officers over all Israel, who provided victuals for the king and his household, each man had to make provision for a month in the year (1 Kings 4:7).
b And these are their names:
Ben-hur, in the hill-country of Ephraim;
Ben-deker, in Makaz, and in Shaalbim, and Beth-shemesh, and Elon-beth-hanan;
Ben-hesed, in Arubboth (to him pertained Socoh, and all the land of Hepher);
Ben-abinadab, in all the height of Dor (he had Taphath the daughter of Solomon to wife)
Baana the son of Ahilud, in Taanach and Megiddo, and all Beth-shean which is beside Zarethan, beneath Jezreel, from Beth-shean to Abel-meholah, as far as beyond Jokmeam;
Ben-geber, in Ramoth-gilead (to him pertained the towns of Jair the son of Manasseh, which are in Gilead; even to him pertained the region of Argob, which is in Bashan, threescore great cities with walls and brazen bars);
Ahinadab the son of Iddo, in Mahanaim;
Ahimaaz, in Naphtali (he also took Basemath the daughter of Solomon to wife);
Baana the son of Hushai, in Asher and Bealoth;
Jehoshaphat the son of Paruah, in Issachar;
Shimei the son of Ela, in Benjamin;
Geber the son of Uri, in the land of Gilead, the country of Sihon king of the Amorites and of Og king of Bashan; and he was the only officer who was in the land (1 Kings 4:8-19).
a Judah and Israel were many, as the sand which is by the sea in multitude, eating and drinking and making merry, and Solomon ruled over all the kingdoms from the River to the land of the Philistines, and to the border of Egypt. They brought tribute, and served Solomon all the days of his life (1 Kings 4:20-21).
Note that in ‘a’ it is emphasised that Solomon was king over all Israel, his chief domain, while in the parallel he also ruled from the Euphrates to the border of Egypt, but in some cases through kings of some of these areas who were his vassals. In ‘b’ we have the list of leading officials, and in the parallel the list of the governors of the administrative districts. Centrally in ‘c’ we have indicated the means of provisioning the royal court.
‘ And king Solomon was king over all Israel.’
Solomon now reigned in glory over all Israel. The details that follow are not, however, to be seen as signifying the situation at the beginning of his reign. As ever the account is not chronological but topical. It will be noted, for example, that some of the officials were married to Solomon’s daughters. It is true, of course that they might have been appointed before they did marry them, and that the daughters may only have been twelve years of age with their husbands as older men, but nevertheless at least a few years would appear to be required. When Solomon came to the throne he may have been anywhere between, say, sixteen to twenty two. We are never told his age at the time when he came to the throne.
‘ And these were the princes whom he had:
Azariah, the son of Zadok, (was) the priest;
Elihoreph and Ahijah, the sons of Shisha, (were) scribes;
Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud, (was) the recorder;
And Benaiah the son of Jehoiada was over the host;
And Zadok and Abiathar were priests;
And Azariah the son of Nathan was over the officers;
And Zabud the son of Nathan was priest, and the king’s friend;
And Ahishar was over the household;
And Adoniram the son of Abda was over the men subject to taskwork.’
We have here a list of the chief officials (sarim - compare Judges 8:6; Judges 8:14, and the Egyptian sr.w) in the land. First comes Azariah, the son of Zadok. He was ‘the cohen’ (priest). As we have seen this title was probably taken over from the old Jebusite officialdom, where all the leading officials were ‘priests’ under the ‘king-priest’. Thus ‘the priest’ would come next in authority to the king-priest. Solomon, as David before him, had taken on himself the title ‘priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek’ (Psalms 110:4), for both he and David acted as intercessory priests (see 1 Kings 8:22-53; 2 Samuel 24:10; 2 Samuel 24:17). Thus his chief official was also given the title of ‘the priest’. He was basically the Prime Minister, but may well also have had intercessory duties.
“The son of Zadok.” He was possibly the grandson (‘son of’ is always vague and often means ‘descendant of’) of Zadok the Priest, being the son of Ahimaaz (1 Chronicles 6:8-9). Or he may have been another Azariah (a common name in the priestly families) who was brother to Ahimaaz. It will be noted how many of the leading officials we are dealing with are descended from previous leading officials. There had in fact been such ‘princely families’ from the earliest days (e.g. Numbers 1:4-16).
“Elihoreph and Ahijah, the sons of Shisha, were scribes.” The title ‘scribe’ could be given both to the highest officials in the land, and to humble copyists and letter writers. There were probably two Scribes (secretaries of state) because one saw to ‘home affairs’ to do with Israel/Judah and the other with ‘foreign affairs’ to do with the wider empire. The one who took the latter position may well have been required to be an expert in ‘foreign languages’ (compare 2 Kings 18:26). By the time of Hezekiah there was one ‘Scribe’ who was one of the three leading officials in the land (2 Kings 18:18) because by then there was no empire.
“Elihoreph.” The name could mean ‘God of Autumn’ (the God Who provides through harvest) or it may have been a Canaanite name ‘borrowed’ by Shisha who, of course, lived in the former Canaanite city of Jerusalem. It need not indicate Canaanite descent, although Shisha may have taken a Jebusite wife who had become a Yahwist. Alternatively it may have been given to him on appointment, as being seen as suitable for someone engaged in foreign correspondence. It is similar to the Hurrian name E(h)liarip. Ahijah (Yah is my brother’) was a relatively common Hebrew name.
“The sons of Shisha.” Shisha was probably the same as ‘Seraiah the scribe’ (2 Samuel 8:17). In 2 Samuel 20:25 he was called Sheva. In 1 Chronicles 8:16 this becomes Shavshah. These are probably simply variants of his official name received on appointment. Ancient names were very flexible. Alternately Shisha (compare Egyptian ss) may simply mean ‘official scribe’, with Seraiah being his original name Thus these also are at least semi-hereditary appointments.
“Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud, (was) the recorder.” This was as he had been under David (2 Samuel 8:16). The recorder is ‘he who causes to be heard’. Thus he was responsible for disseminating the king’s will vocally among the people and ensuring that it was responded to. He may also have recorded the day to day events related to the king. A similar figure in Egypt regulated the ceremonies of the palace and gave audience to people with the king, and transmitted and explained royal commands.
“And Benaiah the son of Jehoiada was over the host.” As we know he had been commander of David’s bodyguard and had taken over the position of commander-in-chief from Joab (1 Kings 2:35).
“And Zadok and Abiathar were priests.” These were both official High Priests, the former, descended from Aaron through Eliezer, appointed, probably by Saul, over the Tabernacle, and later presiding at the Sacred Tent in Jerusalem, the latter by David, for he was descended from Aaron through Ihamar and was the only surviving son of the previous High Priest slain by Saul at Nob, and had fled with the Ephod to David, and would for a time have been High Priest in Ziklag, then in Hebron, and then in Gibeon. The High Priesthood was for life, so that once appointed a man remained High Priest until death (Numbers 35:25; Numbers 35:28), even though he had been relieved of his duties as Abiathar had been (1 Kings 2:35).
“And Azariah the son of Nathan was over the officers.” He was probably Solomon’s nephew, being the son of his brother Nathan (2 Samuel 5:14). He presumably had responsibility over the district ‘officers’ mentioned below.
“And Zabud the son of Nathan was priest, and the king” s friend.’ Another nephew of Solomon’s, Zabud (‘bestowed’) was also called ‘cohen’ and was the king’s chief adviser (‘friend’, compare Hushai the Gittite in 2 Samuel 16:16-19; 1 Chronicles 27:23). The title ‘king’s friend’ is also mentioned in Amarna (Canaanite) texts. As ‘cohen’ he may well also, like Azariah above, have shared in the intercessory responsibilities which fell on the king.
“Ahishar was over the household.” Solomon’s household was huge, as what follows indicates. Ahishar therefore had responsibility for overseeing the whole. The non-mention of his father’s name may suggest that he was a ‘commoner’, appointed because of his special abilities having in mind the needs of the king’s household. The title would later be applied to the Prime Minister (see 2 Kings 15:5; 2 Kings 18:18; Isaiah 22:20-22 with Isaiah 36:3), replacing the title ‘cohen’ (see on Azariah above), but we must not read that into Ahishar’s role. The title has been found on a seal impression excavated at Lachish.
“Adoniram the son of Abda was over the men subject to taskwork.” This may be the same man as the one who was appointed by David (2 Samuel 20:24) and survived up to the beginning of Rehoboam’s reign (1 Kings 12:18). At one time he had ‘five hundred and fifty’ slave-masters (1 Kings 9:23). Enforced labour was a necessary part of being a great king, for it was the only means by which large building projects could go forward (compare the warning in 1 Samuel 8:16). The worst aspect of this kind of servitude was limited to ‘foreigners’ (1 Kings 9:15; 1Ki 9:21-22 ; 2 Samuel 12:31; 2 Chronicles 2:18) but the need became so great that native Israelites were also drafted in (1 Kings 5:13 ff), although in their case on a part time basis, and it was this, and their treatment while involved, as much as anything else that resulted in the disaffection that caused the later division of the kingdom.
‘ And Solomon had twelve officers over all Israel, who provided victuals for the king and his household, each man had to make provision for a month in the year.’
Solomon also divided up Israel (excluding Judah) into twelve regions over whom he placed district ‘tax collectors or governors’ (literally ‘those appointed’). One of their major responsibilities was that of collecting the king’s taxes, mainly in the form of produce, and in each case it included ensuring that sufficient provisions were made available to the king’s vast household for one moon period out of twelve. But this would undoubtedly also have required the official to exercise control in other spheres, for they would not act directly themselves, delegating the main collection to others, and would require a wide authority in order to carry out what would not have been something welcomed by the Israelites. They were learning what having a king really involved.
The situation in Israel was by this time far too complicated to allow a simple division of the Israelites into tribes, and the divisions were thus not simply based on tribal divisions, even if that had been possible with the situation as it was, with so many movements and counter-movements of sections of tribes having taken place since the Conquest. On the other hand tribal divisions undoubtedly played their part with regard to tribes that had maintained their own independent identity. Solomon was not trying to break down tribal identity. He was seeking to efficiently (from his point of view) organise the whole area of Israel so as to ensure that the needs of his court were continually met, taking into account the complexities or otherwise of each area. On the other hand there were also the great Canaanite cities such as Taanach and Megiddo, and other similar large Canaanite enclaves, which had to be taken into account, and had to be brought into the system. These had in many cases been brought within Israel more by absorption than conquest as a result of the activities described in Judges 1:27-36, and by such as Saul and David, and had probably in the course of it been forced to submit to Yahwism. All these had to be brought within the sphere of Solomon’s administration. They would also be more used to such tight administration having suffered under kings for centuries.
The list commences with the hill country of Ephraim, which being situated where it was, and being the land first settled by the Israelites (if we ignore Judah) in comparatively virgin territory, was the most secure and prominent area among the northern tribes, and this is then followed by six areas mainly designated in terms of Canaanite cities, after which come areas named after tribes which had clearly not been so affected by having Canaanite cities among them, and had maintained their prominence and independence in the face of all the changes that had taken place, and were seen as administratively capable. Thus Ephraim, Naphtali, Asher, Issachar and Benjamin were seen as still compact enough, and independent enough, to form their own units, whereas other areas were more fragmented and had to take in the Canaanite conclaves, and be run from them.
Transjordan had three ‘appointed officers’, but the division was not simply on the basis of tribal boundaries. The first was stationed in Ramoth-gilead, which was in the upper territory of Gad, and the district covered the northern part of the country, including the area allocated to the half tribe of Manasseh. The second was in Mahanaim, from where Ish-bosheth had ruled Israel, and where David had established himself during Absalom’s rebellion. This was also located in the territory of Gad, and covered the central section of Transjordan. The third covered the larger southern area and gathered up all parts not covered by the other two, the area being described as ‘the land of Gilead’ (ever a vague description to us due to the many geographical uses of the term Gilead), and was so complex an area that it had to be explained in terms that sound as if it contained the whole of Transjordan, with the result that it had to be explained that he was the only officer in that particular area.
Alternately, the latter phrase ‘and one officer over the land’ might refer to the ‘officer’ over Judah (the Assyrians spoke of their homeland as ‘the land’) which is otherwise not mentioned. It could, however, be argued that Judah may rather have been centrally controlled directly from Jerusalem by one of the ‘chief officials’ described above. It may have been responsible for the thirteenth moon period which had to be inserted at regular intervals through the years in order to keep the seasons under control (twelve moon periods not making up a full year).
The remaining nine appointed officers were set over nine regions west of the Jordan Rift Valley, partly on the basis of principle cities or other regional descriptions, and partly on the basis of tribal designation. Thus we have the well known ‘hill country of Ephraim, followed by designations in terms of leading cities in different central areas, and finalised by designations in terms of the principle independently surviving northern tribes such as Naphtali, Asher and Issachar, and in terms of Benjamin.
‘ And these are their names:
Ben-hur, in the hill-country of Ephraim;
Ben-deker, in Makaz, and in Shaalbim, and Beth-shemesh, and Elon-beth-hanan;
Ben-hesed, in Arubboth (to him pertained Socoh, and all the land of Hepher);
Ben-abinadab, in all the height of Dor (he had Taphath the daughter of Solomon to wife)
Baana the son of Ahilud, in Taanach and Megiddo, and all Beth-shean which is beside Zarethan, beneath Jezreel, from Beth-shean to Abel-meholah, as far as beyond Jokmeam;
Ben-geber, in Ramoth-gilead (to him pertained the towns of Jair the son of Manasseh, which are in Gilead; even to him pertained the region of Argob, which is in Bashan, threescore great cities with walls and brazen bars);
Ahinadab the son of Iddo, in Mahanaim;
Ahimaaz, in Naphtali (he also took Basemath the daughter of Solomon to wife);
Baana the son of Hushai, in Asher and Bealoth;
Jehoshaphat the son of Paruah, in Issachar;
Shimei the son of Ela, in Benjamin;
Geber the son of Uri, in the land of Gilead, the country of Sihon king of the Amorites and of Og king of Bashan;
And there was one officer who was over the land’ (i.e. of Judah).’
As previously mentioned it will be noted that the first four names and the sixth name are given in terms of the names of their fathers only (Ben-hur, Ben-deker, Ben hesed, Ben-abinadab, Ben-geber), for ‘ben’ means ‘son of’. This may because it had become a fad in certain circles to be known in this way (such usage certainly does occur later, although not in such profusion. Compare ‘Ben-chanan’ in 1 Chronicles 4:20 and the well known ‘Bar-timaeus’ in the New Testament), or because the office was hereditary (such a usage is evidenced at Ugarit), or it may even have been a case where the official tablet containing the record had been broken off at the edge, or become partly obliterated, through much use, so that the initial names were lost.
“Ben-hur, in the hill-country of Ephraim.” The name ‘Hur’ is attested to elsewhere (Numbers 31:8; 1 Chronicles 2:19). This area would include the tribal area of Ephraim combined with some of Manasseh up to the plain of Jezreel. Its southern border would be about fifteen kilometres (ten miles) north of Jerusalem and its northern border just beyond Shechem. To the east would be the Jordan and to the west the lower foothills about twenty two kilometres (fifteen miles) from the sea.
“Ben-deker, in Makaz, and in Shaalbim, and Beth-shemesh, and Elon-beth-hanan.” This probably indicates the four border cities, or central regional cities, of the area over which Ben-deker had responsibility. It includes the eastern Shephelah (lower hills), the south-eastern section of Ephraim, and the territory originally assigned to Dan. Makaz is unknown but would mark the eastern border, Shaalbim is modern Selbit, eleven kilometres (seven miles) south east of Lydda and is within the northern part of the Valley of Aijalon (Joshua 19:42; Judges 1:35) which would mark the northern border, Beth-shemesh marked the southern border and is modern Tell el-Rumeilah, twenty four kilometres (sixteen miles) west of Jerusalem, Elon-beth-hanan marked the western border. The name Deker may possibly be attested to it the name ‘Bidkar’ (shortening of ‘ben Deker’? - 2 Kings 9:25).
“Ben-hesed, in Arubboth (to him pertained Socoh, and all the land of Hepher).” This was the coastal area which included Sharon and part of Manasseh. Arubboth was probably modern Arrabeh on the coastal plain, south of the valley of Dothan, and seventeen kilometres (twelve miles) north east of Khirbet Suweikeh; Socoh is mentioned in Egyptian records as on the high road that led through the coastal plain and is Khirbet Suweikeh, three kilometres (two miles) north of Tulkarm. ‘All the land of Hepher’ may refer to the area occupied by the Manassite clan of Hepher (Joshua 17:2), although a Canaanite city of the name is mentioned in Joshua 12:17.
“Ben-abinadab, in all the height of Dor (he had Taphath the daughter of Solomon to wife).” Ben-abinadab was one of Solomon’s sons-in-law, having married his daughter Taphath. This very fact indicates the high status of these ‘officials’. He was quite possibly the son of Abinadab, David’s brother, and exercised his office in ‘all the foothills of Dor’ (or ‘Naphath-dor’). Compare Joshua 12:23, ‘the king of Dor in Naphath-dor’. He was thus responsible for the coastal plain from below Dor up to Carmel. The port of Dor may have been his administrative centre.
“Baana the son of Ahilud, in Taanach and Megiddo, and all Beth-shean which is beside Zarethan, beneath Jezreel, from Beth-shean to Abel-meholah, as far as beyond Jokmeam.” Baanah, the son of Ahilud, was seemingly the brother of Jehoshaphat, the son of Ahilud, the recorder (1 Kings 4:3). His territory included the southern Jezreel plain, the territory of Issachar and the west Jordan Valley. It included the great Canaanite cities of Taanach and Megiddo, which were clearly associated (here and Judges 5:19). Taanach was on the southern edge of the valley of Jezreel, with Megiddo opposite it on the northern part of Carmel, across the pass which guarded the way to the plain of Esdraelon. ‘all Beth-shean which is beside Zarethan’ is puzzling to us because Zarethan was in the Jordan Valley near the ford of the Jordan at Adamah, whereas the city of Beth-shean was situated where the valley of Jezreel met the Jordan Valley, but the geographical terminology ‘all Bethshean’ indicates a district which presumably stretched as far as Zarethan, and the situation was probably very plain then. The area is then defined as being ‘from (the city of) Beth-shean to Abel-meholah’, the latter also being in the Jordan Valley. ‘Beneath Jezreel’ distinguished his territory from that in Issachar, which included Jezreel, but may have in mind the height of Jezreel which has been described as “comparatively high, and commands a wide and noble view, extending down the broad low valley on the east of Beisan (Bethshean) and to the mountains of Ajlun beyond the Jordan.”
“Ben-geber, in Ramoth-gilead (to him pertained the tent villages of Jair the son of Manasseh, which are in Gilead; even to him pertained the region of Argob, which is in Bashan, threescore great cities with walls and brazen bars).” With this description we move to the east side of the Jordan, and this description basically covers northern Transjordan. For ‘the tent villages of Jair’ compare Numbers 32:41; Deuteronomy 3:14; Judges 10:3. For the region of Argob with its sixty ‘great walled cities’ compare Deuteronomy 3:4. Ramoth-gilead was in Gad.
“Ahinadab the son of Iddo, in Mahanaim.” This was the region below Ben-geber’s, in central Gilead, and centred on Mahanaim, (also in Gad) which was the royal city of Ish-bosheth (2 Samuel 2:8 ff), and, during the short period of his flight from Absalom, of David (2 Samuel 17:24).
“Ahimaaz, in Naphtali (he also took Basemath the daughter of Solomon to wife).” This was probably Ahimaaz the son of Zadok (2 Samuel 15:27; 2 Samuel 15:36; 2 Samuel 17:17 ff), and he became the son-in-law of Solomon. He administered Naphtali in the eastern part of Galilee.
“Baana the son of Hushai, in Asher and Bealoth.” Baanah was presumably the son (or grandson) of Hushai the Archite, David’s ‘Friend’, who had served David so faithfully (2 Samuel 15:32-37; 2 Samuel 16:16-19; 2 Samuel 17:5-14). He administered ‘Asher and Bealoth’ in Western Galilee. ‘Be-aloth’ is possibly ‘in Aloth’, and may be another name for Zebulun.
“Jehoshaphat the son of Paruah, in Issachar.” This territory ran from the central Jezreel plain to the River Jordan.
“Shimei the son of Ela, in Benjamin.” For this Shimei compare 1 Kings 1:8. He was responsible for administering fiercely independent Benjamin which still remembered its Saulide days when it had been ‘king-pin’. The Shimei who had cursed David and had been executed by Solomon had also been a Benjaminite. This area lay north of Jerusalem and covered the southern central Ephraim highlands.
“Geber the son of Uri, in the land of Gilead, the country of Sihon king of the Amorites and of Og king of Bashan.” This description could be seen as covering the whole of Transjordan, but is presumably intended to cover that part not administered by Ben-geber and Abinadab above.
“And there was one officer who was over the land” (i.e. of Judah?).’ This could be a note indicating that Geber administered his own administrative section, or it could explain why Judah is nowhere mentioned. ‘The land’ was how Assyria described their homeland, and Judah was David’s ‘land’. Thus this may refer to an officer over the land of Judah, whose contribution would fill in the gaps resulting from the calendar (the thirteenth month which had to be inserted regularly), and from any lack arising from what was provided by the other districts. (We would expect a reference to Judah because of 1 Kings 4:20).
‘ Judah and Israel were many as the sand which is by the sea in multitude, eating and drinking and making merry.’
The writer then emphasises the prosperity of all Judah and Israel under Solomon’s rule. They multiplied in numbers, and they continually ate, drank and made merry. And this in spite of the burden of Solomon’s taxation. It was a time of peace and great prosperity for all. (But such prosperity led to a decline in loyalty to YHWH, with their worship becoming more syncretistic. They no longer felt the same loyalty to the wilderness God Who had led His people out of Egypt. They preferred to give Him local colour as One fitted to a static and more sophisticated people).
Some have tried to suggest that naming Judah and Israel in this order is an indication of a late insertion, but the argument does not hold. Judah and Israel are only mentioned as a unit three times in Kings, in 1 Kings 1:35; 1 Kings 4:20 and 1 Kings 4:25, and twice it is as Judah and Israel. In 1 Kings 1:35 it is as ‘over Israel and over Judah’ when David is talking about the receiving of the kingship, and the order is probably dependent on the source. Thus the order here is almost certainly because the writer saw Judah as having the precedence at this point, having in mind the future separation of the kingdom, and the prominence of Judah thereafter. It therefore simply indicates the author’s preference. The use in Samuel is therefore irrelevant. That was the emphasis of a different writer. The separateness of Judah and Israel has, however, been constantly in mind in both and is certainly not something new. See 1 Samuel 11:8; 1 Samuel 17:52; 1Sa 18:16 ; 2 Samuel 3:10; 2 Samuel 5:5; 2Sa 11:11 ; 2 Samuel 12:8; 2 Samuel 20:2; 2 Samuel 24:1.
‘ And Solomon ruled over all the kingdoms from the River to the land of the Philistines, and to the border of Egypt. They brought tribute, and served Solomon all the days of his life.’
Meanwhile Solomon ruled over a wide area, thanks mainly to the previous activities of David, which on the whole had been forced on him. He ruled over an area from the Euphrates to the border of Egypt. This did not include the whole of that area for it excluded, for example, Tyre and Sidon, with whom, however, he had a firm treaty, so that there was peace on every side. The reference to the land of the Philistines was emphasising the fact that the ‘ancient enemy’ were so no more, but were at peace with Israel, (while themselves, unlike Israel, being subject to attack from Egypt). And the area that he ruled brought tribute and presents to him, and served him all the days of his life. The glowing picture (if not strictly accurate, especially towards the later part of his reign, although his curbing and containment of insurgents may have been seen as signifying that they were still seen as under his general jurisdiction) is emphasising his great and continuing success and prosperity. Compare for its range Genesis 13:14-17; Genesis 15:18; Exodus 23:31; Deuteronomy 11:24; Joshua 1:4).
There is a lesson for us all in this in that it demonstrates that of we are to make the most of our lives we must ensure they are administered properly. It is not sufficient to allow our lives to drift on. We need to organise them to the best advantage so that we can make the best use of our time and money, with a view to being pleasing to the Lord.
Be the first to react on this!
