Attributed commentary excerpt
Keil & Delitzsch on 1 Kings 4:1
A historical reference excerpt for this verse. Read it alongside the biblical text and other available sources.
Commentary on the Old Testament
C. F. Keil & F. Delitzsch · 19th-century historical commentary
Source: BibleWord.ai's local reference edition of this named work.
The Chief Ministers of State. - The list is introduced in Kg1 4:1 by the general remark, that "king Solomon was king over all Israel." Kg1 4:2 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 ( Sa2 8:16; Sa2 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 Sa2 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. (Note: 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.) 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 1 Chr. 5:34-35 ( Ch1 6:8-9); for, apart from the fact that Zadok's grandson can hardly have been old enough at the time for Solomon to invest him with the chief dignity in the kingdom, which would surely be conferred upon none but men of mature years, we can see no reason why the Azariah mentioned here should not be called the son of Ahimaaz. If the Zadok referred to here was the high priest of that name, Azariah can only have been a brother of Ahimaaz. And there is no real difficulty in the way, since the name Azariah occurs three times in the line of high priests (1 Chr. 5:36, 39), and therefore was by no means rare. Kg1 4:3 Elichoreph and Achijah, sons of Shisha, who had held the same office under David, were secretaries of state (ספרים: see at Sa2 8:17 and Sa2 20:25, where the different names שׁשׁא = שׁיא and שׂריה are also discussed). - Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud was the chancellor, as he had already been in the time of David ( Sa2 8:17 and Sa2 20:24). The rendering of Thenius, "whilst Jehoshaphat was chancellor," is grammatically impossible. Kg1 4:4 On Benaiah, compare Kg1 2:35 and the Commentary on Sa2 23:20. On Zadok and Abiathar, see at Sa2 8:17. It appears strange that Abiathar should be named as priest, i.e., as high priest, along with Zadok, since Solomon had deposed him from the priestly office ( Kg1 2:27, Kg1 2:35), and we cannot imagine any subsequent pardon. The only possible explanation is that proposed by Theodoret, namely, that Solomon…
This public page shows a contextual excerpt from the locally available source text.
How to use this source
This excerpt is attributed to its named commentary. It is included as a historical study resource and should be evaluated in light of Scripture and other relevant evidence.
