the kingdom of Israel under Solomon's reign. So far as the contents are concerned, this list belongs to the middle portion of the reign of Solomon, as we may see from the fact that two of the officers named had daughters of Solomon for their wives (1Ki 4:11, 1Ki 4:15), whom they could not possibly have married till the later years of Solomon's life.
The Chief Ministers of State. - The list is introduced in 1Ki 4:1 by the general remark, that “king Solomon was king over all Israel.”
Verse 2
The first of the שׂרים, princes, i.e., chief ministers of state or dignitaries, mentioned here is not the commander-in-chief, as under the warlike reign of David (2Sa 8:16; 2Sa 20:23), but, in accordance with the peaceful rule of Solomon, the administrator of the kingdom (or prime minister): “Azariah the son of Zadok was הכּהן,” i.e., not the priest, but the administrator of the kingdom, the representative of the king before the people; like כּהן in v. 5, where this word is interpreted by המּלך רעה, with this difference, however, arising from the article before כּהן, that Azariah was the Kohen par excellence, that is to say, held the first place among the confidential counsellors of the king, so that his dignity was such as befitted the office of an administrator of the kingdom. Compare the explanation of כּהן at 2Sa 8:18. The view of the Vulgate, Luther, and others, which has been revived by Thenius, namely, that כּהן is to be connected as a genitive with בּן־צדוק in opposition to the accents, “Azariah the son of Zadok the priest,” is incorrect, and does not even yield any sense, since the connection of these words with the following Elichoreph, etc., is precluded by the absence of the copula Vav, which would be indispensable if Azariah had held the same office as the two brothers Elichoreph and Achijah.[1]
Moreover, Azariah the son of Zadok cannot be a grandson of Zadok the high priest, i.e., a son of Ahimaaz the son of Zadok, as many infer from
- ↑ The objection by which Thenius tries to set aside this argument, which has been already advanced by Houbigant, viz., that “if the first (Azariah) was not also a state scribe, the copula would be inserted, as it is everywhere else from v. 4 onwards when a new office is mentioned,” proves nothing at all, because the copula is also omitted in v. 3, where the new office of מזכּיר is introduced.
