BOOK OF THE PERIOD, (1015 TO 975 B. C.)THE KINGDOM UNDER SOLOMON.(Chapters 1–2) FIRST SECTION solomon’s accession to the throne 1 Kings 1, 2A.—Adonijah’s attempt to seize the kingdom for himself; Solomon’s elevation to the throne1 Kings 1:1-531 Now king David was old and stricken in years; and they covered him with clothes, but he gat no heat. 2Wherefore his servants said unto him, Let there be sought for my lord the king a young virgin [virgin damsel]; and let her stand before the king, and let her cherish him, and let her lie in thy bosom, that my lord the king may get heat. 3So they sought for a fair damsel throughout all the coasts of Israel, and found Abishag a [the] Shunammite, and brought her to the king. 4And the damsel was very fair, and cherished the king, and ministered to him: but the king knew her not. 5Then Adonijah the son of Haggith exalted himself, saying, I will be king: and he prepared him chariots and horsemen, and fifty men to run before him. 6And his father had not displeased him at any time in saying, Why hast thou done so? and he also was a very goodly man; and his mother bare him after Absalom. 7And he conferred with Joab the son of Zeruiah, and with Abiathar the priest: and they following Adonijah helped him. 8But Zadok the priest, and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, and Nathan the prophet, and Shimei, and Rei, and the mighty men which belonged to David, were not with Adonijah. 9And Adonijah slew sheep and oxen and fat cattle by the stone of Zoheleth, which is by En-rogel [the well of Rogel], and called all his brethren the king’s sons, and all the men of Judah the king’s servants: 10but Nathan the prophet, and Benaiah, and the mighty men, and Solomon his brother, he called not. 11Wherefore Nathan spake unto Bath-sheba the mother of Solomon, saying, Hast thou not heard that Adonijah the son of Haggith doth reign, and David our lord knoweth it not? 12Now therefore come, let me, I pray thee, give thee counsel, that thou mayest save thine own life, and the life of thy son Solomon. 13Go and get thee in unto king David, and say unto him, Didst not thou, my lord, O king, swear unto thine handmaid, saying, Assuredly [That] Solomon thy son shall reign after me, and he shall sit upon my throne? why then doth Adonijah reign? 14Behold, while thou yet talkest therewith the king, I also will come in after thee, and confirm thy words. 15And Bath-sheba went in unto the king into the chamber: and the king was 16very old; and Abishag the Shunammite ministered unto the king. And Bath-sheba bowed, and did obeisance unto the king. And the king said, What wouldest thou? 17And she said unto him, My lord, thou swarest by the Lord [Jehovah] thy God unto thine handmaid, saying, Assuredly Solomon thy son shall reign after me, and he shall sit upon my throne. 18And now, behold, Adonijah reigneth; and now [thou], my lord the king, thou knowest it not: 19And he hath slain oxen and fat cattle and sheep in abundance, and hath called all the sons of the king, and Abiathar the priest, and Joab the captain of the host: but Solomon 20thy servant hath he not called. And thou, my lord, O king, the eyes of all Israel are upon thee, that thou shouldest tell them who shall sit on the throne of my 21lord the king after him. Otherwise [But] it shall come to pass, when my lord the king shall sleep with his fathers, that I and my son Solomon shall be counted offenders. 22And, lo, while she yet talked with the king, Nathan the prophet also came in. 23And they told the king, saying, Behold Nathan the prophet [has come]. And when he was come in before the king, he bowed himself before the king with his face to the ground. 24And Nathan said, My lord, O king, hast thou said, Adonijah shall reign after me, and he shall sit upon my throne? 25For he is gone down this day, and hath slain oxen and fat cattle and sheep in abundance, and hath called all the king’s sons, and the captains of the host, and Abiathar the priest; and, behold, they eat and drink before him, and say, God 26save king Adonijah [let king Adonijah live]. But me, even me thy servant, and Zadok the priest, and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, and thy servant Solomon, hath he not called. 27Is this thing done by my lord the king, and thou hast not shewed it unto thy servant who should sit on the throne of my lord the king after him? 28Then king David answered and said, Call me Bath-sheba. And she came into the king’s presence, and stood before the king. 29And the king sware, and said, As the Lord [Jehovah] liveth, that hath redeemed my soul out of all distress, 30even as I sware unto thee by the Lord [Jehovah] God of Israel, saying, Assuredly [That] Solomon thy son shall reign after me, and he shall sit upon 31my throne in my stead; even so will I certainly do this day. Then Bath-sheba bowed with her face to the earth, and did reverence to the king, and said, Let my lord king David live for ever. 32And king David said, Call me Zadok the priest, and Nathan the prophet, and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada. And they came before the king. 33The king also said unto them, Take with you the servants of your lord, and cause Solomon my son to ride upon mine own mule, and bring him down to Gihon; 34And let Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet anoint him there king over Israel: and blow ye with the trumpet, and say, God save king Solomon [let king Solomon live]. 35Then ye shall come up after him, that he may [and he shall] come and sit upon my throne; for [and] he shall be king in my stead: and I have appointed him to be ruler over Israel and over Judah. 36And Benaiah the son of Jehoiada answered the king, and said, Amen: the Lord [Jehovah] God of my lord the king say so too [so spake]. 37As the Lord [Jehovah] hath been with my lord the king, even so be he with Solomon, and make his throne greater than the throne of my lord king David. 38So Zadok the priest, and Nathan the prophet, and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, and the Cherethites, and the Pelethites, went down, and caused Solomon to ride upon king David’s mule, and brought him to Gihon. 39And Zadok the priest took a horn of oil out of the tabernacle, and anointed Solomon. And they blew the trumpet; and all the people said, God save king Solomon 40[Let king Solomon live]. And all the people came up after him, and the people piped with pipes, and rejoiced with great joy, so that the earth rent with the sound of them. 41And Adonijah and all the guests that were with him heard it, as they had made an end of eating. And when Joab heard the sound of the trumpet, he said, Wherefore is this noise of the city being in an uproar? 42And while he yet spake, behold, Jonathan the son of Abiathar the priest came: and Adonijah said unto him, Come in; for thou art a valiant man, and bringest good tidings. 43And Jonathan answered and said to Adonijah, Verily our lord king David hath made Solomon king. 44And the king hath sent with him Zadok the priest, and Nathan the prophet, and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, and the Cherethites, and the Pelethites, and they have caused him to ride upon the king’s mule: 45and Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet have anointed him king in Gihon: and they are come up from thence rejoicing, so that the city rang again. This is the noise that ye have heard. 46And also Solomon sitteth on the throne of the kingdom. 47And moreover the king’s servants came to bless our lord king David, saying, [Thy] God make the name of Solomon better than thy name, and make his throne greater than thy throne. And the king bowed himself upon the bed. 48And also thus said the king, Blessed be the Lord [Jehovah] God of Israel, which hath given one to sit on my throne this day, mine eyes even seeing it.49And all the guests that were with Adonijah were afraid, and rose up, and went every man his way. 50And Adonijah feared because of Solomon, and arose, and went, and caught hold on the horns of the altar. 51And it was told Solomon, saying, Behold, Adonijah feareth king Solomon: for, lo, he hath caught hold on the horns of the altar, saying, Let king Solomon swear unto me to [this] day that he will not slay his servant with the sword. 52And Solomon said, If he will shew himself a worthy man, there shall not a hair of him fall to the earth: but if wickedness shall be found in him, he shall die. 53So king Solomon sent, and they brought him down from the altar. And he came and bowed himself to king Solomon: and Solomon said unto him, Go to thine house. Exegetical and Critical1 Kings 1:1. Now king David was old, &c. 1 Kings 1:1-4 introduce the entire narration following, the central point and chief object of which is Solomon’s ascension to the throne. Adonijah’s endeavor to usurp the throne was the reason why this event took place before the death of David. Adonijah proceeded to carry out his purpose when David was old and infirm, and apparently near his end. The author begins, consequently, with the description of David’s condition, and is reminded particularly of Abishag, his waiting-maid, because Adonijah, after the misadventure of his enterprise, sought her for a wife in order to gain the throne by means of her, and so wrought his destruction (1 Kings 2:13 sq.). The εְ at the beginning has no connection with anything preceding; least of all does it connect our books with the books of Samuel (see Introduction, § 3). Nor is it mechanically retained from a passage of the life of David inserted-here (Keil); but it stands, as elsewhere so often at the beginning of a book (Joshua 1:1; Judges 1:1; 2 Samuel 1:1; Rth 1:1; Esther 1:1; Ezra 1:1; Ezekiel 1:1; Jonah 1:1), where the first verse forms the antecedent to the second.—When David was old and infirm, his servants said unto him. David was then seventy years of age (comp. 1 Kings 2:11, with 2 Samuel 5:4-5): that his natural warmth then failed him, was not ex nimio mulierum usu (Le Clerc), but was the result of the “extraordinary cares and conflicts of his earlier life” (Ewald). 1 Kings 1:2-4. Wherefore his servants said unto him, &c. Josephus expressly names them physicians (Ant vii. 14, 3), comp. Genesis 50:2. The remedy which one of them, in the name of the rest, advised when the “clothes” (αְּ ?βָ ?γִ ?ιν as in 1 Samuel 19:13; Numbers 4:6) were of no use, was known in ancient times. Without skill in infernal remedies, men sought to warm, by means of living vigorous bodies, those whose vital powers were chilled and enfeebled. Galen (Method. Medic. 8, 7) says: “Ex iis vero, qu� extrinsecus applicantur, boni habitus puellus una sit accumbans, ut semper abdomen ejus contingat. Bacon (Hist. Vit. et Nec.): Neque negligenda sunt fomenta ex corporibus vivis. According to Bartholinus (De Morb. Bibl. 9), a Jewish physician advised the Emperor Frederic Barbarossa to allow young and strong boys to lie upon his breast (comp. Trusen, Sitten, Gebr, and Krankh. der Hebr�er, s. 257 sq.). This was not designed hero for the gratification of bodily passion, by means of a “concubine,” as Winer calls Abishag, but before all, for service and assistance, such as was deemed most effective after the unavailing application of the usual remedies to the aged man confined to his bed. The physicians expressly state this, and it agrees with the words: and let her stand before the king, i.e., let her servo him (Genesis 41:46; Deuteronomy 1:38), and be his attendant, i.e., let her wait upon, help him: let her lie in his bosom [not thy, see textual note] that ho may become warm. If by these last words they may have presupposed that he would “know” her, they do not state it as the design, as, moreover, ωָׁ ?λַ ?ααְּ ?ηֵ ?ιχ must not be understood necessarily only of cohabitation (comp. 1 Kings 3:20; Rth 4:16). They sought a beautiful maiden “because she was destined for the king” (Thenius), and they found such at Shunem, a city of the tribe Is-sachar, in the plain of Jezreel, at the foot of the so-called little Hermon (Joshua 19:18; 1 Samuel 28:4). The text states expressly that the king did not know her: she was, therefore, not his concubine, but his waiting-maid and attendant. In a wholly perverse way Josephus, and after him J. D. Michaelis, adduces impotency, in consequence of old ago and weakness, as the reason why he did not know her. In that case the remark would be superfluous (Thenius). It serves, however, “to make it clear how it was that Adonijah could seek Abishag for his wife,” 1 Kings 2:17 (Keil), and go to Bath-sheba for her intercession with Solomon. Older interpreters have maintained that she was the actual wife of David, or at least his concubine, and that the relation also, according to the morality of the time, was unobjectionable. Bat neither hero nor in the second chapter is she so named. Amongst the people she may have well passed for such, since Adonijah, through alliance with her, wished to facilitate his way to the throne (see on 1 Kings 2:13).1 Kings 1:5-6. Then Adonijah the son of Haggith, &c. Of the sons of David born at Hebron, Adonijah was the fourth (2 Samuel 3:2-4). The first, Amnon, and the third, Absalom, were already dead, and the second also, Chileab, of whom nothing more is said, had doubtless died much earlier. As the eldest living son, Adonijah believed that he had claims to the throne. Besides this, his beautiful person came into the account, as with Absalom, by which, because it was valued in a ruler (1 Samuel 9:2; 2 Samuel 14:25; 2 Samuel 16:7; Ezekiel 28:12), he hoped for the favorable regard of the people, ιָ ?μְ ?γָּ ?η 1 Kings 1:6 cannot, with some, be translated: “and ho was born unto him after Absalom,” but only, as in Genesis 16:1 : “and she had borne him after Absalom,” i.e., after the latter had been borne of Maacah. The alteration of the text into ιָ ?μַ ?γ—“he had begotten him after Absalom” (Thenius), is wholly unnecessary. The succession to the throne in Israel was certainly hereditary; but no law required that the eldest son, at the time, should be the heir-apparent. From 1 Kings 1:17; 1 Kings 1:20, as also from 2 Chronicles 11:22, it is clear that it was regarded as the right of the reigning king to determine who amongst his sons should succeed him. He could transmit the kingdom to his first-born or to his eldest son, but he was not obliged (2 Chronicles 21:3) thereto. Adonijah was not at all first-born, but only the fourth son. He himself does not take his age into the account, and appeals, in 1 Kings 2:13 sq., not to this, but to the voice of the people who had shown themselves favorably disposed towards him. David’s designation of Solomon as his successor, has its reason in the promise in 2 Samuel 7:12-16; 2 Samuel 12:24 sq.;1 Chronicles 22:9-10; he regarded him as the one who, according to the prescript touching a king in Deuteronomy 17:15, was chosen by Jehovah. Of a formal “right” to the throne, possessed by Adonijah, which he thought to “assure “ himself of (Thenius), there can be no discussion. That he knew well the will of his father, by virtue of which Solomon was to be his successor, is clear from the circumstance that he invited all his brothers, and the men who were employed in the royal service, to a feast prepared by him. Solomon only, and the more confidential friends of David, were not invited. His design was to render null the purpose of his father, and to possess himself of the throne, by conspiracy and force, in opposition to his wish. His undertaking was a formal usurpation, and like that of Absalom, to which the whole narrative manifestly points. Upon this account also the text says: ”he exalted himself,” i.e., he over-exalted himself—made himself somewhat that did not become him (πָ ?ωָׂ ?ΰ used here as in Proverbs 30:32; Numbers 16:3), with this result, that his father left him to his will (ξִ ?ιָּ ?ξָ ?ιε means from his, Adonijah’s days, and is not, with Seb. Schmidt, to be understood first of his attempt at royal sovereignty). The moral infirmity of the royal father, coupled now with bodily weakness, induced Adonijah to enter upon his guilty enterprise. Just as Absalom had done (2 Samuel 15:1), he provided himself with what, according to 1 Samuel 8:11, is designated as the first “royal prerogative,” chariots, riders, and body-guardsmen, i.e., a brilliant court, in order thereby to impose upon the multitude. 1 Kings 1:7-10. And he conferred with Joab, &c. Through the commander-in-chief, Adonijah hopes to win over the army, and through the high-priest, to secure also the priesthood. Not the conviction “that he had right on his side” (Thenius), induced both men to enter into his plans. Joab had observed that he was sunken in the good graces of David (1 Kings 2:5), and consequently could not hope for much for himself from Solomon; but from Adonijah he could hope, especially if made king by his assistance. Abiathar seems to have felt himself set aside by David for Zadok, which priest was at the tabernacle with the ark of the covenant at Zion (see on 1 Kings 1:33; 1 Kings 1:39), and to have feared that the high-priestly family of Eleazar, to which Zadok belonged, would supplant his own, viz.: the family of Ithamar. Upon Benaiah, comp. 2 Samuel 8:18; 2 Samuel 23:20 sq.; upon Nathan, see 2 Samuel 7, 12. Shimei is mentioned in 1 Kings 4:18 : Josephus names Reiὀ Δαυἶδουφίλος. Doubtless these latter filled high offices. That they were the only surviving brothers of David (Ewald), has nothing probable to rest upon. Upon the heroes of David, comp. 2 Samuel 23:8 sq., and 1 Chronicles 11:10 sq. Adonijah, like Absalom (2 Samuel 15:8; 2 Samuel 15:12), prepared a great feast, which was ostensibly also sacrificial, in order to impart to the transaction a religious coloring. The well, i.e., the sources of Rogel (Joshua 15:7; Joshua 18:16), lay, according to 2 Samuel 17:17, southeasterly from Jerusalem, in the loveliest, most fruitful plain; according to Josephus, in βασιλικῷ παραδείσῳ; according to Schulz (Jerus., s. 79), “even now a place of recreation for the inhabitants of Jerusalem.” Thenius derives the name Zoheleth from ζημ, to crawl—a rock which one must climb with difficulty. This place was in every respect suited for a public festivity. (Comp. Robinson, Palestine, vol. i. p. 333; Boston, 1868.) 1 Kings 1:11-14. Wherefore Nathan spake unto Bath-sheba, &c. According to the custom prevailing anciently in the East, on the occasion of the forcible seizure of the throne, of murdering the dethroned ruler, or the opposing pretenders to the crown, with all their nearest relations (Judges 9:5; 1 Kings 15:29; 2 Kings 10:6; 2 Kings 10:13; 2 Kings 11:1), in the event of the success of Adonijah’s undertaking, there was very much to fear for the life both of Solomon and of his mother. That David knew nothing of the plans of Adonijah, and that Nathan was first informed of them only at the moment of their execution, shows how secretly the affair had been managed. This would have been unnecessary had Adonijah a recognized right to the throne, and had his own conscience been right in the premises. David, moreover, would not have been so very much surprised at his undertaking. The prophet Nathan also deemed it his duty to prevent, as far as possible, a repetition of the history of Absalom. With great wisdom and prudence, he addressed himself to the mother of Solomon, who was especially beloved of David, begging her to apply to the king, with whom rested the right to designate his successor, to represent to him the mortal peril which threatened both her son and herself, and to remind him of his promise to her. When David’s mind should first, by this means, become aroused, than he (the prophet) would, in the name of Jehovah, appear before the king, and place before him his given word (1 Chronicles 28:5), in order to incite him to immediate action. “When David first promised Bath-sheba, upon his oath, that her son Solomon should become king, is not known. Obviously it was after the promise he had received in 2 Samuel 7.” (Keil). 1 Kings 1:15-27. And Bath-sheba went in unto the king, &c. The statement that king David Was old, &c, (1 Kings 1:1), explains the words: “into the chamber” (1 Kings 1:15), and means ho was so feeble that he could not leave his sick-room, and needed constant attention.—From 1 Kings 1:20, comp. 27, it is most explicit, once more, that no one entertained the thought that Adonijah, as the eldest surviving son of the king, had a right to the succession; but that the right to decide whether of his sons should be king, remained rather with the king, and that his decision was anxiously waited for.—I and my son Solomon shall be counted offenders,i.e., we shall be treated as traitors and offenders guilty of death. After these words Bath-sheba retired, and Nathan, informed in the meanwhile, went unto the king. While the former addressed her statement to the king directly, as a mother, the latter, as prophet, begins with a question in which, upon the one side, a slight reproach was conveyed that David should not have put a stop sooner to the design of Adonijah, and have exposed his own friends to great danger, and on the other side it expressed the confidence that the king would hold to his oath, and carry it out forthwith.—Under “the captains of the host,” 1 Kings 1:25, the servants of the king (the mighty men) in 1 Kings 1:10 are included. Kings used to be saluted by the people with the salutation, Live the king! (1 Samuel 10:24; 2 Samuel 16:16; 2 Kings 11:12; 2 Chron. 23:31.) the order of names in 1 Kings 1:26 contains a climax in which Solomon, as the highest personage, is named last. Nathan’s words are anything also than the expression of wounded vanity—they simply exhibit Adonijah’s hostile sentiment towards the friends of the king, and also the fate in store for them should Adonijah become sovereign. 1 Kings 1:28-38. Then king David answered, &c. The quick and firm resolution of David shows how strong he was yet in mind and will, notwithstanding all his bodily weakness. He repeats his oath, not, however, employing merely the usual formula, as Jehovah liveth! but adding most significantly, who hath redeemed my soul out of all distress. i.e., to the God who has been true to me, and delivered me wonderfully out of so many and great dangers, will I also remain true unto the end. His oath, coming from deep emotion, is likewise a praise and thanksgiving unto Jehovah. Had Adonijah an actual formal right to the throne, such an oath “would have been the greatest sin, in so far as David, while appealing to the divine mercy and grace, would have knowingly trodden under foot the right of his son. the added μְ ?ςֹ ?μָ ?ν, 1 Kings 1:31, exhibits the vivacity of the thought. Amongst the Persian kings it appears to have been customary (Daniel 3:9; Daniel 5:10; Daniel 6:22; Nehemiah 2:3). 1 Kings 1:33-37. The king also said unto them, Take with you the servants of your lord, &c. As no one but the king himself dared ride his mule, the command to let Solomon “ride” thereon was an actual declaration that he was king (Esther 6:8-9). Gihon is a place near Jerusalem, on the west side, with a spring of water (2 Chronicles 32:30; 2 Chronicles 33:14). the valley hero situated bears still this name (Robinson, Palest. vol. i., p. 346). It was proper for the anointing to take place at a spot where a large assemblage could be gathered, and whence a solemn entrance into the city, which had no open public square, could be made. Gihon, moreover, was considerably distant from the rock Zoheleth, which was on the southeasterly side of Jerusalem, whore Adonijah had gathered together his adherents, so that a collision would be avoided. According to the account of the rabbins, kings were anointed only at places abounding in water, and upon that account also much frequented. But they erroneously identify Gihon with Siloam, which spring lies southeast of Jerusalem. Thenius prefers the reading βִּ ?αְ ?ςεֹ ?ο to βִּ ?ηεֹ ?ο, because the tabernacle was there, from which, according to 1 Kings 1:39, Zadok took the “horn of oil.” But the three hours’ distance of Gibeon from Jerusalem is conclusive against this. Besides, by ΰֹ ?δֶ ?μ, in 1 Kings 1:39, we are not to understand the tabernacle of the covenant, but the tent erected by David upon Zion for the ark of the covenant (2 Samuel 6:17; 1 Chronicles 15:1; 1 Chronicles 16:1). David expressly gave order for the anointing of Solomon, so that nothing appertaining to the investiture of the king should be wanting. the supposition that anointing took place only with those kings “who were not free from exceptions, or who had no historic right to the throne” (Winer and Grotius, after the rabbins), is unfounded, for David, who here ordered the anointing, regarded Solomon in no respect as an exceptional successor. From the fact that he wished this done not simply by the high-priest, but also by the prophet, we learn the high significance he attributed to the prophetic office in Israel. He says purposely, ruler over Israel and over Judah. He had himself, for some time, been ruler only over Judah: then ho had conquered Ephraim, which named itself Israel, and had united it again with Judah. The old disunion had again exhibited itself on the revolt of Absalom (2 Samuel 19:40 sq.); hence, with Adonijah’s like undertaking in view, he deemed it necessary to declare expressly that Solomon should be ruler over Israel and Judah. Benaiah, as the person upon whom the execution of the order devolved, answered David, and declared himself ready to carry it out,—not, as Thenius supposes, to flatter the paternal vanity, but, in the conviction that the king’s command was in conformity with the will of Jehovah, he wished that the divine blessing might rest upon the government of Solomon. 1 Kings 1:38. So Zadok the priest, &c. By the Cherethites and Pelethites we must understand the royal body-guard (Josephus, σωματοφύλακες). On the other hand, the modern interpreters are not agreed whether both expressions are to be under stood ethnographically or appellatively. They who urge the former, appeal to 1 Samuel 30:14, and hold αְּ ?ψֵ ?ϊִ ?ι for the designation of the parentstem of the Philistines, which had migrated from Crete, and that τְּ ?μֵ ?ϊִ ?ι, too, is the same with τְּ ?μִ ?ωְׁ ?ϊִ ?ι. David, who for a long while had remained amongst the Philistines, had collected his body-guard from amongst foreigners and not from his own people, and afterwards the appellative remained (Movers, Hitzig, Bertheau, Ewald). Others derive λψϊι from λψϊ, and τμϊι from the Arabic, cognate with τμν, &c., understanding by the former, lictors, the royal executioners of the punishment of death, and by the latter, runners who, like the ἄγγαροι of the Persians, had to carry commands to remote places (2 Chronicles 30:6). we hold to this latter view, along with Gesenius, Keil, and Thenius, for although the plural form Ξִ ?ι instead of Ξִ ?ιν for appellations is certainly unusual, we cannot perceive why two designations should be employed side by side, for one and the same people. (We do not say Britons and Englishmen.) So, then, later the royal body-guard were called δַ ?λָּ ?ψִ ?ιεְ ?δָ ?ψָ ?φִ ?ιν (comp. 2 Kings 11:4 sq.), i.e., executioners and runners. And last of all, it is highly improbable that David, who was perpetually at war with the Philistines, would have selected his body-guards from them.—The horn of oil out of the tabernacle (1 Kings 1:39). The “oil of holy ointment” (Exodus 30:23 sq.) was preserved in the tabernacle in which the ark of the covenant was kept (1 Chronicles 15:1). The pouring of this oil upon the head symbolized the communication of the Spirit (ψεּ ?ηַ) of Jehovah (1 Samuel 16:13). By anointing, the royal office with which Solomon was to be invested was set forth as essentially theocratic. The king of Israel was, upon this account absolutely the anointed of the Lord (1 Samuel 2:10; 1 Samuel 2:35; 1 Samuel 24:7). The taking of the horn from the “tabernacle” does not force us to the conclusion that the act of anointing took place before or at it and at the same time, also at Gibeon, as Thenius maintains. The great joy and jubilation of the whole people shows that they knew nothing of Adonijah’s right to the throne, but that they rather accepted David’s decision, who alone had the right to decide. They saw in Solomon’s elevation a victory over the unauthorized usurper. Flutes were used at festivals, especially at the feast of tabernacles (Isaiah 5:12; Isaiah 30:29; Winer, R. - W.- B., ii. s. 123).1 Kings 1:40. The earth rent. So according to the Chald., which explains ϊִּ ?αָּ ?χַ ?ς by ζָ ?ςַ ?ϊ. The Sept. has ἥχησε; the Vulg. insonuit. Thenius reads ϊִּ ?ϊָּ ?χַ ?ς, the earth was struck = quaked, which seems unnecessary. 1 Kings 1:41-48. And Adonijah .… heard it, &c. While the assembled guests heard the noise and the cry in the city, the experienced soldier Joab caught the sound of the trumpets especially, and concluded, from this warlike token, nothing good. Jonathan, the son of Abiathar, who here, as in 2 Samuel 15:36; 2 Samuel 17:17 appears as the bringer of news, was probably left behind in the city designedly to observe what was going on. Although scarcely himself a witness of what transpired in the royal palace, he could, nevertheless, as Solomon had already made his entrance, be well informed by eye and car witnesses. Joab named him a valiant man, i.e., a person whoso report could be trusted. The εַ ?ιִּ ?ωְׁ ?ϊַּ ?ηεּ at the end of 1 Kings 1:47, as David was lying upon his bed, certainly cannot mean that ho fell upon his knees; still less is a thankful bow in return to those who were congratulating him meant (Thenius). The king bowed himself with his body as far as he could, before his Lord and God, and spake: Blessed, &c. The εְ ?βַ ?ν at the beginning of 1 Kings 1:48 does not indicate a new, different action, but simply states that besides his bowing, he spake also the words which follow. 1 Kings 1:49-53. And all the guests .… were afraid, &c. The panic which forthwith seized Adonijah and his followers, shows that their conscience was not upright in their undertaking, i.e., that they themselves were not convinced of the righteousness of Adonijah’s claims, otherwise they would, with Joab at their head, have made a stand, and not scattered at once. To save his life, which he, as a usurper of the throne, believed he had forfeited, Adonijah fled to the altar, which stood before the tabernacle upon Zion (1 Kings 3:15; 2 Samuel 6:17). He laid hold of the horns of the altar, as did Joab afterwards (1 Kings 2:28), and appealed thereby to the pardoning power and grace of Jehovah (comp. upon the significance of the act, my Symbolik des Mos. Cult., i. s. 473 sq.). This asylum was ordained originally for unintentional man-slayers (Exodus 21:12 sq); but later on it appears to have been made use of by persons who feared punishment by death. Solomon regarded Adonijah’s flight to the horns of the altar as a confession of his guilt and repentance, and he exercised an act of clemency which could only produce the most favorable impression upon the people. Yet ho adds a warning in the words: Go to thine house, i.e., not: Do not come into my presence (2 Samuel 14:24), but: Keep thyself quiet, live as a private person, then not the least harm shall befall thee. Historical and Ethical1. The entire first chapter turns upon the eleven Hon of Solomon to the throne, which is narrated so circumstantially with its immediate occasion and all the attending circumstances, because, as has already been shown in the Introduction, § 3, it constitutes in the highest degree a weighty moment in the development of the history of the Old Testament theocracy. With it begins the period of a blooming of the kingdom of Israel which it never had before, and which never came again. Solomon thereby became elevated to the type of a great, mighty, wise, and prosperous king, which lie passes for even to this day in the Orient. The prophets even depict the glory and happiness of the Messianic kingdom with expressions which are borrowed from the description of the kingdom of Israel under Solomon. (Comp. Micah 4:4, and Zechariah 3:10, with 1 Kings 5:5.) He is, according to his name, the prince of peace, κατ’ ἐξοχήν, and the beloved of God (2 Samuel 12:25), designations which by the prophets and in the New Testament are applied, in like manner, to the Messiah the son of David in the most eminent sense (Isaiah 9:5-6; Ephesians 1:6; Ephesians 2:14; Colossians 1:13). The reception of “The Song of Solomon” into the Old Testament canon shows that to the Jewish synagogue the typical relation was not unknown, and in the Christian Church it has always been maintained. 2. The brief introductory narrative, 1 Kings 1:1-4, has been found in many respects very scandalous. This has arisen from the wholly false presupposition that it treats of the gratification of the lustfulness of a worn-out old man by means of a concubine. But of this the text declares so little, that it rather states explicitly, David did not know Abishag. The means winch the physicians—not he himself—selected to restore to him his lost natural warmth, were, if not unheard of, at least morally questionable, yea, from a Christian point of view, decidedly objectionable. That they did not hesitate to recommend it, has indeed its ground, not in conscious immorality and frivolity, but in the perverted views prevalent throughout the entire ancient Orient upon the relation of the sexes, or in the deeply-rooted lack of chastity, which even the stern lawgiver Moses was not able to put an end to. Hence polygamy was not only permitted, but it was regarded by kings as somewhat belonging to their royal estate, and it never occurred to any one to object to them upon that account. (Comp. 2 Samuel 5:13; 1 Kings 11:3; 2 Chronicles 11:21; Judges 8:30.) This explains the reason why David did not reject the medical advice, and why the matter did not cause any scandal among the people, why even Bath-sheba herself did not feel aggrieved (1 Kings 1:15). Whatsoever the narrative has which is repulsive to us, does not adhere to a particular person nor to this particular instance, but to the general lack of conjugal chastity in the Old Testament. 3. Adonijah’s undertaking, in which there is so unmistakably a reference to Absalom’s, is to be understood throughout as blameworthy. He knew that the decision upon the succession to the throne depended upon his father, and that he had already selected Solomon. He knew also the tragical end of Absalom’s attempt. Nevertheless, he would not be warned by it, but set himself up in the way of self over-estimation, making boast of his beautiful figure. King will he be at any cost. He makes his preparations without his father’s consent, takes advantage of his infirmity and weakness, and secretly enters into combinations with the most influential men who belonged, more or less, to the class of malcontents. He allows himself to become impatient through his lust for ruling, and to rush into a measure in every respect premature. Upon the first intelligence, nevertheless, of Solomon’s accession, a shameful panic seizes him. All courage to risk the least thing for his cause fails him. The whole crowd of his followers scatters like dust, and he himself, in a cowardly way, seeks to save only his life. He anxiously flies to a place of refuge, clings to it, calls himself Solomon’s “servant,” and salutes him as king. But, scarcely is the danger past, he breaks his pledged word to behave quietly, and starts anew in secret machinations to reach his goal, He flatters the mother of Solomon with hypocritical humility, and seeks to move the heart of the wife (see on 1 Kings 2:13 sq.). Rightly does Ewald say of him: “A man who, according to all the known features of our memorial of him, has much that resembles Absalom, fine form, airy, and ambitious of power, yet inwardly scarcely fit for governing; of an obdurate mind, and yet afraid to venture upon open battle. That he was no proper sovereign for such a kingdom as Israel then was, must be obvious to intelligent men.” 4. Nathan hero, as always (2 Samuel 7, 12), appears right genuinely as prophet. When there is an attempt to bring to completion human self-willed beginnings over-against the counsel and will of God, where the safety and well-being of the chosen people were at stake, then it was the calling of the prophet to interfere, counselling and reminding, warning and punishing. It was not so much personal friendship for David, and love for his pupil Solomon, as rather, and before all, the known will of Jehovah, which had determined that the latter should be king, that induced him to take the step which would have had the most disastrous consequences for himself, yea, might have cost him his life, had Adonijah become king. It was not Zadok, nor Benaiah, nor any of the other friends of David, who brought to nought the ill-starred enterprise. But the same prophet, through whom the great promise had been made to David in respect of the succession; by the providence of God, averted also that which interfered with the fulfilment of the promise. And without his prompt, spirited interference there would have been for Israel no Solomon-era, no glorious age of the theocratic house. He proceeded in the matter with great wisdom and circumspection. First he allows the mother of Solomon to prepare the way, conciliating the infirm and feeble king, then he enters before him himself, with all deference indeed, nevertheless at the same time earnestly reminding and slightly reproving him, and calls upon him as a man and servant of God to fulfil the promise ho had given unto the Lord. 5. The conduct of David, when ho learns what is going on, corresponds fully with the divine will and with his great calling as the founder of the theocratic kingdom, and of the new dynasty which is to sit forever upon the throne of Israel. He does not stagger irresolutely hither and thither, like a sick, feeble old man without any will of his own, but, as if ho were still the strong hero, the undismayed, determined, energetic man, such as in his best years he had so often shown himself amid dangers and in critical situations, he raises himself from his sick-bed, swears to observe his word, issues his orders, and puts them into immediate execution. This resolution and firmness could not have proceeded possibly from their opposite, from an inward infirmity, i.e., from compliance with the supplication of a wife, nor from dislike of Adonijah, whom ho had never interfered with (1 Kings 1:6), but had heretofore always indulged too much. It is to be explained only by his faith in the promise of Jehovah, by his firm certainty and assurance that Solomon was appointed by Jehovah to be his successor, and that through him as well his own “house,” as the house of Jehovah, which it was permitted himself no longer to take care of, should be built up (2 Samuel 7:11-13). Upon this account also the Epistle to the Hebrews mentions him expressly in the list of the men who have held the faith, and obtained the promise (1 Kings 11:32). How could Ho have sworn by Him who had “redeemed his soul out of all distress,” and then, in deep humility, have praised and glorified Him, had ho been conscious of any injustice towards Adonijah, and had not, in the prosperous issue of his commands, beheld a gracious guidance of the God of Israel? It is clear that under such a man as Adonijah, who was lacking in all the qualities requisite for the head of the theocracy, the kingdom never would have reached the bloom which it reached under Solomon. It would have been the greatest misfortune for Israel had he ascended the throne, while, viewed apart from the promise, the high and extraordinary endowment of Solomon was a clear indication of Providence that he alone of all his brothers was fitted to preserve, indeed to increase, what David had acquired with indescribable toil and great conflict, under the visible assistance of God. David did not deprive Adonijah of what rightly belonged to him, he only did not bestow upon him what he craved in his foolish arrogance and ambition, to the detriment of the kingdom. 6. Of Solomon himself we learn here only this one thing, that he instantly allowed Adonijah to go free, who, by his flight to a place of refuge, was self-convicted of guilt, and, according to the custom in such cases, feared punishment by death. His first act as king was significantly an act of magnanimity and grace, which appears all the more worthy of admiration when we remember “that Adonijah, had ho won, would certainly have destroyed his brother and all his chief supporters” (Ewald), as both Nathan and Bath-sheba undoubtedly expected (1 Kings 1:12; 1 Kings 1:21). 7. The new historic criticism sees “in our narrative, distinctly, the fully natural machinery of human actions” (Thenius), a “court-cabal,” the “astute manager” of which is Nathan (Kφster). “Bath-sheba sought to secure the crown for her son Solomon, although, after Absalom’s death, it devolved upon the fourth son of David, Adonijah, whom Hagith had borne to him. One of the two priests at the ark of the covenant, Zadok, supported Bath-sheba’s designs, just as Nathan the prophet…… Both could expect from the young Solomon a greater complaisance towards priestly influence than from the more independent Adonijah, especially if they helped the young man, against right, to the throne. It was characteristic of Bath-sheba to induce David to swear by Jehovah that Solomon, instead of Adonijah, should be his successor. But Adonijah was resolved not to allow himself to be robbed of his good right through an intrigue of the harem… As David was sinking upon his death-bed, Adonijah believed that he must anticipate his enemies,” &c. (Duncker, Geschichte des Alterthums i. s. 385). Nothing is more certain than that the biblical author did not look upon the matter in such light. This whole exposition is a distinct example of the mode of treating biblical history already described in the Introduction, § 5. It abandons the standpoint of the narrator, arranges the history man-fashion, and then, as is the case here, perverts it into its opposite. The divine promise becomes a fine-spun harem intrigue, the “great prophet,” as Ewald also calls him, becomes the intriguing manager of a court-cabal, the true priest is reduced to the level of a self-seeker, the firm believing king, the man after God’s heart, the play-ball of a woman and of a court-party, the greatest and wisest king of Israel is a throne-robber, and on the other hand the airy, incapable, deceitful, and cowardly usurper Adonijah becomes a martyr of the right and the unfortunate victim of impure machinations. This entire perverted interpretation rests upon the presupposition, already sufficiently proved groundless, that Adonijah, was “the rightful heir,” and falls to pieces with it. 8. [“It is true that Adonijah was David’s eldest son now remaining, and therefore might seem to challenge the justest title to the crown; but the kingdom of Israel, in so late an erection, had not yet known the right of succession. God himself, that had ordained the government, was as yet the immediate elector; He fetched Saul from among the stuff, and David from the sheep-fold, and has now appointed Solomon from the ferule to the sceptre.”—Bp. Hall, Contemplations, Bk. xvii., Contemplation i.—E. H.] Homiletical and Practical1 Kings 1:1-4. Weakness and infirmity in old age are: (a) the universal human lot to which we must all consider ourselves appointed (Psalms 90:10); (b) they should loosen the bands which hold us to the temporal and perishable, and ripen us for eternity (2 Corinthians 4:17 sq.).—Wόrt. Summ.: They who, through many a cross, and sorrow, and anxiety, expend their bodily powers, should be all the more patient, and console themselves here with the example of David, and know that among the saints of God, also, feebleness of body is found.—We may, and should, follow advice for the relief of our distress and the preservation of our life, in so far as it does not militate against the commands of God; for the Lord says, “it is better,” &c. (Matthew 18:8).—Old and sick people should, and it is expected of them as a work well pleasing to God that they bear this with a willing heart, with patience, self-denial, and sacrificing love. 1 Kings 1:5-10. Adonijah’s attempt to obtain the crown: (a) the ground upon which it rests (upon self-assertion, pride, lust of power, 1 Kings 1:5, but God resisteth the proud, and a haughty spirit goeth before a fall: upon outward qualities, age, and beautiful person, 1 Kings 1:6, but 1 Samuel 16:7; Psalms 147:10-11); (b) the means which he employed (he seeks to impose upon the people by chariots and horsemen, but Psalms 20:8; he conspires with false and faithless men, but they forsake him in the hour of danger, 1 Kings 1:49; Psalms 101:6-7; he prepares for appearance’ sake a religious festival, 1 Kings 1:9, but 2 Mos. 1 Kings 20:7). 1 Kings 1:5. The effort after high things (Romans 12:16).—How many a person thinks: I will become a great personage, a man of authority and influence, and then scruples at nothing in order to attain his goal. But that which is written in 1 Corinthians 7:20; 1 Corinthians 7:24 applies to the individual as well as to entire classes.—Wόrt. Summ.: Let no one attempt to take an office against God and His will; “and no man taketh this honor unto himself but he that is called of God” (Hebrews 5:4). 1 Kings 1:6. The father who allows his son to go on in his pride and in worldly or sinful conduct, and shuts his eyes, not to trouble him, must expect that the son will trouble him and embitter the evening of his life. It is the right and duty of every father to speak to his son about his conduct even when he is no longer a child, and to ask, Why dost thou so? A perverted parental love is self-punished, Proverbs 29:17; Sir 30:9. 1 Kings 1:7. High personages always find people for the execution of their sinful plans, who, from subserviency or desire of reward, from ambition or revenge, will act as counsellors and agents; but they have their reward, and for the most part end with terror. 1 Kings 1:8. With those who are meditating treason and destruction we should never make common cause (Proverbs 24:21-22). 1 Kings 1:9-10. Seiler: He who will not abide his time until God himself shall elevate him, will fall even when he attempts to rise. He who gives the crowd wherewith to eat and to drink, who prepares for them festivities and pleasures (panem et circenses), makes himself popular and beloved for the moment; but all who allow themselves to be gained in such way, to-day shout Hosanna! and to-morrow, Crucify! By not inviting Solomon, Adonijah betrayed his plans, and himself gave the occasion for their frustration (Psalms 69:23; Romans 11:9). It is a rule of the divine world-government that the cause of God, through that whereby its enemies seek to thwart and hinder it, is only so much the more promoted. 1 Kings 1:11-27. Nathan, the type of a true prophet: (a) through his watchfulness and fidelity (Ezekiel 33:7), he is not silent when it was his duty to open his mouth (Isaiah 56:10); (b) through his wisdom and gentleness (Matthew 10:16); (c) through his earnestness and courage (Matthew 10:28; see Histor. and Ethical). How grand is this Nathan, how reproving to all who sleep when they should be wakeful, who are dumb when they should counsel, who flatter when they should warn. 1 Kings 1:11. It is a solemn duty not to conceal what can prove an injury and evil to an individual or to a community, but to expose it at the right time and in the right place, so that the injury may be averted. 1 Kings 1:12. What Nathan here says to Bath-sheba, Christ and his apostles, in an infinitely higher sense, say to us all, especially to every father and to every mother. He who has come into the world to deliver and to save our souls, cries, Come unto me, &c. (Matthew 11:28-29), and the apostle advises the jailor, who asks in terror and alarm, What shall I do to be saved? i.e., delivered, Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, so shall thou and thy house be delivered. How many take kindly the good advice of a wise man, for themselves and for their children, in their earthly and outward affairs, but who wish to hear nothing of the best advice which shall bring blessedness to their souls. 1 Kings 1:14. The purity of the counsel is confirmed by the accompanying result. 1 Kings 1:15-21. Bath-sheba before the king. She reminds him of his duty (a) towards God, before whom he had sworn (what one has vowed before God, according to God’s will, one must hold to under all circumstances; of this one must remind kings and princes); (b) towards the people whose well-being and whose woe were in his keeping (the great responsibility of him towards whom all eyes are directed); (c) towards the wife and son whose happiness and life were at stake (woe to the father through whose guilt wife and children, after his death, fall into contempt and wretchedness). 1 Kings 1:22-27. As Nathan does not hold back from the fulfilment of his holy calling through consideration of the danger threatening his life, and of the illness of the king, so David is deterred in nothing when it was said, Behold the prophet! from listening to the man of God, though his word, like a two-edged sword, may pierce through his soul. To have a Nathan by one’s side, who refers at the right time and in the right way to the will of God, is the choicest blessing for a prince. “He who fears God lays hold of such a friend” (Eccles. 6:16).—The ministers of God and the preachers of His word should not indeed mingle in worldly business and political affairs, but their calling always requires them to testify against uproar and sedition, for he who resisteth the powers, resisteth the ordinance of God (Romans 13:2).—With questions which lead to a knowledge of self, he who has the care of souls often accomplishes more than by direct reproaches and disciplinary speeches. 1 Kings 1:28-37. David’s decision: (a) His oath (1 Kings 1:29-30) is an evidence of his firm faith in the divine promise; (b) his command is a living proof of the truth of the word, Isaiah 40:31, and Psalms 92:15 sq. (see Histor. and Ethical). 1 Kings 1:30 sq. The word of a prince must stand firm and not be broken. Happy for the king who, under all circumstances, observes what he has promised. Fidelity in high places meets with fidelity from those below. 1 Kings 1:36. Where the government is in firm hands there is found also a willing, joyous obedience. Upon God’s blessing all is founded. Without God’s Amen our Amen avails nothing. Loyal subjects know that they can wish for nothing greater and better for their prince and ruler than that God, at all times, may be with him. 1 Kings 1:38-40. The typical in Solomon’s elevation to the sovereignty: (a) He is established in spite of all machinations against him (Psalms 2:2; Hebrews 5:5); (b) he is anointed with oil from the sanctuary (Isaiah 61:1; Luke 4:18); (c) he makes his entry as prince of peace amid the jubilee and praise of the people (Zechariah 9:9; Matthew 21:1 sq.).—Starke: My Christian! reflect here upon the trumpet-sounding and the jubilee-shout, when the heavenly Solomon shall take possession of his kingdom (Revelation 11:16), and see to it that thou also mayest be amongst those who have part in this joy. 1 Kings 1:41-49. The frustration of the schemes of Adonijah (Job 5:12): (a) The intelligence he obtains; (b) the effect produced by this intelligence. To an evil conscience (Joab) the trumpets which announce victory and joy are judgment-trumpets, which sound forth, Thou art weighed and found wanting. The same message in which David expresses himself, Blessed be, &c., 1 Kings 1:48, works terror and alarm in Adonijah and his party. So still ever sounds the “good message” that the true Prince of peace, Christ, has won the victory, and is seated at the right hand of God, which to some is for thanksgiving and praise, so that they support themselves upon it, but to others it is a stone of stumbling, so that they fall and are confounded (Isaiah 8:14; Luke 2:34).—In the intoxication of sinful pleasure and of God-forgetting, frivolous jubilation, the holy God sends, oftentimes, the thunder and lightning of his judgment, so that the besotted and maddened may thereby be rendered sober and made to experience that there is an holy God in heaven who will not allow himself to be mocked. When Adonijah held a great festivity he had plenty of friends; but when the messenger came with evil tidings, no one, not even the bold Joab, stood by him; they all forsook him (Ecclesiastes 6:10-12). 1 Kings 1:50-53. Adonijah covered himself with shame (Proverbs 11:2): (a) He was afraid of Solomon (he who does not fear the Lord, must at last become afraid of men). How miserable the contrast between the young, haughty Adonijah and the aged, feeble, but faithful-hearted and humble David; (b) he flies to the horns of the altar and begs for mercy: (he who said, I will be king, calls himself Solomon’s servant. Ostentation and boasting, as a rule, end in cowardice and cringing. He can bring down him who is proud (Daniel 4:34). In the old covenant the horns of the altar were the places of refuge for those who had forfeited life and sought grace; in the new covenant God has directed us to a horn of salvation (Luke 1:69), the cross of the Lord, which all must seize and hold fast to who seek forgiveness and grace, and wish to pass from death unto life. That is the only and true asylum; he who flees thither avails himself of the word of the great Prince of peace, Go in peace, thy faith hath saved thee. The most beautiful prerogative of the crown is to do mercy for judgment; but mercy must never be for a covering of iniquity. Hence by the side of the word: Thy sins are forgiven thee! stands the other word: Sin no more! Kings and princes do well when, after Solomon’s example, they begin their reign with an act of grace. [Bp. Hall. “Outward happiness and friendship are not known until our last act. In the impotency potency of either our revenge or recompense it will easily appear who loved us for ourselves, who for their own ends.” Suitable for 1 Kings 1:7. Bp. Hall, for 1 Kings 1:41. “No doubt at this feast there was many a health drunken to Adonijah, many a confident boast of their prospering design, many a scorn of the despised faction of Solomon; and now, for their last dish (1 Kings 1:49) is served up astonishment, and fearful expectation of a just revenge.—E. H.] Footnotes: [I am indebted to my friend, Frederic Gardiner, D. D., Professor in the Berkeley Divinity School, Middletown, Conn. for the accompanying textual revision and original grammatical notes.—E. H.] 1 Kings 1:1.—[αָּ ?ΰαַ ?ιָּ ?ξִ ?ιν always connected with ζָ ?χֵ ?ο (Genesis 18:11; Genesis 24:1; Joshua 13:1 bis, Joshua 23:1-2) exactly corresponds to the phrase in A. V. 1 Kings 1:1.—[αְּ ?βָ ?γִ ?ιν bed-clothes (cf. 1 Samuel 19:13), not garments. 1 Kings 1:2.—[The translation of πַ ?ςֲ ?ψָ ?δ in 1 Kings 1:3-4 may well stand here also. 1 Kings 1:2.—In place of the suffix κָ the Sept. has αὐτοῦ and the Vulg. suo, which Thenius prefers to the reading of the text—Bδhr. 1 Kings 1:2.—[The Alex. Sept., Syr., and Vulg., read our.1 Kings 1:3.—[The definite article should be expressed as in 1 Kings 1:15. 1 Kings 1:13.—[The particle λִּ ?ι, as is recognized in all the V V., can hardly give the emphasis of the Eng. assuredly.1 Kings 1:14.—[Many MSS. and VV. prefix and.1 Kings 1:14.—[ξִ ?μֵּ ?ΰϊִ ?ιΰֶ ?ϊΞγְּ ?αָ ?ψָ ?ιִ ?κְ not complete, fill out, but, as in A. V., confirm; Chald. ΰֲ ?χַ ?ιֵּ ?ν, Sept., πληρώσω. The phrase is used of the fulfilment of divine utterances. cf. 1 Kings 2:27; 1 Kings 8:15; 1 Kings 8:24. 1 Kings 1:18.—All the VV. and 200 MSS. [and the early editions] read εְ ?ΰַ ?ϊָּ ?δ instead of εְ ?ςַ ?ϊָּ ?δ, as the connection requires.—Bδhr. 1 Kings 1:20.—Instead of εְ ?ΰַ ?ϊָּ ?δ the Chaldee [Syr. and Vulg.], and some [many] MSS. have εְ ?ςַ ?ϊָּ ?δ, which Thenius considers right. On the other hand, Maurer remarks that the pronoun stands hero first, just as in Genesis 49:8, with emphasis, instead of the suffix.—Bδhr. 1 Kings 1:21.—[Counted is implied by the connection, but not expressed in the Hbr. 1 Kings 1:24.—[ΰַ ?ϊָּ ?δΰָ ?ξַ ?ψְ ?ϊָּ, the question is indicated only by the tone. 1 Kings 1:27.—[The pronoun it is better omitted, as in the Hbr. and all VV. 1 Kings 1:27.—The k’ri has ςαγκ, also nearly all the translations have the singular; but the reading of the text is preferred.—Bδhr. [It is that of many MSS.] 1 Kings 1:30.—[See note 1 Kings 1:13. 1 Kings 1:30.—[Hbr. and VV. omit certainly.1 Kings 1:33.—[ΰֲ ?γֹ ?πֵ ?ιλֶ ?ν in the pl. is rightly rendered by the sing. as referring to David—not to David and Solomon. 1 Kings 1:33.—[The Chaldee and Syr. read Siloa; Arabic, fountain of Siloa.1 Kings 1:36.—[The words say so too at the end of this ver. in the A. V. should be omitted; λֵּ ?οιֹ ?ΰξַ ?ψιְ ?δεָֹ ?δ is to be taken historically, not optatively. Three MSS. followed by the Syr. and Arab, read ιςωδ for ιΰξψ. 1 Kings 1:38.—[The Chald., Syr., and Arab., make the same change here as in 1 Kings 1:33. 1 Kings 1:42.—[The words unto him are unnecessary; not contained in the Hbr. nor the V V. 1 Kings 1:45.—[As. in 1 Kings 1:33; 1 Kings 1:38. 1 Kings 1:47.—The k’tib [ΰμδικ] is plainly preferable to the k’ri ΰμδιν—Bδhr [and is followed by the Syriac]. 1 Kings 1:49.—[The Vatican (not Alex.) Sept. omits and rose up.1 Kings 1:51.—[The Vatican (not Alex.) Sept. omits king. 1 Kings 1:51.—[Instead of λιεν some MSS. read διεν, which has been followed apparently by the A. V.—F. G.] [The allegorical interpretation of Jerome makes the Shunammite damsel the ever-virgin wisdom of God so extolled by Solomon (sapientia qu� numquam senescit, Epist. § 2; ad Nepotianum, chap. 4; Opera, i. p. 288). But in another passage Jerome understands the story literally, and enumerates this relation among the sins and imperfections of David, which would not be allowed under the gospel dispensation (contra Jovin. l. i., chap. xxiv., tom. i. 274).—P. S.] The translator, after some hesitation, have adopted the above as a caption. It is not a translation of the author’s heading. He has It “heilsgeschichtliche,” which expresses the conception of the historical process of healing or salvation. It is a term for which we have no available equivalent In English, although the thought embodied by the word is clear enough.] B.—David’s last words to Solomon, and his death1 Kings 2:1-121 Now the days of David drew nigh that he should die; and he charged Solomon his son, saying, 2I go the way of all the earth: be thou strong therefore, and shew thyself a man; 3and keep the charge of the Lord [Jehovah] thy God, to walk in His ways, to keep His statutes, and His commandments, and His judgments, and His testimonies, as it is written in the law of Moses, that thou mayest prosper in all that thou doest, and whithersoever thou turnest thyself: 4that the Lord [Jehovah] may continue [confirm] His word which he spake concerning me, saying, If thy children [sons] take heed to their way, to walk before me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul, there shall not fail thee (said he) a man on the throne of Israel. 5Moreover thou knowest also what Joab the son of Zeruiah did to me, and [even] what he did to the two captains of the hosts of Israel, unto Abner the son of Ner, and unto Amasa the son of Jether, whom he slew, and shed the blood of war in peace, and put the blood of war upon his girdle that was about his loins, and in his shoes that were on his feet. 6Do therefore according to thy wisdom, and let not his hoar head go down to the grave in peace. 7But shew kindness unto the sons of Barzillai the Gileadite, and let them be of those that eat at thy table: for so they came to 8me when I fled because of [before] Absalom thy brother. And, behold, thou hast with thee Shimei the son of Gera, a Benjamite [a son of the Jaminite] of Bahurim, which cursed me with a grievous curse in the day when I went to Mahanaim: but he came down to meet me at Jordan, and I sware to him by the Lord [Jehovah], saying, I will not put thee to death with the sword. 9Now therefore hold him not guiltless: for thou art a wise man, and knowest what thou oughtest to do unto him; but his hoar head bring thou down to the grave with blood. 10So [And] David slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David. 11And the days that David reigned over Israel were forty years: seven years reigned he in Hebron, and thirty and three years reigned he in Jerusalem. 12Then sat Solomon upon the throne of David his father; and his kingdom was established greatly. Exegetical and Critical1 Kings 2:1. Now the days of David, &c. The Chronicles omit the history of Adonijah, but narrate instead, that David ordered a solemn act of homage of the entire people, in the persons of their representatives, towards Solomon when he was anointed “a second time” (1 Chronicles 23:1 sq., and 1 Chronicles 29:20-25). Such also was the case with Saul (1 Samuel 11:12-15), and with David himself (2 Samuel 5:1-3; 1 Chronicles 11:1-3). Solomon’s first anointing was rather impromptu, called for by the pressure of circumstances, upon which account it was proper that it should be followed by another done with all solemnity before the whole people. It took place also before that which is narrated in the section to be considered. The words, “a second time,” show that the first anointing was well known to the chronicler. His narrative, besides, does not “rest upon liberty with the history” (Thenius), but is a filling-out of our own, with which it agrees very well. 1 Kings 2:2-4. I go the way, &c. The form of expression reminds one of Jos 23:14; 1 Samuel 4:9; but especially of Jos 1:7. The exhortation: Be thou strong, therefore, and show thyself a man! does not mean: be consoled on account of my departure, bear it manfully; but it refers to what follows—be strong and brave in the “charge” of Jehovah, in the fulfilment of His prescripts. The expression: ωָׁ ?ξַ ?ψְ ?ϊָּ ξִ ?ωְׁ ?ξֶ ?ψֶ ?ϊιְ ?δεָֹ ?δ does not convey the sense: consider what Jehovah wills to have considered, i.e., His laws (for then the following would be pleonastic), but rather custodies custodiam Jehovae, keep the charge which thou art bound to Jehovah, to accomplish; be a true watchman in the service of Jehovah and for Him (comp. 1 Chronicles 23:32; 1 Chronicles 12:29; Numbers 3:6-8; Numbers 3:38). This charge is fulfilled in walking in the ways of God—in observing His various commandments. The expressions which here, as elsewhere, so frequently standing side by side, denote the latter (Deuteronomy 5:28; Deuteronomy 8:11; Psalms 118:5 sq.), do not admit of sharply-drawn distinctions; but they “denote together the totality of the law upon its different sides and relations to men” (Keil).—δִ ?ωְׂ ?λִּ ?ιμ does not mean exactly “to have good fortune” (Gesenius, De Wette, and others), but to be skilful, wise. He who in all things stands upon the commandments of God, and governs himself thereafter, is and carries himself wisely. What he does, will and must have a prosperous issue, and come to a right conclusion (Deuteronomy 29:8; Jeremiah 3:15 sq.; Jeremiah 23:5; Proverbs 17:8; 2 Kings 18:7).—In 1 Kings 2:4 the positive promise in 2 Samuel 7:11 sq. is expressed in negative form, as also in 1 Kings 8:25; 1 Kings 9:5; Jeremiah 33:17. The μֹ ?ΰΞιִ ?λָּ ?ψֵ ?ϊ “does not denote a completely unbroken succession, but only the opposite of a break forever” (Hengstenberg). Thy house and seed shall never be exterminated, what catastrophies soever may happen. 1 Kings 2:5-6. The charge which David delivers in 1 Kings 2:5-9, were not, according to Ewald and Eisenlohr, originally made by him; but were first, at some subsequent time, put into his mouth in order to explain and justify Solomon’s severity to Joab and to Shimei (1 Kings 2:28 sq.). This supposition is as unnecessary as arbitrary.—Upon the double murder of which Joab was guilty, comp. 2 Samuel 3:27 sq., and 1 Kings 20:8 sq. The first threw a false suspicion upon David (2 Samuel 3:37); the second was coupled with scorn and defiance of the royal authority (2 Samuel 20:11); hence what he has done to me (to my injury).—ιָ ?ωֶׂ ?ν, 1 Kings 2:5, literally, he shed “blood of war” in peace, i.e., he furnished an unheard of example when he killed Abner and Amasa, not as foes, in open, honorable warfare, but murderously destroyed the inoffensive. Instead of the second “blood of war,” Thenius, after the Sept. (αἶμαἀθῶον), reads γָּ ?νπַ ?χִ ?ι, which makes good sense, certainly, but is unnecessary.—Girdle and shoes are not here introduced as “especial parts of oriental costume” (Thenius, Keil); nor is it thereby said, “from the girdle of his loins, to the latchet of his shoes,” i.e., over and over (Ewald); but girdle and shoes here are rather the marks of the warrior, as in Isaiah 5:27 and Ephesians 6:14 sq., for the sword is fastened to the girdle (2 Samuel 20:8), and the shoes serve for marching, and provided with both, one enters upon battle. David also means to say: Joab has soiled with murder and blood the insignia of his rank and dignity as a soldier and generalissimo, and covered his office with shame and disgrace.—According to thy wisdom. “David does not wish Solomon to invent a pretext for taking Joab’s life; but he exhorts him to observe wisely the right moment and occasion, when Joab shall furnish a reason, to hold him to account also for his blood-guiltiness, so that no murmuring shall arise among the people; but every one can see the justice of the punishment” (Starke).—In peace,i.e., so unpunished as if he had done only good, and committed no crime worthy of death. 1 Kings 2:7-9. Barzillai. Comp. 2 Samuel 17:27 sq.At thy table,i.e., not “that they shall have the privilege of eating with the king at the royal table itself” (Keil); but they shall receive their necessary food from the court, like the royal servants (Daniel 1:5). The recollection of the noble service of Barzillai leads to the mention of the crime of Shimei, committed on the same occasion (2 Samuel 16:5 sq., and 1 Kings 19:21).—ςִ ?ξְּ ?κָ (1 Kings 2:8) does not mean under thy power (Starke), but near thee. Bahurim, where Shimei dwelt (2 Samuel 16:5), was a village in the neighborhood of Jerusalem (Joseph. Ant. 7, 9, 7), about one and a-half hours’ (five miles and a quarter) distant from it. David does not say simply, he cursed me; but emphatically, he cursed me with a curse, and adds the epithet, πִ ?ξְ ?ψֶ ?φֶ ?ϊ, which, according to Thenius, because the primary signification of ξψυ is, to be exhausted, sick, means “heinous” in the sense of horrendus. According to Kimchi and Gesenius, the primary signification is, to be powerful, strong, and for this the remaining passages, where the word occurs, decide (Micah 2:10; Job 6:25; Job 16:3; Vulgate, Maledictio pessima).—For thou art a wise man, and knowest,i.e., I leave to thy discretion the how and when of the punishment. An αἰτίαεὔλογος (Josephus), will not be wanting. With blood, the opposite of the “in peace” in 1 Kings 2:6, inasmuch as he has deserved it. 1 Kings 2:10-11. In the city of David,i.e., in Mount Zion, in which, caves that served as burial vaults were constructed (Winer, R.-W.-B., ii. s. 736). According to Thenius the entrance into these vaults was on the east, in the vale Tyropoeon, in a sloping declivity of the mountain, opposite the spring Siloam. The later kings also were buried here (1 Kings 11:43; 1 Kings 14:31; 1 Kings 15:8, &c.). The still so-called kings’ graves are different, and are situated on the opposite side, to the north of the Damascus gate (Robinson, Palestine, vol. i. p. 240 and 357 sq.). David had, without doubt, prepared these burial-places for himself and his successors. In what high estimation his tomb was held is clear from the circumstance that it was known even during the time of Christ (Acts 2:29). According to 2 Samuel 5:5, six months were added to the seven years. 1 Kings 2:12 is the transition to the next section, where it is told how Solomon’s administration was strengthened. Historical and Ethical1. In the last words of David to Solomon, it is not so much the father speaking to his son, as the king of Israel, the head of the theocratic kingdom, to his successor upon the throne. From this stand-point we must view alike the general and the special portions of the whole discourse. The calling of a king of Israel consisted especially in this: to preserve the “kingdom of Jehovah” (1 Chronicles 28:5; 1 Chronicles 29:23); to be not the representative, but the servant of Jehovah, the true and proper king, also to observe “all the words of the Law, and all the ordinances of Jehovah” (Deuteronomy 17:14-20); but, before all, that supreme and chief command, Exodus 20:3-6, to observe completely the covenant which Jehovah had made with His chosen people. With this high calling David’s soul was completely filled; and as he had continually “done what was right in the eyes of Jehovah, and had not turned aside from anything that had been enjoined upon him all his life long” (1 Kings 15:5), so, also, in the last moments of his life, it was his greatest solicitude that his successor upon the throne should stand upon “the charge of Jehovah” (1 Kings 2:3), i.e., should take care that the law of Moses, with all its particular prescripts, in their entire circumference, should be maintained. This he earnestly and solemnly sets forth as the foundation of a prosperous and blessed reign, and as the condition of the fulfilment of the promise made to him in respect of the continuance of his “house” (2 Samuel 7.). So David appears here, yet once more, in his grand historical significance, namely, as the type of a theocratic king, by which the conduct of all subsequent kings is measured (1 Kings 3:3; 1 Kings 3:6; 1 Kings 3:14; 1 Kings 9:4; 1 Kings 10:4-6; 1 Kings 11:33-38; 1 Kings 14:8; 1 Kings 15:5-11; 2 Kings 14:3; 2 Kings 16:2; 2 Kings 18:3; 2 Kings 22:2). The throne of David is Israel’s model throne; no king of Israel has left behind him such a testament as David here. 2. It is worthy of remark, that the man who reigned forty years, and whose life as ruler was so rich in experience, should, amongst the counsels he imparted to his successor, have placed this in the fore front; “be thou strong, therefore, and show thyself a man!” He knew what belongs to the office of ruler. Moral weaknesses, swaying hither and thither like a reed moved by the wind; unseasonable pliability is a greater defect in a ruler than if he be overtaken by this or that particular sin in private life. Rightly says the Scripture, Woe to the land whose king is a child (instead of a man), Ecclesiastes 10:16. Firmness and manliness, however, are not the fruit of caprice, and of an unbroken heart. It is through grace that the heart is made strong (Hebrews 13:9). 3. The special directions, which refer to individual persons, David likewise communicates, not as a private man, but as king of Israel. Joab’s double murder had gone fully unpunished. At the time of its commission David was not in a condition to be able to punish him; but he felt the full weight of the deed, and in his horror of it uttered an imprecation of Joab (2 Samuel 3:29). In the eyes of the people, nevertheless, the non-punishment must have been regarded as an insult against law and righteousness, the charge of which devolved upon the king. “It was a stain upon his reign not yet blotted out. Even upon his death-bed he cannot think otherwise than that it is his duty, as that of the supreme judge, to deliver to his successor a definite direction about it” (Hess, Gesch. David’s, ii. s. 220). It lay upon his conscience, and he desired that this stain somehow (“do according to thy wisdom,” 1 Kings 2:1) should be removed. Moreover, Joab’s participation in Adonijah’s revolt must have appeared as dangerous for the throne of Solomon. As the punishment of Joab was to him a matter of conscience, so also was Barzillai’s compensation. What Barzillai had done, he had done for him as king, as the anointed of Jehovah. Such fidelity and devotion to the legitimate reigning house (Kφnigthum) in a time of great and almost universal falling away, ought to be publicly requited, and to be recognized in honorable remembrance after the death of the king. This compensation must serve, no less than the righteous punishment of Joab, to the firm establishment of the throne of Solomon. In direct contrast with the action of Barzillai was that of Shimei. He did not curse David as a private person, but he cursed him with the heaviest curse as the “anointed of Jehovah,” and therein Jehovah himself directly. For blasphemy against the king was on the same level with blasphemy against God (2 Kings 21:10). Both were punished with death (Leviticus 24:14 sq.; Exodus 22:27; 2 Samuel 16:9), hence also Abishai thought that Shimei should be put to death (2 Samuel 19:22). But David wished on the day when God had shown him a great mercy, to show mercy himself, and upon that account spared his life. But “it was no small matter to allow the miscreant to spend his life near him (no banishment was talked of). And to permit him to spend his days quietly under the following reign (which had never been promised him), would have been a kindness that might have been greatly abused as a precedent of unpunished crimes” (Hess). In fact, Shimei was a dangerous man, and capable of repeating what he had done to David. As for the rest, David left Solomon to choose the manner and time of his punishment, only he was not to go unpunished. 4. David’s conduct on his dying-bed has frequently been regarded as a great reproach to him. The latest (secular) history passes the following judgment upon it: “If David’s life and deeds had not sufficiently shown his mind, these last words of the dying man would leave no doubt about his character.… We must turn away from such blood-thirsty desire for revenge which, though innate with the Semitic races, is united here with a concealment of purpose and malice that are peculiar to David. His vengeance, even out of the grave itself, determines to strike, through the hand of his son, an insignificant man, to whom he (David) had once promised forgiveness when he himself was in a strait. Forgetting all the services and victories he owed to Joab, David determines, in order to gratify a long-cherished ill-feeling, to have a man, to whom he owed his kingdom and whom he himself had not ventured to touch, murdered by his son, ostensibly for two acts which Joab did, if not with David’s consent, yet by no means against his will; the fruits of which David had willingly accepted, and which acts he had not made the slightest efforts to punish” (Duncker, Gesch. des Alterthums, i. s. 386). In this view it is entirely overlooked that David did not then speak as a private man, but as a theocratic king, and this judgment of him is quite false, no regard being paid to the time and the circumstances. The rough, false assassin Joab, who finally conspires with Adonijah, is made to appear as a man of high merit, and the blasphemer and traitor Shimei, as an insignificant, unfairly-treated man, while David, who departs life without one crime on his conscience as king, and who desires to fulfil the demands of justice as well as of gratitude, is said to have displayed the whole of his wicked and malicious character at the last. “Nothing but an uncritical confusion, which wished to behold in David a saint and a complete model of virtue (which the Scriptures nowhere assert him to be), could call forth, as contrast, the degradation of the king, which is as one-sided as unpsychological” (Winer, R.-W.-B., i s. 258). [Yes! but our author forgets that David had sworn to Shimei, Thou shalt not die! (2 Samuel 19:23); and “the king” it was (i.e., David as king) that “swore unto him.” Clearly David’s act of grace to Shimei was an act of royal right, royal clemency, and nothing but sophistry can justify his dying charge to Solomon not to let the unfortunate man die in peace.—E. H.] When Bunsen’s Bibel-werk says: “The vengeance of David can never be justified from the Christian point of view,” it is quite overlooked that that point of view is not the fitting one here. David belonged to the Old Testament economy, to the time of the law, not the gospel, and his conduct must be judged in the light of the former. It is an anachronism to measure Old Testament persons by the standard of the sermon on the mount. Besides, the same apostle who exhorts the believers as follows: Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, immediately after, speaking of authorities—and David speaks as such here—tells them that they are “ministers of God, revengers to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil” (Romans 12:9; Romans 13:4). In the kingdom of God in which the law of earthly punishments prevailed, such a crime (like that of Joab and Shimei) could not remain unpunished. He, too, who, when He was reviled, reviled not again; who, when He suffered, threatened not (1 Peter 2:23), announced in a parable the final judgment of His enemies: “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me” (Luke 19:27 : v. Gerlach). We scarcely find as many instances of personal love to a foe, generosity and goodness, in the life of any Old Testament hero, as in David’s. It is evident that the author of our books does not relate the commissions objected to, to vilify David at the last, as Duncker does, but on the contrary he tells them, to his honor, to show how entirely king of Israel David was, even on his dying-bed. 5. Chronicles (1 Chronicles 29:28) relates the death of David with the addition that “he died in a good old age, full of days, riches, and honor.” We see how much he was honored even in death, from the fact that his weapons were preserved as relics in the sanctuary (2 Kings 11:10). Compare the eulogy in Sir 47:2-11. For the character of the great, and indeed greatest, king of Israel, though now so often unjustly judged, by whose name the expected Messiah was designated by the prophets (Ezekiel 34:23; Ezekiel 37:24; Hosea 3:5), comp. Niemeyer, Charaktistik der Bibel, iv. s. 107–358, and Ewald, Gesch. Isr., iii. s. 250–257, which says, with regard to the “last (poetical) words” of David (2 Samuel 23:1-7): “No prince, especially one who did not inherit the kingdom, could close his life with more blessed divine peace, or a more assured and cheerful view into the future.” Homiletical and Practical1 Kings 2:1-9. David’s last words to Solomon (a) with regard to the kingdom generally (1 Kings 2:1-4), (b) respecting some individuals (1 Kings 2:5-9; see Historical and Ethical). 1 Kings 2:2. Various as are the paths of men from their birth, yet they all, kings as well as beggars, rich and poor, go the way to the grave (Sir 40:1-3). And yet so many live as if they had not to travel that road (Psalms 39:5-6; Psalms 90:11-12).—The passing nature and vanity of the world, with its allurements and splendor, is a strong exhortation and warning from God to hold fast to the word that lives forever, and shall not pass even when heaven and earth pass away (1 Peter 1:24-25; 1 John 2:17; Luke 21:33).—Be firm and be a man! What is requisite to be one? how shall one become one? of what use? (Hebrews 13:9; 1 Corinthians 15:5-8; 1 Corinthians 16:13). 1 Kings 2:3. The last and best will of a father to his son: (a) Trust in God’s protection of yourself and all whom God has confided to your care; (b) walk in His ways; let Him lead and guide you, He will do it well (Proverbs 23:26; Psalms 35:5); (c) keep His ways and ordinances (Ecclesiastes 12:13; Psalms 1:1-6; Tob 4:6). Such an inheritance is greater and better than all the gold and land he might leave you.—True prudence and wisdom are not born of human thought and much knowledge, but are the fruit of the fear of God, and of walking in His ways and commandments (Psalms 111:10; Job 28:28).—God-fearing parents are more anxious about their children keeping close to God and His word, than about leaving them temporal goods. 1 Kings 2:4. The promises of God only proceed from His grace, not our merit; but their fulfilment is always coupled with conditions, which we have to perform if we would enjoy them (Hebrews 11:6; 1 Timothy 4:8). 1 Kings 2:5-9. We cannot go the way of all the world in peace, as long as we have anything remaining on our conscience, or any debt to justice and grateful love to cancel. We should forgive our enemies from our hearts, as we desire the Lord to forgive us, and especially on our dying-beds. But authority was instituted to “do justice; to prevent and punish wickedness;” it commits a sin and has a crime to answer for so long as it does not do this (Romans 13:4; Genesis 9:6). 1 Kings 2:6. Gray hairs, if found in the way of righteousness, are a crown of glory (Proverbs 16:31), adorned with which a man may go the way of all flesh in peace and comfort; but an old sinner, whom even gray hairs have not brought to repentance, goes down to the grave without solace or peace. 1 Kings 2:7. A noble heart does not forget what was done for him in times of trouble especially, and thinks of it even in the hour of death. The world is ungrateful. A blessing rests on deeds of faithfulness and self-sacrificing disinterested love, and it descends to children and children’s children. 1 Kings 2:8-9. A curse rests on those who curse the “powers” which are God’s ministers, instead of praying for them, and they are made, sooner or later, to feel the curse (1 Peter 2:17; 1 Peter 2:6). The Lord prayed for those who cursed Him; but when they did not repent and become converted, divine judgment came down on them. No doubt a wicked man often goes a long time unpunished for his deeds, but divine justice does not fail to overtake him finally, ere he is aware.—It requires wisdom to punish; a premature ill-judged chastisement does more harm than good. 1 Kings 2:10-12. David’s death: (a) He slept with his fathers (Starke: The death of believers is a sleep, and being gathered to their fathers, who also still live with God, and await the coming resurrection to eternal life, Isaiah 26:19); (b) they rest in the grave. (Rest is good to those who have borne the burden and heat of the day forty years long—that rest which God has promised to those who strive after eternal life with patient continuing in good works. Romans 2:7; Isaiah 57:2).—David’s grave is a pledge that the memory of the just is blessed (Prov. 40:7; Acts 2:29), and that the blessing of the father builds the children’s houses (1 Kings 2:12; Sir 3:11). Footnotes: 1 Kings 2:3.—[The Heb. ϊַּ ?ωְׂ ?λִ ?ιμ bears equally well the sense prosper or do wisely; cf. Joshua 1:7. The VV. generally adopt the former. 1 Kings 2:4.—[Confirm is the proper sense of ιָ ?χִ ?ιν as in all the VV. 1 Kings 2:4.—[It is better here to preserve the masculine form as in all the VV., the reference being undoubtedly to the line upon the throne. 1 Kings 2:4.—[The Vatican Sept. omits the words concerning me, and also with all their soul.1 Kings 2:4.—[De Rossi rejects as spurious the word μֵ ?ΰξֹ ?ψ, which is wanting in Kennicott’s MS. 170, and in the Vulg. and Arab. 1 Kings 2:5.—[Many MSS., the Syr. and Arab., express the conjunction εַ ?ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ. 1 Kings 2:5.—[The Sept. have here “innocent blood”—αῖμαἀθῶον. 1 Kings 2:7.—[Heb. ξִ ?τְּ ?πֵ ?ι. 1 Kings 2:8.—[Heb. αֶ ?οΞδַ ?ιְ ?ξִ ?ιπִ ?ι—son of the Jaminite, i.e., of the descendants of Jamin, a son of Simeon (Numbers 26:12). The Heb. for the patriarch Benjamin is written in one word; the Gentile name is written separately, but without the article. All the instances cited by Gesenius in verbo, are either without the article, or else refer to this very Shimei. Of the VV., the Sept. and Vulg. have appreciated the distinction; Chald., Syr., and Arab. agree with the A. V.—F. G.] C.—Solomon’s course with the opposers of his accession to the throne1 Kings 2:13-4613 And Adonijah the son of Haggith came to Bath-sheba the mother of Solomon. 14And she said, Comest thou peaceably? And he said, Peaceably. He said moreover, I have somewhat to say unto thee. And she said, Say on. 15And he said, Thou knowest that the kingdom was mine, and that all Israel set their faces on me, that I should reign: howbeit the kingdom is turned about, and is become my brother’s: for it was his from the Lord [Jehovah]. 16And now I ask one petition of thee, deny me not. And she said unto him, Say on. 17And he said, Speak, I pray thee, unto Solomon the king, (for he will not say thee nay,) that 18he give me Abishag the Shunammite to wife. And Bath-sheba said, Well; I will speak for thee unto the king. 19Bath-sheba therefore went unto king Solomon, to speak unto him for Adonijah. And the king rose up to meet her, and bowed himself unto her, and sat down on his throne, and caused a seat to be set for the king’s mother; and she sat on his right hand. 20Then she said, I desire one small petition of thee; I pray thee, say me not nay. And the king said unto her, Ask on, my mother; for I will not say thee nay. 21And she said, Let Abishag the Shunammite be given to Adonijah thy brother to wife. 22And king Solomon answered and said unto his mother, And why dost thou ask Abishag the Shunammite for Adonijah? ask for him the kingdom also; for he is mine elder brother; even for him, and for Abiathar the priest, and for Joab the son of Zeruiah. 23Then king Solomon sware by the Lord [Jehovah], saying, God do so to me, and more also, if Adonijah 24hath not spoken this word against his own life. Now therefore, as the Lord [Jehovah] liveth, which hath established me, and set me on the throne of David my father, and who hath made me a house, as he promised, Adonijah shall be put to death this day. 25And king Solomon sent by the hand of Benaiah the son of Jehoiada; and he fell upon him that he died. 26And unto Abiathar the priest said the king, Get thee to Anathoth, unto thine own fields; for thou art worthy of death: but I will not at this time put thee to death, because thou barest the ark of the Lord [Jehovah] God before David my father, and because thou hast been afflicted in all wherein my father was afflicted. 27So Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being priest unto the Lord [Jehovah]; that he might fulfil the word of the Lord [Jehovah], which he spake concerning the house of Eli in Shiloh. 28Then tidings came to Joab: for Joab had turned after Adonijah, though he turned not after Absalom. And Joab fled unto the tabernacle of the Lord [Jehovah], and caught hold on the horns of the altar. 29And it was told king Solomon that Joab was fled unto the tabernacle of the Lord [Jehovah]; and, behold, he is by the altar. Then Solomon sent Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, saying, Go, fall upon him. 30And Benaiah came to the tabernacle of the Lord [Jehovah], and said unto him, Thus saith the king, Come forth. And he said, Nay; but I will die here. And Benaiah brought the king word again, saying, Thus said Joab, and thus he answered me. 31And the king said unto him, Do as he hath said, and fall upon him, and bury him; that thou mayest take away the innocent 32[omit] blood, which Joab shed [without cause], from me, and from the house of my father. And the Lord [Jehovah] shall return his blood upon his own head, who fell upon two men more righteous and better than he, and slew them with the sword, [and] my father David not knowing thereof [knew it not], to wit, Abner the son of Ner, captain of the host of Israel, and Amasa the son of Jether, captain of the host of Judah. 33Their blood shall therefore return upon the head of Joab, and upon the head of his seed for ever: but upon David, and upon his seed, and upon his house, and upon his throne, shall there be peace for ever from the Lord [Jehovah]. 34So Benaiah the son of Jehoiada went up, and fell upon him, and slew him: and he was buried in his own house in the wilderness. 35And the king put Benaiah the son of Jehoiada in his room over the host: and Zadok the priest did the king put in the room of Abiathar.36And the king sent and called for Shimei, and said unto him, Build thee an house in Jerusalem, and dwell there, and go not forth thence any whither. 37For it shall be, that on the day thou goest out, and passest over the brook Kidron, thou shalt know for certain that thou shalt surely die: thy blood shall be upon thine own head. 38And Shimei said unto the king, The saying is good: as my lord the king hath said, so will thy servant do. And. Shimei dwelt in Jerusalem many days. 39And it came to pass at the end of three years, that two of the servants of Shimei ran away unto Achish son of Maachah king of Gath. And they told Shimei, saying, Behold, thy servants be in Gath. 40And Shimei arose, and saddled his ass, and went to Gath to Achish to seek his servants: and Shimei went, and brought his servants from Gath. 41And it was told Solomon that Shimei had gone from Jerusalem to Gath, and was come again. 42And the king sent and called for Shimei, and said unto him, Did I not make thee to swear by the Lord [Jehovah], and protested unto thee, saying, Know for a certain, on the day thou goest out, and walkest abroad any whither, that thou shalt surely die? and thou saidst unto me, The word that I have heard is good. 43Why then hast thou not kept the oath of the Lord [Jehovah], and the commandment that I have charged thee with? 44The king said moreover to Shimei, Thou knowest all the wickedness which thine heart is privy to, that thou didst to David my father; therefore the Lord [Jehovah] shall return thy wickedness upon thine own head: 45and king Solomon shall be blessed, and the throne of David shall be established before the Lord [Jehovah] for e1 Kings 1 Kings 2:46 So the king commanded Benaiah the son of Jehoiada; which went out, and fell upon him, that he died. And the kingdom was established in the hand of Solomon.Exegetical and Critical1 Kings 2:13. And Adonijah … to Bath-Sheba, &c. What Adonijah really aimed at in his petition to Bath-Sheba is made apparent in 1 Kings 2:22. He did not care about the fair Abishag, but about the kingdom, which he hoped to acquire through possession of her. In the ancient East, after a king died, or his kingdom passed from him, the harem fell to the new ruler. On the other hand, also, he who took to himself the king’s wives, was regarded as having taken to himself the rights of the king. The claim to the possession of the women of the harem was understood to mean the claim to the throne. It was so also with the Persians (Herodot. 3:68; Justin 10:2 : occiso Cyro Aspasiam pellicem ejus rex Artaxerxes in matrimonium acceperat. Hanc patrem cedere sibi, sicuti regnum Darius postulaverat). When Absalom went, according to Ahithophel’s advice, into the king’s harem and to his concubines in the sight of all the people, it was a public, practical announcement that he had assumed the king’s rights (2 Samuel 16:20-23; comp. 1 Kings 12:11). When, therefore, Adonijah demanded Abishag for his wife, ostensibly from love to her, it was a secret claim to the throne; for Abishag was looked on by the nation as David’s last wife, although he had not known her. He did not venture to make his request personally to Solomon, but, as Grotius says: aggreditur mulierem, ut regnandi ignaram, ita amoribus facilem. He plays, before Bath-Sheba, the part of an humble saint who has been set aside—who is resigned to God’s will, thus softening her woman’s heart. His assertion that all Israel wished him for their king, if not exactly a lie, showed great self-deception and boasting. He very wisely and prudently says, instead of: through thy intercession my brother became king (1 Kings 1:17)—the kingdom is turned about, and it was his from the Lord, which he of course did not believe, because he wished himself to be king. Bath-Sheba may have thought that a discontented subject might be satisfied by granting his request, and the kingdom made thus more secure to her son. 1 Kings 2:19-21. Bath-Sheba therefore went unto king Solomon, &c., 1 Kings 2:19. Solomon received his mother as βְּ ?αִ ?ιψָ ?δ (1 Kings 15:13). The queen-mother was in great honor; and therefore the name of the king’s mother is always expressly given in the account of the commencement of a new king’s reign (1 Kings 14:21; 1 Kings 15:2, &c.). The λִּ ?ρֵּ ?ΰ offered her was not literally a throne, but only a particular seat of honor. The seat at the right hand was the one of highest distinction (Psalms 110:1; Joseph., Antiq. vi.–xi. 9). Bath-Sheba calls her petition a small one, because she thought it was only about a love-affair, and did not think of its political results. 1 Kings 2:22-25. And King Solomon answered, &c. Solomon instantly detected the intrigue. He says, in asking Abishag for Adonijah, you indirectly request the kingdom for him too. He is my elder brother, and thinks that the kingdom belongs to him on that account; if he gets Abishag as wife, he will be further strengthened in his imaginary claims, and his entire party will have a firm footing. The εְ ?μεֹ beginning the concluding statement in 1 Kings 2:22, cannot be understood otherwise than the preceding μεֹ, and the μ in the following words must consequently mean the same. The meaning is this then: In asking the kingdom for him, thou askest it at the same time for Abiathar and Joab; they who have joined themselves to him, would reign with and through him; but they are well known to be my enemies. It follows, then, that both are included in Adonijah’s plan. We cannot, therefore, translate like the Sept.: καὶ αὐτῷ ’Αβιαθὰρκαὶ αὐτῷ ’Ιωὰβἑταῖρος, or with the Vulg.: et habet Abiathar et Joab; there is therefore no reason to strike out, with Thenius, the μ before Abiathar and Joab. Solomon’s anger, which appears in 1 Kings 2:23, was the more natural, because Adonijah had dared to gain over and abuse the queen-mother. The oath, which means: may God punish me continually if Adonijah be not, &c., is a usual one (Rth 1:17; 1 Samuel 14:44; 1 Samuel 20:13; Jeremiah 22:5).—The words of 1 Kings 2:24 : and who hath made me an house, are not to be understood, with Keil and others, as if Solomon had then had issue (his marriage did not occur till afterwards, 1 Kings 3:1); the meaning is this rather: Adonijah demands Abishag to wife, to found a dynasty through his union with her; but Jehovah has determined that David’s dynasty and line of kings shall come from me (2 Samuel 7:11 sq.).—The execution of Adonijah was performed by Benaiah, as captain of the Cherethites and Pelethites (1 Kings 1:38). αְּ ?ιַ ?γ does not mean exactly with “his own hand” (Thenius), but only that Benaiah was charged with the execution. Comp. 1 Kings 2:34-46. Capital punishment was executed in Egypt, and also in Babylon, by the king’s guard, the captain of which was therefore called ωַׂ ?ψ (ψα) θַ ?αָּ ?ηִ ?ιν, Genesis 37:36; 2 Kings 25:8; Daniel 2:14. 1 Kings 2:26-27. And unto Abiathar the priest, &c. The proceedings now commenced against Abiathar and Joab, were no doubt caused by the share both had taken in the new plans of Adonijah to usurp the kingdom.—Anathoth, a priests’ town in the tribe of Benjamin (Joshua 21:18; 1 Chronicles 6:45), about one hour and a quarter’s distance northeast of Jerusalem (Robinson, Palestine, vol. i. p. 437–8). Abiathar had possessions there.—To strike out the ε before αּ ?ιεֹ ?ν with Thenius (according to the Sept.), and place it before μֹ ?ΰ, is unnecessary: the meaning remains the same.—Bearing the Ark, on the occasion of David’s flight from Absalom (2 Samuel 15:24). That Abiathar and Zadok went with David then, bearing the ark of the covenant, showed great veneration and fidelity, upon their part, to him. Of course they did not carry the ark themselves; but it was borne by the levites, whose office it was to do so (Numbers 4:15; 1 Chronicles 16:15), and who did it at their command. It is therefore quite unnecessary to read, with Thenius, ΰֵ ?τεֹ ?γ instead of ΰֲ ?ψεֹ ?ο.—It does not follow from the banishment of Abiathar, that every king has the right to set up and depose a high-priest at pleasure. This case was a peculiar one. A high-priest who had repeatedly conspired against the anointed of Jehovah, had thereby become incapable of filling his office, and, strictly speaking, deserved death.—μְ ?ξַ ?μֵּ ?ΰ is an addition of the narrator, not the intention of Solomon; it is the ἲναπληρωθῆ of the New Testament. The divine threatenings upon Eli’s house, from which Abiathar was (through Ithamar) descended, were now fulfilled; for when Saul slew the priests, Abiathar alone, of all his house, escaped (1 Samuel 22:20). With his deposition the hereditary high-priesthood passed over to Eleazar’s house, to which Zadok belonged (Numbers 25:13; 1 Chronicles 24:5-6). 1 Kings 2:28-35. Then tidings came to Joab, &c. The parenthesis means that Joab, who was formerly such a decided enemy of Absalom, who promised much more than his brother, had twice conspired with the pretender, Adonijah, and now feared for his own life, as he heard of his death, and of Abiathar’s punishment. All old translations, except the Chaldee, have Solomon instead of “Absalom,” and Ewald and Thenius declare the former to be the right reading; this, however, is not sustained by any Hebrew MS., and would, besides, make the sentence superfluous; for when Joab was on Adonijah’s side, it follows of course that he was not on that of Solomon.—If Joab, who had been unpunished for his share in the first conspiracy, had felt free from all share in the second, he would not have fled to a place of refuge (1 Kings 1:50).—The Sept. adds, before Solomon’s words, 1 Kings 2:29 : “What has happened to thee, that thou hast fled to the altar? And Joab said: I was afraid of thee, and have fled to Lord.” Surely this is only a gloss; but it explains the passage. When Joab saw that Benalah did not venture to kill him at the altar, he defied him, either because he hoped that Solomon would not dare to give the order, or that if he did, he (Solomon) would be guilty of desecrating the altar. But according to the law (Exodus 21:14; Deuteronomy 19:11-13), the altar was only an asylum for those who had killed unwittingly, and Joab was no such person. He had sinned grievously against Israel and Judah by a double assassination (1 Kings 2:32), and yet had gone hitherto unpunished. This guilt could not rest upon David and his house, if the kingdom was to continue in his line (1 Kings 2:33). Not to add the utmost disgrace to the punishment (1 Kings 14:11; 2 Kings 9:35; Jeremiah 7:33; Jeremiah 22:19), and in consideration of his military achievements, Solomon commanded that Joab should be buried with his fathers in the wilderness of Judah, which was not far from Bethlehem, near Tekoa, and was a rocky district containing some towns (Joshua 15:61; Judges 1:16). 1 Kings 2:36-46. And the king sent and called for Shimei, &c., 1 Kings 2:36. As Adonijah and his faction had made such repeated efforts to seize the helm of state, Solomon deemed it needful to keep a watch on all suspected persons. Now the restless Shimei was the principal of these; he was a close adherent of the house of Saul, and a bitter foe of David’s house. Solomon, therefore, in order to keep him in sight, and test his obedience, ordered him to settle in Jerusalem, and to leave it only under penalty of death. The brook Kidron is scarcely named as the exact limit of his confinement (Ewald); but Shimei was not to cross it, because, in doing so, he went towards Bahurim, in his native district, where he had most influence (2 Samuel 19:16 sq.).—Thy blood, &c.—the usual mode of the death sentence, Leviticus 20:9-16.—Shimei declared he was satisfied to observe the king’s command, for he knew right well that according to the ideas of that time, no king, not even Solomon, need feel himself bound by the promise of his predecessor (2 Samuel 19:23), (Ewald, Gesch. Isr., iii. s. 271).—The Philistine king Achish, of Gath (Joshua 13:3; 1 Samuel 5:8), may be the same who is mentioned in 1 Samuel 21:11; 1 Samuel 27:2; he must have certainly attained a great age; if so, Shimei, then, in spite of his solemn vow, not only left Jerusalem for his native place, not distant, but even went into the far-off land of the Philistines, thus giving proof of his disobedience and obstinacy. Solomon now reproaches him with his old crime, and says to him: thy measure is full; the Lord has turned thy curse into a blessing, as David hoped (2 Samuel 16:12).—The Vulgate, Thenius, Bunsen, and others place the concluding sentence of 1 Kings 2:46 at the commencement of 1 Kings 3 : “and when the kingdom was established in the hand of Solomon, he made affinity,” &c.; it seems, however, to refer back to 1 Kings 2:12, and in the manner of Semitic histories, as Keil remarks, concludes the whole section of Solomon’s throne-ascension. Thus the kingdom was established in the hand of Solomon, i.e., under him. Historical and Ethical1. The repeated attempt of Adonijah to gain the throne throws real light on his character. Though his enterprise came to a lamentable and disgraceful end, he immediately began to concoct new plans in spite of the favor and the warning he had received. As he once sought to obtain his purpose by collecting chariots, horsemen, and soldiers, through making fortified places, in short, by grand and showy preparations, he now pursued the opposite plan of fawning and artifice. He steals alone to Bath-sheba, placing his hopes on woman’s influence. When she is astonished at his visit, he utters the most peaceful sentiments, acts as one deeply disappointed, but now humbly and piously resigned to God’s will, and as an unhappy lover. If anything deserves the name of a “harem intrigue,” through which, according to Duncker, Solomon came to the throne (see above), it is Adonijah’s device. He could not have shown more clearly that he was not the chosen of Jehovah (Deuteronomy 17:15). What would have become of the kingdom which David had at last brought to tranquillity and its proper position, if a man like Adonijah had succeeded him? 2. Adonijah and his faction show the truth of what is often found, namely, that revolutionary men are not discouraged by the failure of their plans, and even disgraceful defeat, but they always brood over the means of attaining their ambitious views and gratifying their thirst for power. Pardon and forbearance do not change them, but generally harden and embolden them. If they do not succeed by open force, they choose deceitful ways, notwithstanding all the promises they may have given; and they feign submission until they think their opportunity has arrived. Every one, however, to whom God has confided the government, should hear the words of David to Solomon (1 Kings 2:2): “be thou strong, therefore, and show thyself a man!” for weakness is, in this respect, sin against God and man. The old Wόrtemburg summaries say: “let authorities learn from Solomon to punish such crimes severely, if they wish to have a happy, peaceful, and lasting reign. If they wink at such things, God’s anger and punishments come down on them, on their land and people.” 3. Solomon’s treatment of his foes, has often been called great cruelty, or at least extreme severity. “Solomon,” says Duncker, “began his reign with bloody deeds.… He first promised Adonijah he should be spared, then had him slain by Benaiah. Joab fled to the sanctuary and caught hold of the horns of the altar. Benaiah trembled to stain the altar with blood, but Solomon tells him to go and stab him there!… Benaiah also killed Shimei at Solomon’s command.” In reading this imperfect and detestable view of the circumstances, we must remember that there is not to be found in the forty years of Solomon’s reign, one single trace of baroarous tyranny or cruelty, such as are here said to have characterized him, though these qualities rather strengthen than otherwise with age. We cannot judge Solomon any more than David in the light of the sermon on the mount, but should recollect what the time and circumstances were. The vital point was to establish the kingdom, and in order to avert the dangers that threatened it, “every firm and sagacious ruler had to act so, for the artificial means now used in similar cases, for instance, imprisonment for life, were wholly unknown” (Ewald). As to Adonijah, the whole East knew but one punishment for such plans as he cherished, viz., death. Had his enterprise succeeded he would doubtless (see above, on 1 Kings 1:11) have destroyed Solomon and his principal adherents, in accordance with the usual practice hitherto. Solomon, on the contrary, did not follow this custom, but showed forgiveness and generosity; in fact, he avoided all persecution of Adonijah’s partisans. Only when Adonijah, contrary to his word, and notwithstanding his humble homage (1 Kings 1:51), again appeared as pretender to the throne, and sought to reach his end by deceit and hypocrisy, did he order the affixed punishment. He had allowed Abiathar, too, to go unpunished at first, which scarcely any other eastern prince would have done. But when the repeated attempt of Adonijah to seize the kingdom was discovered, Abiathar could no longer be passed over. Yet instead of inflicting death on him, he deprived him of his influential office, and let him live at liberty on his estate, on account of his former good behavior. Here was no severity, but gratitude, kindness, and generosity. Joab was the most formidable opponent, because of his position at the head of the entire army, and his well-known military roughness and unscrupulousness; he was also unpunished after Adonijah’s first attempt, and the last was certainly not planned without his consent, but more likely, as some suppose, originated by him. The fact that he instantly fled to the horns of the altar, on hearing of Adonijah’s death, shows that he knew himself to have deserved death. Besides this, the guilt of a double murder rested on him, and should be washed out. “When this was superadded,” says Ewald (s. 271), “Solomon did not venture to show him any further grace,” and adds in the note with great truth: “A superficial observer alone can charge Solomon with needless cruelty here.” Finally, with regard to Shimei, nothing was more natural than that Solomon, in the circumstances attending the beginning of his reign, should have kept especial guard over such a restless, suspected person, who one day cursed the king, calling him a bloody man, and the next fawned upon and flattered him, and who besides was not without partisans (2 Samuel 16:7, comp. with 1 Kings 19:16-20). Shimei was himself quite content with his confinement to Jerusalem, and Solomon let him live there “many days” (1 Kings 2:38), placing his fate in his own hand. After three years (not before), (1 Kings 2:39), when Shimei broke his solemn promise, what his king had threatened him with upon oath came upon him. “Surely, every one must at that time have seen in such fatal oblivion of the oath which the old arch-traitor had sworn against David, a divine sign, that that old sin still rested on him and that he must be punished; otherwise he would not have acted with such defiance of God and with such madness. Solomon had him also executed, evidently not out of revenge nor any other passion, but from the belief that the last of those who had sinned greatly against David, should fall under divine Providence” (Ewald, s. 272). How weak and forgetful of his word would the king have seemed to all the people if he had let Shimei now go free, particularly with the notions then entertained about a king! (Proverbs 16:12-15; Proverbs 20:2; Proverbs 20:26). It is worthy of remark that the settlement of Shimei at Jerusalem was coincident with Solomon’s elevation to the throne; that his punishment did not at once follow that of Adonijah and Joab, but was three years later. We cannot therefore possibly reckon this among the “bloody deeds” with which Solomon is said to have begun his reign. The union of mildness and firmness, generosity and official justice, in the conduct of the young sovereign, must have deeply impressed the people, have increased his authority, and established his rule. 4. The establishment of Solomon’s kingdom (1 Kings 2:46) is the result of all that chapters 1 and 2 relate, and is therefore expressly stated again at their close. Our author evidently does this, not only from purely historical, but also from religious and theocratic grounds. In fact, throughout the whole of the genuine Old Testament history of Solomon’s succession to the throne, the guiding hand of the living God is made apparent, far above the ferment of human passions and inclinations. He knows how to fulfil his threatenings, and to lead the way which each chooses for himself, to a goal where he shall find retribution of his deeds (Job 34:11). Homiletical and Practical1 Kings 2:13-25. Adonijah’s repeated attempt to gain the throne: (a) Wherein this attempt consisted (1 Kings 2:13-18); (b) how it ended (1 Kings 2:19-25). 1 Kings 2:13-18. Adonijah before Bath-sheba: (a) The feigned sentiment, in which he comes (1 Kings 2:13-15); (b) the request he brings (1 Kings 2:16-17); (c) the answer he receives (1 Kings 2:18). 1 Kings 2:13. Ambitious and power-loving people do not scruple to reach the ends which they cannot obtain by open force, by means that are mortifying to their pride; when they can no longer demand, they beg.—Those are least to be trusted who have proved themselves enemies, and suddenly appear with tokens of peace. Joab met Amasa with the words: Peace be to thee! and while kissing him, ran him through the body (2 Samuel 20:9). Judas betrayed the Lord with a greeting and a kiss (Luke 22:48). 1 Kings 2:15. Adonijah’s boast and hypocrisy: (a) He boasts, like most rebels, of having all the people on his side, but his few adherents were some faithless men, who were won over by good eating and drinking, and who would desert him with the first change of the wind (1 Kings 1:41; 1 Kings 1:49). (b) He speaks and acts as a pious man, who humbles himself under God’s hand (Job 1:21), while he resists His will in his heart, and seeks to overthrow His purpose (Matthew 7:21; Proverbs 12:22). 1 Kings 2:16 sq. The most presumptuous character is often hid under the mask of unassuming deportment. 1 Kings 2:17. He who has an honest and just request to make seeks no roundabout ways, but goes openly and courageously with it to the person who can grant it. The serpent addresses the woman first, in order to gain the man, in paradise (Genesis 3:1; Genesis 3:6; 1 Timothy 2:14). 1 Kings 2:18. Bath-sheba’s consent to Adonijah’s request shows want of sagacity, experience, and knowledge of human nature, but at the same time shows that her heart was free from revenge and bitterness, and was willing to serve even one who had caused her great anxiety and sorrow (1 Kings 1:21).—Kind and unsuspicious persons are apt to yield to their first feelings and impressions rather than reflect calmly and deliberately; it is therefore the more needful for them to guard against being led away by flattering speeches into promises and actions that may greatly injure themselves and others.—We ought not to refuse to intercede for others, but to take great care not to do it for the unworthy, thus injuring those who are deserving.—Those who are high in favor with the powerful are often used, without their wish or knowledge, for unworthy ends. 1 Kings 2:19-25. Bath-sheba before the king: (a) How she was received by him (1 Kings 2:19-20), but (b) was refused her petition (1 Kings 2:22-24). 1 Kings 2:19. Solomon, when on the throne, did not forget what he owed his mother. How often do children forget their parents and nearest relations, and even become ashamed of them, when they attain to great riches and honor; but no position or rank dispenses with our observance of the fourth commandment, the first with promise (Ephes. 1 Kings 6:2; Proverbs 19:26). 1 Kings 2:21. Starke: Even pious Christians are often ignorant of what they ask (Romans 8:26), and are therefore often unheard (Matthew 20:22). 1 Kings 2:22. Kings and princes should not grant even an apparently small petition, that interferes with the welfare of the kingdom and people committed to their charge. Seeming severity is in such cases sacred duty.—Hall: Considerations arising from personal relationship must be laid aside in the official acts of rulers. 1 Kings 2:25. Punishment of Adonijah, how far it was (a) according to law, (b) just and deserved. 1 Kings 2:26-46. Solomon’s treatment of his enemies (see Historical). 1 Kings 2:26-27. Ecclesiastical office can be no protection from just punishment of crime (see Luke 12:47; 1 Corinthians 9:27).—Former fidelity cannot efface later treachery. It is most lamentable that a man who was faithful in times of trouble should end his career as a sinner (1 Corinthians 10:12).—[Bp. Hall: No man held so close to David,… yet now is he called to reckon for his old sins, and must repay blood to Amasa and Abner.—E. H.] When circumstances permit, mildness and forgiveness should go hand in hand with justice.—Children should not forget kindness shown to their parents, but look on it as done to themselves; this is fulfilling the fourth commandment.—The promises of God are yea and amen; but so are also His threatenings, which are often executed when men have forgotten them. 1 Kings 2:28-34. The terrible end of Joab: (a) He dies conscious of his guilt, without peace and pardon; (b) even in the very jaws of death he is defiant, rough, and proud; (c) he does not leave the world like a hero, but like a criminal. How differently David dies! (1 Kings 2:2). 1 Kings 2:28. An evil conscience can put to flight a hero who never yielded to the enemy in a single bloody field.—Starke: It is thus the wicked act when they get into danger; though they never before cared about God and His children, they will seek their protection then. 1 Kings 2:30. What good is there in dying in a sacred place if one has not a sanctified heart and pure conscience? Proverbs 3:21-26. 1 Kings 2:31 sq. Starke: God has no sanctuary or city of refuge for an intentional murderer (Exodus 21:14).—Lange: If a ruler leaves shed blood unavenged, the guilt attaches to himself; through just revenge it is averted. 1 Kings 2:33. Only that throne stands firm upon which justice, without respect of persons, is exercised (Proverbs 25:5). 1 Kings 2:36-46. Shimei’s fate plainly proves the truth of the word Job 34:11; Psalms 141:10; Proverbs 5:22. 1 Kings 2:39. Avarice, i.e., covetousness, is the root of all evil. The loss of two servants led Shimei to disobedience, even to forget his oath and to risk his life. [1 Kings 2:40 sq. Bp. Hall: “Covetousness, and presumption of impunity, are the destruction of many a soul: Shimei seeks his servants and loses himself.”—E. H.] 1 Kings 2:41 sq. Divine justice at length overtakes those whose crimes have long been unpunished, and when they least expect it.—Those also who have cursed the anointed of the Lord, the eternal king of God’s realm, and who have shot their poisoned shafts at Him, shall hereafter say to the mountains: Fall on us! and to the hills: cover us! (Luke 23:30). Footnotes:1 Kings 2:13.—[The Sept. adds καὶ προσεκύνησεναὐτῇ (Al. αὐτήν). 1 Kings 2:14.—[Two MSS. and some editions (followed by the Sept., Vulg., and Syriac) add μεֹ = to him. 1 Kings 2:22.—[All the VV. here give a sense which seems based on the supposition that μ before Abiathar and before Joab is pleonastic; but for this there is no authority. Thus the Vulg.: “et habet Abiathar,” etc. Sept.: καὶ αὐτῷ ’Αβιάθαρκ.τ.λ. Similarly Syr. and Arab. The Chald.: “nonne in consilio fuerunt ille et Abiathar,” etc. 1 Kings 2:26.—[The Sept., without authority, alters the place of the conjunction so as to read ἀνἠρθανάτουεῖ σὺ ἐντῇ ἡμἑρᾳ ταὑτῃ, καὶ οὐ θανατώσωσε. 1 Kings 2:28.—[The Vulg., Sept.. (Vatican) and Syr. curiously substitute here the name of Solomon for that of Absalom. The Arab. attempts to reconcile both by translating “neither did he love Solomon.” 1 Kings 2:29.—[The Sept. and “And king (Alex. omit king) Solomon sent to Joab, saying, What has been done to thee that thou hast fled to the altar? And Joab said, Because I was afraid of thee, and I fled to the Lord.” 1 Kings 2:29.—[The Sept. add “and bury him.” See 1 Kings 2:31. 1 Kings 2:30.—[One MS., followed by the Sept., Vulg., and Syr., adds ΰφΰ after μֹ ?ΰ. 1 Kings 2:31.—[The Sept. add σήμερον and translate δִ ?πָ ?ν accurately “without cause.” The Chald. gives both senses. The Vatican Sept. omits the name of Joab. 1 Kings 2:32.—[Sept. = the blood of his iniquity. 1 Kings 2:32.—[There is no reason for omitting the conjunction and changing the preterite of the Hebr. which are preserved in the Sept. and the Chald. 1 Kings 2:35.—[The Sept. add καὶ ἡ βασιλείακατωρθοῦτοἐν ‘Ιερουσαλήμ. Cf. 1 Kings 2:46. 1 Kings 2:35—[The Sept. add καὶ ΣαλωμὼνυἱὸςΔαυὶδἐβασίλευσενἐπὶ ’Ισραὴλκαὶ ’Ιούδαἐν ‘Ιερουσαλήμ.. (Thus far Alex. Omits) καὶ ἔδωκεκύριοςφρόνησιντῷ Σαλωμὼνκαὶ σοφἱανπολλὴνσφόδρακαὶ πλάτοςκαρδίαςὡςἡ ἄμμοςἡ παρὰ τὴνθάλασσαν. (See 1 Kings 4:29.) Then follows the first verse of chap. 3 much altered, and a long interpolation which may he thus translated: “And the wisdom of Solomon was increased greatly above the wisdom of all the ancients and above all the wise men of Egypt (see 1 Kings 4:30), and he (1 Kings 3:1) took Pharaoh’s daughter, and brought her into the city of David, until ho had made an end of building his own house and the house of the Lord in the first place, and the wall of Jerusalem round about: in seven years he made and finished them.” V. 15 follows then… “And Solomon made the sea and the bases and the great levers and the pillars and the fountain of the court and the brazen sea. And he built the citadel and battlements upon it, he divided the city of David. So Pharaoh’s daughter went up from the city of David into her own house which he built for her. Then he built the citadel. And three times in the year Solomon offered whole, burnt-offerings and peace-offerings upon the altar which he built to the Lord, and he offered incense before the Lord, and finished the house. And these were the chiefs (1 Kings 5:16) which were set over the works of Solomon: three thousand and six hundred rulers of the people that wrought in the work. And he built Asshur and Magdo and Gezer (1 Kings 9:15; 1 Kings 9:17-18) and Bethhoron the upper and Ballath. Besides his building the house of the Lord and the wall of Jerusalem round about, after these he built these cities.” Then follows, with some variations, 1 Kings 2:8-9, which form the junction again with 1 Kings 2:36. 1 Kings 2:37.—[The Sept. add καὶ ὥρκισεναὐτὸνὁ βασιλεὺςἰντῆ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκεινῃ. Cf. 1 Kings 2:42-43. 1 Kings 2:42.—[The Vatican Sept. omits the rest of 1 Kings 2:42. The last clause is sometimes pointed, “The word is good: I have heard.” 1 Kings 2:46.—[Here follows in the Sept. a passage made up of extracts from chap. 4 and containing about one-fourth of that chapter, most of which is omitted from its place.—F. G.] SECOND SECTION The Beginning Of Solomon’s Reign1 Kings 3:1 to 1 Kings 5:14A.—Solomon’s marriage, solemn sacrifice and prayer; first judicial decision1 Kings 3:1-281 And Solomon made affinity with Pharaoh king of Egypt, and took Pharaoh’s daughter, and brought her into the city of David, until he had made an end of building his own house, and the house of the Lord [Jehovah], and the wall 2[walls] of Jerusalem round about. Only the people sacrificed in high places, because there was no house built unto the name of the Lord [Jehovah], until those days. 3And Solomon loved the Lord [Jehovah], walking in the statutes of David his father: only he sacrificed and burnt incense in high places. 4And the king went to Gibeon to sacrifice there; for that was the great high place: a thousand burnt-offerings did Solomon offer upon that altar. 5In Gibeon the Lord [Jehovah] appeared to Solomon in a dream by night: and God said, Ask what I shall give thee. 6And Solomon said, Thou hast shewed unto thy servant David my father great mercy, according as he walked before thee in truth, and in righteousness, and in uprightness of heart with thee; and thou hast kept for him this great kindness, that thou hast given him a son to sit on his throne, as it is this day. 7And now, O Lord [Jehovah] my God, thou hast made thy servant king instead of David my father: and I am but a little child: I know not how to go out or come in. 8And thy servant is in the midst of thy people which thou hast chosen, a great people, that cannot be numbered nor counted for multitude. 9Give therefore thy servant an understanding heart to judge thy people, that I may discern between good and bad: for who is able to judge this thy so great a people? 10And the speech pleased the Lord, that Solomon had asked this thing. 11And God said unto him, Because thou hast asked this thing, and hast not asked for thyself long life; neither hast asked riches for thyself, nor hast asked the life of thine enemies; 12but hast asked for thyself understanding to discern judgment; Behold I have done according to thy words: lo, I have given thee a wise and an understanding heart; so that there was none like thee before thee, neither after thee shall any arise like unto thee. 13And I have also given thee that which thou hast not asked, both riches, and honor: so that there shall not be any among the kings like unto thee all thy days. 14And if thou wilt walk in my ways, to keep my statutes and my commandments, as thy father David did walk, then I will lengthen thy days. 15And Solomon awoke; and, behold, it was a dream. And he came to Jerusalem, and stood before the ark of the covenant of the Lord [Jehovah], and offered up burnt-offerings, and offered [made] peace-offerings, and made a feast to all his servants. 16Then came there two women that were harlots, unto the king, and stood before him. 17And the one woman said, O my lord, I and this woman dwell in one house; and I was delivered of a child with her in the house. 18And it came to pass the third day after that I was delivered, that this woman was delivered also: and we were together; there was no stranger with us in the house, save we two in the house. 19And this woman’s child [son] died in the night; because she overlaid it. 20And she arose at midnight, and took my son from beside me, while thine handmaid slept, and laid it in her bosom, and laid her dead child [son]10 in my bosom. 21And when I rose in the morning to give my child [son]10 suck, behold, it was dead: but when I had considered it in the morning, behold, it was not my son which I did bear. 22And the other woman said, Nay; but the living is my son, and the dead is thy son. And this said, No; but the dead is thy son, and the living is my son. Thus they spake before the king. 23Then said the king, The one saith, This is my son that liveth, and thy son is the dead: and the other saith, Nay; but thy son is the dead, and my son is the living. 24And the king said, Bring me a sword. And they brought a sword before the king. 25And the king said, Divide the living child in two, and give half to the one, and half to the other. 26Then spake the woman whose the living child was unto the king, for her bowels yearned upon her son, and she said, O my lord, give her the living child, and in no wise slay it. But the other said, Let it be neither mine nor thine, but divide it. 27Then the king answered and said, Give her the living child, and in no wise slay it: she is the mother thereof. 28And all Israel heard of the judgment which the king had judged; and they feared the king: for they saw that the wisdom of God was in him to do judgment. Exegetical and Critical1 Kings 3:1. And Solomon made affinity. After the rule of Solomon was established by the removal of his enemies from within (1 Kings 2:46), he sought to make it outwardly strong, also, by a family alliance with the king of Egypt. After David’s great victories over the surrounding nations, and especially after the Philistines were rendered powerless, Egypt was the nearest and most powerful neighbor of the kingdom of Israel. As the latter had increased so much in extent and power, the king of Egypt may also have desired an alliance with the king of Israel (Ewald, Gesch. Isr., iii. s. 279); but such an alliance secured Solomon against other nations, and was even productive of an enlargement of his territory (1 Kings 9:16). The Pharaoh named here “belonged certainly, following the synchronism, to the 21st Tanaitic dynasty, and may have been its last king, Psusennes or Psusennos, who reigned thirty-five years” (Winer, R.-W.-B., ii. s. 363).—This marriage with an Egyptian was not contrary to the law, since it only prohibited union with the daughters of the Canaanite tribes (Exodus 34:11-16; Deuteronomy 7:1-3). The supposition of some rabbins, that the Egyptian had become a proselyte, is unnecessary; it is certain, besides, that Egyptian worship was not introduced by her into Jerusalem; and even later no trace of it is found (1 Kings 11:4-7).—By the city of David we are to understand the ancient and fortified Jerusalem, the citadel of David—the upper city. The dwelling for the queen was but temporary; when the new palace was built she inhabited it (1 Kings 9:24).—“He made,” says Josephus, “the walls wider and firmer than they had been.” David had only fortified the upper city (2 Samuel 5:7; 2 Samuel 5:9). 1 Kings 3:2-4. Only the people sacrificed in high places, &c. 1 Kings 3:2-3 do not pronounce a judgment in general upon the condition of public worship in the beginning of Solomon’s reign (Keil), but form an introduction to verses 4–15. The connection is this: when the rule of Solomon was established from within by the extirpation of his foes, and outwardly by an alliance with Pharaoh, Solomon held a great festival for all Israel (2 Chronicles 1:2-3), not only to implore Jehovah’s further aid to his successful government, but also in gratitude for the past. But as Jehovah’s house was not yet built, and as the people, for want of a central sanctuary, still sacrificed on high places here and there, Solomon followed this custom, but chose the greatest, i. e., the most important height, that at Gibeon, where the ancient tabernacle and the altar of burnt-offering stood. 1 Kings 3:2-3 serve then to explain how it was that Solomon, who loved Jehovah, and, like David, kept the law, celebrated his great inauguration-festival on a high place. [Bishop Horsley remarks on 1 Kings 3:3 : This is not mentioned as a circumstance of blame either in the people or in the king. For had they not sacrificed and burnt incense on high places, they could not have sacrificed or burnt incense at all. And it appears by the sequel that the sacrifice at Gibeon was acceptable.—E.H.]—The high places are very often used in these books in the same sense; but not always. That αָּ ?ξָ ?δ does not mean “barred entrance,” and then “sacred forest” grove (Thenius, Bφttcher), is easy to see from Micah 3:12, where it is synonymous with δַ ?ψ, mountain; comp. Micah 1:3-4; Jeremiah 26:18, with Amos 4:1, where βְּ ?αָ ?ςεֹ ?ϊ stands for αָּ ?ξεֹ ?ϊ. The fundamental meaning is and must be: height, high place. Among all ancient nations, heights and mountains were naturally chosen as the fit places for offering-up to the Deity who dwells on high, far above earth. But as all prayer to and worship of the Godhead took the form of sacrifice, for which an altar was requisite, αָּ ?ξεֹ ?ϊ became the expression for high places upon which altars were erected. By degrees, however, the use of the term became more extended, so that places of sacrifices, even if not on high places, but in towns, and even in valleys, were also called “high places” (2 Kings 17:9; Jeremiah 7:31; Jeremiah 32:35). In heathen worship, besides the altars for sacrifices, they had many dwellings for the Divinity, not regular temples, but cells, chapels, tents, in which the image of the Deity stood, and these also were named αָּ ?ξεֹ ?ϊ (Ezekiel 16:16); hence the expressions αָּ ?ϊֵּ ?ιδַ ?αָּ ?ξεֹ ?ϊ (1 Kings 13:32; 2 Kings 17:29), and αָּ ?πָ ?δαָּ ?ξεֹ ?ϊ (1 Kings 11:7; 1 Kings 14:23). Because the worship at the high places so easily became entangled with idolatry, the Mosaic law commanded that sacrifices should only be offered at Jehovah’s dwelling-place—the tabernacle (Leviticus 17:3). For the unquiet times of the Judges, however, this prescript could not be obeyed; and as the patriarchs sacrificed on high places before the law was given (Genesis 12:8), their example was followed; even Samuel did this (1 Samuel 9:12 sq.). Thus it happened that this more convenient practice took deep root, and it was not until much later that it was found possible to abolish it (2 Kings 23:4-23); it was always, however, an abnormity, though unavoidable, so long as an house for Jehovah’s name, i.e., a central sanctuary, was wanting (for this last expression see below on chap. 6).—A thousand burnt-offerings. In the entire ancient world, the greatest number of animals possible were collected for sacrifice at great festivals (see below on 1 Kings 8:62). The feast must have at least lasted more than one day. The passage we are considering has very unfairly been selected to prove that the king himself sacrificed, i.e., exercised priestly functions. Even the great number of animals offered contradicts this; so does 1 Kings 6:2; where king Solomon is said to have built the house of the Lord and made windows, &c., no more means that he performed masons’ and carpenters’ work than that he himself offered the animals in sacrifice. 1 Kings 3:5-10. The Lord appeared to Solomon, &c. The expression πִ ?ψְ ?ΰָ ?δ does not mean that Solomon saw Jehovah in any bodily form, but that Jehovah revealed himself to him. If the reading here and in 1 Kings 3:10 be not ιְ ?δεָֹ ?ϊ, but ΰֱ ?μֹ ?δִ ?ιν is to be subjoined to it; the last more general term serves to designate the words which Solomon understood to be really divine communications. For it is evident that the word ιְ ?δεָֹ ?δ does not specifically belong to the appearing, as Thenius thinks, from examination of the parallel passage in 2 Chronicles 1:7, where πִ ?ψְ ?ΰָ ?δΰֱ ?μֹ ?δִ ?ιν occurs,—Solomon grounds (1 Kings 3:6) his request that Jehovah would grant him the gifts needful for a sovereign, upon the mercy shown his father David, to whom God had performed His promises, and raised up his son to sit upon the throne of Israel. He humbly calls himself a little child, not only as if he were just twelve years old, as some rabbins say, but because his youth was unfitted for the great and arduous task laid on him. Solomon died after a reign of forty years, and was named before (1 Kings 11:4) ζָ ?χֵ ?ο, which makes him, as is also the general opinion, twenty years old at least.—Going out and coming in is, like Deuteronomy 31:2; 1 Samuel 18:13; 1 Samuel 18:16; 2 Samuel 3:25; Psalms 121:8, descriptive of the entire manner of life. The conclusion, from 1 Kings 3:8, clearly refers to Genesis 32:13; Genesis 13:16.—The ωֹׁ ?ξֵ ?ςַ with μֵ ?α (like Job 12:3; Job 34:10; Proverbs 15:32, the seat of thought and knowledge, 1 Kings 3:9), as is to be seen from μִ ?ωְׁ ?ξֹ ?ςַ ξִ ?ωְׁ ?τָּ ?θ (1 Kings 3:12), must be connected with the following μִ ?ωְׁ ?τֹּ ?θ, and is not to be translated, as Luther has it, obedient heart; or as the Vulgate, cor docile. A right sentence depends upon the hearing, that is, the trial of the parties, and for this, understanding and judgment are most requisite for the judge (comp. 2 Samuel 14:17). 1 Kings 3:7 refers to ruling, but 1 Kings 3:9 to judging: the two conjoined form the kingly office (1 Samuel 8:6; 1 Samuel 8:20; 2 Samuel 15:4. Artemid. Oneir., ii. 1 Kings 14 : κρίνειντὸ ἅρχεινἔλεγονοἱ παλαιοί). 1 Kings 3:11-15. And God said, &c. Instead of the life of thine enemies (1 Kings 3:11), 1 Kings 3:13 reads αָּ ?αεֹ ?γ; it is, therefore, military glory, victory which is meant. μִ ?ωְׁ ?ξֹ ?ςַ ξִ ?ωְׁ ?τָּ ?θ does not mean: “to exercise divine right” (Keil), but: to dispense justice.—Behold it was a dream, not that he only knew on awaking that it was but a dream; and not that he remembered distinctly on awaking what he had dreamed (Seb. Schmidt), but: “that it was more than a dream (an ordinary one)—something really divine; of this he became so convinced on awaking, that immediately after his return to the capital, he went to the place where the sacred ark stood, and worshipped the Lord anew with many sacrifices and thanksgiving-offerings. The thank-offerings were for this extraordinary proof of divine favor” (Hess). The sequel showed that it was not a mere dream. 1 Kings 3:16. Then came there two women, &c. This story is meant to show, by one instance, that Solomon had really received what he had prayed for, and what God had promised him (Theodoret: ἐπιδεῖξαιτὴντοῦ βασίλεωςἐβουλήθησοφίαν). Thenius counts the whole among those passages which the writer gave from oral tradition; but we must not overlook the fact that he did not take it, like other narratives, from the “book of the Acts of Solomon” (1 Kings 11:41). [The writer of the Book of the Kings refers only at the end of Solomon’s reign to the book of the Acts of Solomon, and not at each step in his career.—E. H.]—The rabbins derive ζֹ ?πεֹ ?ϊ from ζεּ ?ο, to feed, nourish; and explain it thus with the Chaldee, here as in Joshua 2:1, by τεπγχο, i. e., hostesses, evidently to avoid some offence. On this account, it can scarcely allude to harlots, because they, as Calmet remarks, seldom have many children, and if they have, do not usually care much about providing for them. As ζָ ?πָ ?δ is generally spoken of intercourse which is extra-matrimonial, or adulterous, so this passage refers to “those who have had children, being unmarried” (Gerlach). 1 Kings 3:17-28. And the one woman said, &c. She alleges that the other can persist so obstinately in her denial, because there was no one else in the house. The latter probably took the child away to avoid the just and heavy reproach of having killed her own child, and the consequent disgrace she would incur. This is at least more probable than that she wished to continue nursing for her health’s sake (Thenius), or that she thought to inherit something in the future from the child (Hess); or, finally, that she intended to sell it afterwards for her support (Le Clerc).—In 1 Kings 3:21, at first the time given is the morning, in a general way; but next, the expression is the same as clara luce (Vulgate), or, “as it was becoming brighter and brighter” (Thenius). ψַ ?ηֲ ?ξִ ?ιν (1 Kings 3:26) is the New Testament σπλάγχνα (2 Corinthians 6:12; 2 Corinthians 7:15). Comp. Genesis 43:30. Luther: “for her motherly heart yearned upon her son.” The words: neither mine nor thine, &c., do not only show want of maternal love, but also envy and dislike of her accuser.—They feared. Comp. Luke 4:36; Luke 8:25. The sentence made a deep impression; ΰֱ ?μֹ ?δִ ?ιν is here the same as in Psalms 68:16; Psalms 65:10. Historical and Ethical1. Solomon’s marriage with a daughter of Pharaoh was, strictly speaking, a political alliance; but it has, nevertheless, also significance in the history of redemption. The great and mighty king of the land, which for Israel had been “the house of bondage” in which it had eaten “the bread of affliction” (Exodus 20:2; Deuteronomy 16:3), gives now to the king of this once despised and oppressed people, his daughter in marriage, and must, in the providence of God, contribute to the strengthening of the Israelitish throne, and to the increase of the power and glory of the Israelitish kingdom. Thus was this marriage a witness for the divine beneficence in the deliverance from Egypt, to the goal of which Israel had come in the reign of Solomon—the period of the richest bloom of the kingdom. It was likewise a divine seal upon the independence of the people, which had begun with the exodus from Egypt, and now had reached its completeness. [We beg leave to dissent from the position here taken by our author. (Comp. Exeget. on 1 Kings 3:1). Solomon’s alliance with the Egyptian princess for political purposes was after the fashion of worldly princes, and in direct hostility with the theocratic spirit. Egypt was quite as much an “abomination” as “Canaan,” and we are surprised that our author should apologize for Solomon in the matter.—E. H.] 2. That sacrificing and burning of incense in high places was forbidden in the Mosaic law rests, not upon the grounds of outward regulation, but was a natural, necessary consequence of the Mosaic fundamental principles. Jehovah is one, and beside him there is no God. He has chosen Israel, out of all the peoples of the earth, to be His people; He has made a covenant with them, and as a sign and pledge of this covenant will He dwell in the midst of His people. As He himself is one only, so also is and can His dwelling-place be only one. This is the place where He “meets” His people, i.e., exercises the covenant relation (Exodus 29:42 sq.). The concentration of the Jehovah-cultus is connected as inseparably with monotheism, as is the worship in high places, i.e., in any favorite spot, with polytheism. From the Mosaic standpoint, the worship in high places appeared as an ignoring, yea, as a denial, of the dwelling of Jehovah in the midst of His people, and, consequently, of the election and of the covenant of Jehovah, whereof it was the witness and pledge (cf. Joshua 22). If the law in question could not be carried out in times of unrest and of convulsion, nevertheless, as soon as the period of the undisturbed possession of Canaan was entered upon, it would remain the business of every truly theocratic king, as the servant of Jehovah, to put an end, as far as possible, to worship in high places. Hence, also, was David, after he had won for Israel victory over all enemies, most earnest to erect an enduring central sanctuary, for which the old tabernacle, especially since the removal of the ark of the covenant from it, was no longer serviceable. Since this, however, was denied him, he laid the charge of it upon Solomon, his son and successor, and made the building of a “house of Jehovah” the first and most pressing duty of his reign (1 Chronicles 28:2 sq.). After the building of the temple, sacrificing in high places should have disappeared totally; but it forever kept emerging, even under kings who in other respects adhered firmly to the worship of Jehovah. Nevertheless, it is constantly spoken of as a defect or an abnormity (1 Kings 15:14; 1 Kings 22:44; 2 Kings 12:4; 2 Kings 14:4; 2 Kings 15:4; 2 Kings 15:35; 2 Kings 21:3). 3. The divine revelation which Solomon received, came, as in so many other instances both in the Old and also even in the New Testament, through the medium of a dream. In itself the dream is, according to the Scripture, something wholly idle and vain (Ecclesiastes 5:6; Job 20:8; Isaiah 29:7-8); in so far, however, as man is then removed entirely from the sensible and outward world, and is in the condition of a pure psychical intuition, he can, more than in the natural, wakeful condition, become a more receptive soil for divine influences and communications. Hence, in Sirach 31 : (34) 2 sq., while the nothingness of dreams is taught, yet in 1 Kings 3:6 this statement follows: ἐὰνμὴ παρὰ ὑψίστου [sc. τὰ ἐνύπνια] ἀποσταλῇ ἐνἐπισκοπῇ, μὴ δῷςεἰςαὐτὰ τὴνκαρδίανσοῦ. Dreams of the latter description are placed, consequently, on a level with prophecy and visions, which are the operation of the ψεּ ?ηַ of Jehovah (Joe 3:1). But these invariably presuppose a certain spiritual temper upon the part of the dreamer. “The prophetic dream of the night, as a rule, is connected with the moral reflections and presentiments of the day” (Lange, on Genesis 20:3). A soul directed towards God and divine things in its wakeful state, is peculiarly fitted, in the stillness of the night, in its involuntary expressions, i.e., in its dreams, to receive purely spiritual, inwardly divine influences. Such was the case with Solomon. His dream shows what then agitated and filled his soul, and that the festivity he then held was not an empty political ceremony, but resulted from an actual religious need. An Adonijah, at his feast at the spring Rogel (1 Kings 1:9-25), would never have been able to dream so. If ever dream contained nothing chimerical (visionary), it was Solomon’s dream at Gibeon. [Bp. Hall, beautifully: “Solomon worships God by day: God appears to Solomon by night. Well may we look to enjoy God when we have served him.—E. H.] 4. The prayer of Solomon unites in itself all that belongs to a true prayer. It affords evidence especially of the genuine theocratic spirit in which this son of David had been educated, and was now entering upon his royal office. He recognises the greatness of the task to be the king of the people which Jehovah has chosen from among all peoples of the earth, and his first and greatest anxiety is to comply with this demand. He feels that he, especially in his youth and inexperience, cannot do this of his own strength, and he prays for enlightenment from on high, not so much for himself as for the sake of the people. It is not his own merit which gives him courage for this prayer, but he rests it upon the divine grace and mercy which his father had so richly experienced. His words are not many, but the few he utters are the expression of a living, child-like faith, as simple and substantial as it is inward and true. 5. The history of the two women “is genuinely Oriental, in which we must dismiss from our minds wholly, our forms of justice and processes of proof: since an accurate, striking flash, which solves the difficulty, in living, immediate insight with one stroke, as with the sharpness of a sword, is far loftier than a regular consideration and balancing of the grounds advanced, for and against. Therefore, this wisdom, as belonging to the period, to the land, and to the whole people, must be looked upon as a high gift of God, as, indeed, it actually was “(Gerlach). Examples of similar judicial decision are not wanting in antiquity. Grotius observes: Non dissimile illud Ariopharnis regis Thracum, qui de tribus filios se Cimmeriorum regis dicentibus eum pro filio habuit, qui jussus cadaver patris jaculis noluerat, incessere. Ou� historia est apud Siculum Diodorum. Another instance “is adduced by Robertson from an Indian book. A woman in bathing left her child on the bank of a pond. A female demon who was passing by carried it off. Both appear before the goddess with their claims. She commands that each shall seize an arm and a leg and pull at it. The mother of the child is recognised by her refusal” (Philippson). Solomon demonstrated his capacity as judge in the case in hand, in so far especially that, in the absence of witnesses and of outward means of proof, he knew how to bring the secret truth to light in such way as to convince the contestants themselves. The words of Pro 16:10 are here confirmed. While Niemeyer, in the judgment of Solomon, recognises, if not “God’s wisdom,” at least “rapid decision, presence of mind, and an accurate insight into human nature,” other theologians of the illumination period, have seen nothing more than “the proceeding of an Oriental despot, a fancy which would not do much to subserve the interests of a European prince “(G. L. Bauer in Keil on the place). He who judges so unwisely, only shows in the act, that in like or similar circumstances he would scarcely have reached so wise a judgment as Solomon’s. Little as Solomon’s procedure may correspond to our present notions of the administration of justice, formally considered, nevertheless that which for all time remains the chief point was not wanting, 1 Kings 3:12—the divine gift of bringing to light the secret, inward fact, and of awakening the sleeping conscience, so that falsehood and misrepresentation vanish, and the truth comes forth. Without this gift all forms and rules of investigation avail nothing; yea, as experience has so often shown, they serve to pervert the conscience and to conceal the truth. Homiletical and Practical1 Kings 3:1. Cramer: Although marriage with persons of unlike faith be allowed, and is in itself no sin (1 Corinthians 7:14), it is, nevertheless, better that one avoid it, because the unbelieving perverts the believer more frequently than the believer converts the unbeliever.—Starke: God has the hearts of all men in His hands, and can bring it to pass that they who have been inimical to us, and have despised us, shall hold us in great honor (Proverbs 16:7; Genesis 31:24).—As soon as Solomon saw his existence secured, he proceeded to matrimony. 1 Kings 3:2-4. Solomon’s Sacrificial Festivity: (a) When he celebrated it (at the beginning of his reign to return thanks for the past assistance of God, and to implore its continuance); (b) where he kept it (upon the high place at Gibeon, because no temple was built as yet: the place of prayer in the Old and in the New Testament).—Though God dwell not in temples built by human hands, yet it is needful for each congregation to have an house, where with one mouth it praises the name of the Lord. Where this need is not felt, there is a defect in faith and love for the Lord 1 Kings 3:3. He loved the Lord. This is the best and greatest thing that can be said of a man. So, every one who loves the world, has not in him the love of the Father: this is only where God is loved above all things, His word observed, and His commandments fulfilled with joy and delight (1 John 2:5; 1 John 2:15; 1 John 5:3). Happy is he who, to the question of the Lord: Lovest thou me can return the answer of Peter (John 21:17). Because Solomon loved the Lord he honored also his father, and walked in his ways. The want of filial piety in our day comes from want of love to the Lord. 1 Kings 3:4. If we should begin our daily work with the sacrifice of our prayer, how much more our life’s calling, and every weighty undertaking upon which our own and the well-being of other men depends (God grant it, He who can help, &c.). 1 Kings 3:5-15. The Prayer of Solomon: (a) Its contents (1 Kings 3:6-9); (b) its answer (1 Kings 3:10-14). 1 Kings 3:5. Starke: Those who love God (1 Kings 3:3), God loves in return, and reveals himself to them (John 14:21).—Hall: The night cannot be otherwise than holy to him whom the previous day has been holy.—In our dreams we often speak and act in such way that we must be frightened, upon awaking, at how much that is impure and corrupt is still within us. Upon this account we should pray in the evening: Ah! may my soul in sleeping also do that which is good, or, if I dream, be it from thee, so that my senses even in sleep may acquire love for thee, &c. (Psalms 63:7).—[One is here reminded of Bp. Ken’s beautiful evening hymn: “Glory to thee, my God, this night.”—E. H.]—A dream like Solomon’s does not happen when the day just past has been spent in revel and riot, in gross or in refined sin.—Lisco: What happened here in dream, Christ commands in “Our Father.”—Starke: God well knew what Solomon needed; but he bid him ask, (1) to show how negligent men are in praying for what is spiritual; (2) that he would only bestow His gifts in the ordinance of prayer; (3) that great personages might have an example of what they should ask of God, above all others. Ask what I shall give thee: (a) a test-word, for as man wishes and prays, so does he show of whose spirit he is the child (Psalms 139:23); (b) a word of warning, for we not only may, but we should also ask for all which we have most at heart (Psalms 37:4). 1 Kings 3:6-10. When is our prayer pleasing to God? (a) When we pray in the feeling of our weakness and helplessness, and in confidence in the mercy of God and His promises; (b) when before all things we ask for spiritual blessings and gifts (Matthew 6:33; Ephesians 1:3).—The true wisdom for which we have to ask God (James 1:5), does not consist in manifold and great knowledge, but in the understanding of what is good and bad (Job 28:28; James 3:17; Ephesians 5:17), and is a fruit of the renewal of our mind (Romans 12:2).—A ruler who does not ask God for an obedient heart for himself, can and ought not to hope for or expect that his people will yield him a submissive heart.—Youth, which as a rule places freedom in lawlessness, needs before all things to ask God daily for an obedient heart. 1 Kings 3:8-9. Pfaff: Subjects are not simply creatures of the authorities, nor are they designed for the exercise of their pleasures and the splendor of their position (Hoheit); but they are God’s people, and as such, are to be governed and judged. 1 Kings 3:11-14. The granting of Solomon’s prayer teaches and assures us: (a) That God grants more than they request, over and above praying and understanding, to those who call upon him with earnestness, and for spiritual gifts (Ephesians 3:20; Matthew 6:33); (b) that God gives to him upon whom He confers an office, that is, to one who does not rush into an office or calling, but is called thereto by God, the necessary understanding, if he humbly seek it.—Where there is wisdom, there comes, indeed, also gold and silver (Proverbs 3:16 sq.), but not the reverse. 1 Kings 3:15. Hall: A heart conscious in itself of the living evidences of a special grace of God, cannot forbear feeling that it should be authenticated through outward signs, and especially through munificence. 1 Kings 3:16-28 : Lisco: Solomon’s Wise Judgment: (a) The question in dispute (1 Kings 3:16-22); (b) the decision (1 Kings 3:23-28). 1 Kings 3:17-22. Such sin brings together, but it unites only for a short time; for it produces discord, wrangling, and controversy. Abiding peace dwells only in the house where the God of peace binds hearts together.—He who takes from the heart of a mother her child, or estranges or deprives her, will not escape the righteous tribunal of the judge to whom the mother (das mutterherz) calls and appeals.—Litigation is generally associated, with envy, falsehood, and unrighteousness, hence the Lord says, be ready, &c. (Matthew 5:25; Luke 12:58). 1 Kings 3:26. If an immoral woman be merciful for the son of her body, and cannot forget her little child (kindleins), how much more should every Christian mother be ready to offer, when necessary, the heaviest sacrifice to deliver her child from moral ruin.—Seiler: If in the hearts of sinners the love of father and mother be so strong, how strong must the fatherly love of God be (Isaiah 49:15)?—Envy hardens all human feeling, and makes one hard and heartless. 1 Kings 3:27. When a child, apparently given over to death, is restored to its parents by divine providence, so much the more must their chief solicitude be to educate and bring it up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.—Not power and force, not great pomp, and pride, and tyranny, but wisdom and righteousness, give to the government authority, and call forth genuine fear and the voluntary obedience of the people.—If it were given to a Solomon to bring to disgrace lying and misrepresentation, by judicial wisdom and knowledge of the human heart, and to deliver a righteous judgment, how much less shall liars and hypocrites stand up under the tribunal of Him who could say, A greater than Solomon is here! who, without needing witnesses and judicial examination, will bring to light what is hidden in darkness (1 Corinthians 4:5), and before whose judgment-seat we must all appear (2 Corinthians 5:10). Footnotes: 1 Kings 3:5.—[The Sept. and Chald. here repeat Lord; the Syr. follows the Hbr. In reading God; while the Vulg. and Arab. avoid repeating the divine name. 1 Kings 3:7.—[Some MSS., followed by the Sept. and Vulg., prefix the conjunction ε. 1 Kings 3:10.—[Many MSS. read ιδεδ instead of ΰγπι, and are followed by the Chaldee. 1 Kings 3:12.—[Many MSS. and editions, followed by the Vulg., have λγαψικ in the plural. 1 Kings 3:13.—[The Sept. put this clause in the past tense: ὡςοὐ γέγονενἀνὴρὅμοιόςσοιἐνβασιλεῦσι, the Vat. ending the clause here; but the Alex., by retaining the last words of the Hbr., πάσαςτὰςἡμέραςσου, makes nonsense. 1 Kings 3:15.—[The Sept. add ἐνΣιών. 1 Kings 3:15.—[The Hbr. εַ ?ιַּ ?ςַ ?ωׂ is the same before “peace-offerings” and before “feast,” and is quite different from the εַ ?ιַּ ?ςַ ?μ before “burnt-offerings.” The distinction is accurately preserved by the Sept. and the Vulg. 1 Kings 3:16.—[This translation is sustained here, as in Joshua 2:1, by all the VV. except the Chald., and is undoubtedly the invariable and distinctly-marked sense at the frequent Hbr. word. The Chald. renders inn-keepers. The author’s objection to the sense of harlots seems insufficient. 1 Kings 3:18.—[Many MSS., followed by the Sept. and Vulg., prefix the conjunction ε. 1 Kings 3:19.—[It is better to retain throughout the passage the same rendering of the same Hbr. word. 1 Kings 3:22.—[One MS., followed by the Vat., Sept., and Arab., omits the second clause of 1 Kings 3:22. 1 Kings 3:27.—[The Sept. remove any possible obscurity by paraphrasing, “Give the child to her that said, Give her,” &c.—F. G.] B.—Solomon’s officers, household, and his high intellectual culture1 Kings 4:1-34 (1 Kings 4:1; 1 Kings 5:14)1, 2So king Solomon was king over all Israel. And these were the princes which he had; Azariah the son of Zadok the priest. 3Elihoreph and Ahiah, the sons of Shisha, scribes; Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud, the recorder. 4And Benaiah the son of Jehoiada was over the host: and Zadok and Abiathar were the priests; 5and Azariah the son of Nathan was over the officers: and 6Zabud the son of Nathan was principal officer, and the king’s friend: and Ahishar was over the household: and Adoniram the son of Abda was over the tribute. 7And Solomon had twelve officers over all Israel, which provided victuals for 8the king and his household: each man his month in a year made provision. And these are their names: 9The son of Hur, in mount Ephraim: The son of Dekar, in Makaz, and in Shaalbim, and Beth-shemesh, and Elon-beth-hanan: 10The son of Hesed, in Aruboth; to him pertained Sochoh, and all the land of Hepher: 11The son of Abinadab, in all the region [highlands] of Dor; which had Taphath the daughter of Solomon to wife: 12Baana the son of Ahilud; to him pertained Taanach and Megiddo, and all Beth-shean, which is by Zartanah beneath Jezreel, from Bethshean to Abel-meholah, even unto the place that is beyond Jokneam 13[Jokmeam]: The son of Geber, in Ramoth-gilead; to him pertained the towns of Jair the son of Manasseh, which are in Gilead; to him also pertained the region of Argob, which is in Bashan, threescore great cities with walls and brazen bars: 14, 15Ahinadab the son of Iddo had Mahanaim: Ahimaaz was in Naphtali; he also took Basmath the daughter of Solomon to wife: 16Baanah the son of Hushai was in Asher and in Aloth: 17Jehoshaphat the son of Paruah, in Issachar: 18Shimei the son of Elah, in Benjamin: 19Geber the son of Uri was in the country of Gilead, in the country of Sihon king of the Amorites, and of Og king of Bashan; and he was the only officer which was in the land. 20Judah and Israel were many, as the sand which is by the sea in multitude, eating and drinking and making merry. 21And Solomon reigned over all kingdoms from the river unto the land of the Philistines, and unto the border of Egypt: they brought presents, and served Solomon all the days of his life. 22And Solomon’s provision for one day was thirty measures [cor] of fine flour, and threescore measures [cor] of meal. 23Ten fat oxen, and twenty oxen out of the pastures, and a hundred sheep, besides harts, and roebucks, and fallow deer, and fatted fowl. 24For he had dominion over all the region on this side the river, from Tiphsah even to Azzah, over all the kings on this side the river: and he had peace on all sides round about him. 25And Judah and Israel dwelt safely, every man under his vine and under his fig tree, from Dan even to Beersheba, all the days of Solomon. 26And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen [saddle-horses]. 27And 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. 28Barley also and straw for the horses and dromedaries [coursers] brought they unto the place where the officers were, every man according to his charge. 29And God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding exceeding much, and largeness of heart, even as the sand that is on the sea shore. 30And Solomon’s wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east country, and all the wisdom of Egypt. 31For 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. 32And he spake three thousand proverbs: and his songs were a thousand and five. 33And he spake of trees, from the cedar tree that is in Lebanon even unto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall: he spake also of beasts, and of fowl, and of creeping things, and of fishes. 34And there came of all people to hear the wisdom of Solomon, from all kings of the earth, which had heard of his Wisdom 16 Exegetical and Critical1 Kings 4:1. So king Solomon was, &c. According to Thenius, the section from 1 Kings 4:1-28 is borrowed from two different sources, and the contents of both are so woven together that the proper connection is now lost. 1 Kings 4:2-19 may belong to the older and purely historical source; 1 Kings 4:1; 1 Kings 4:20 to the later traditional one, as may also 1 Kings 4:21; 1 Kings 4:24-26. “1 Kings 1 Kings 4:22-23; 1 Kings 4:27-28 (probably in the following order: 1 Kings 4:27-28; 1 Kings 4:22-23) contain the continuation of the account of the functionaries (taken from the more ancient source).” It is true that a perfect accordance is obtained by this arrangement of the text, which is partly founded on the Septuagint; but the question is whether the text, as it lies before us, is so disconnected as to require such a forced alteration of style. We must presuppose the author possessed of enough understanding not to take what he found in good order, in his documentary sources, tear it apart, weave it together, and render the whole without connection. In chaps, 1–3 he related how Solomon’s kingdom became established and respected; in chap. 4 he tells how it was constituted, and in what a well-ordered and flourishing condition it was. Then he proceeds with the words of 1 Kings 4:1 : So king Solomon was king over all Israel, i.e., with the rule of Solomon over all Israel, such was its estate. Now comes the account of the regular government and management of the entire realm, by the various civil officers of different degrees (1 Kings 4:2-19); then the court establishment, which represented the prosperous state of the kingdom (22–28); and lastly, that of the extraordinary acquirements of the king himself (29–34). The first section is very naturally followed (1 Kings 4:20) by remarks on the great population and prosperous condition of the kingdom; and this leads to the further remark (1 Kings 4:21) that Solomon’s dominion not only extended over the populous nation of Israel, but over the neighboring tribes, that were brought under tribute. His court establishment, was equally brilliant, and it (1 Kings 4:22-28) corresponded with his extended sovereignty (1 Kings 4:24), and with the peacefulness which his subjects enjoyed (1 Kings 4:25). There is no want of connection in such a narrative. 1 Kings 4:2. And these were the princes, the dignitaries (comp. the double list of those under David, 2 Samuel 8:16-18, and ibid.1 Kings 2:23-26, where they are not, however, named δַ ?ωָּׂ ?ψִ ?ιν), and there are two more here. The order of the offices is different in each of the three lists, so that we cannot therefrom form an opinion of their rank. It is characteristic that the military officers are named first in both of David’s lists, and the civil offices are first in Solomon’s. The Jewish expounders, the Vulgate, Luther, and Thenius, take δַ ?λֹּ ?δֵ ?ο in 1 Kings 4:2 to be in the genitive case: “Azariah, the son of Zadok the high priest; Elihoreph and Ahiah the sons of Shisha, were scribes.” But against this view are the accents (silluk with sophpasuk), according to which, a new sentence begins with Elihoreph; also “the omission of the copula ε before Elihoreph, which was absolutely necessary, if Azariah had been joined in the same office with the brothers Elihoreph and Ahiah” (Keil); finally, the son of the high-priest Zadok is named Ahimaaz in 2 Samuel 15:27; 2 Samuel 18:27; and 1 Chronicles 6:8-9, and then his son Azariah αֵּ ?ο must therefore certainly be translated here by: grandson. This, however, is not suitable here, because son is used six times consecutively in the following verses, so that we cannot understand why the writer does not say the son of Ahimaaz. It was scarcely possible either for a grandson of the priest Zadok to have been old enough then to stand at the head of the body of high dignitaries. All things considered, δַ ?λֹּ ?δֵ ?ο must here be understood like δַ ?ξַּ ?ζְ ?λִּ ?ιψ, 1 Kings 4:3, as predicate-nominative, according to the opinions of Piscator, Le Clerc, Keil, and others. We may not translate like Ewald and Bunsen: “Azariah, the son of Zadok, was the high-priest,” for according to 1 Kings 4:4, Zadok himself, and also Abiathar, were; but there never were three high-priests at the same time. We are rather compelled, on the contrary, to take λֹּ ?δֵ ?ο in the sense it bears in 2 Samuel 8:18; 2 Samuel 20:26, where it signifies a secular office. The Chron. (1 Kings 1:18; 1 Kings 1:17) gives instead of λֹּ ?δֲ ?πִ ?ιν in the first place δָ ?ψִ ?ΰωֹׁ ?πִ ?ινμְ ?ιַ ?γδַ ?ξֶּ ?μֶ ?κְ, that is, the first at the king’s side, those whom we now name ministers, or privy counsellors. The word in 1 Kings 4:5 must necessarily have this meaning; where it stands without the article, Zabud was λֹּ ?δֵ ?ο. If now Azariah is introduced in 1 Kings 4:2 as δַ ?λֹּ ?δֵ ?ο, wholly analogous to the way in which the high priest, contrasted with the other priests, is absolutely δַ ?λֹּ ?δֵ ?ο (Exodus 29:30; Leviticus 21:21; 1 Kings 1:8; 1 Kings 1:38; 2 Kings 11:9; 2 Kings 11:15, etc.), so is he designated as the first or chief of the secular λֹּ ?δֲ ?πִ ?ιν, upon which account he stands first in the list of the great office bearers. “Among the trusted privy counsellors of the king, he held the first place” (Keil). It is not necessary to suppose that Zadok, whose son he was, was the high-priest, for this name occurs very often (2 Kings 15:33; Nehemiah 3:4-29; Nehemiah 13:13; Nehemiah 11:11), as well as the name Azariah (1 Chron. 5:36–40; 1 Chronicles 2:39; 2 Kings 15:30, &c.). 1 Kings 4:3-6. Elihoreph … were scribes, &c. ρֹ ?τֵ ?ψ means generally any one whose business it was to write or to count. The ρֹ ?τְ ?ψִ ?ιν, as the highest civil officers, had, no doubt, the care of all clerkly as well as financial matters; two are therefore specified.—For the office of the ξַ ?ζְ ?λִּ ?ιψ see Introduc. § 2. It is plain that he was not the “highest minister of state,” as Winer thinks, because he is not the first, but the third in the list. As the copula is wanting before Josaphat, we cannot conclude, with Thenius, that he was above the ρֹ ?τְ ?ψִ ?ιν, to whom Azariah must in that case also have belonged.—Shisha must be the same as Shavsha in 1 Chronicles 18:16, and Seriah in 2 Samuel 18:7. The office of the father under David, passed to his two sons under Solomon.—For Benaiah see 1 Kings 2:35.—Ewald thinks the words: And Zadok and Abiathar (were) the priests a mere unnecessary repetition of Sam. 1 Kings 20:25, because, according to 1 Kings 2:26; 1 Kings 2:35, Solomon deposed Abiathar and put Zadok in his place. However, there is no sufficient ground for this view. Abiathar is again introduced as a priest here, either “because he had officiated in the beginning of Solomon’s reign” (Philippson), or because, as Grotius remarks, though he was no longer re yet he was nomine high-priest, and though the ἀρχή was taken from him the ἱερωσύνη nevertheless remained to him (Theodoret). It is highly improbable that Solomon afterwards pardoned and restored him to office (Le Clerc).—Azariah and Zabud (1 Kings 4:5) were not the sons of the prophet Nathan (Thenius), but of the son of David, mentioned in 2 Samuel 5:14, therefore Solomon’s nephews (Keil). The former had the officials enumerated in 1 Kings 4:7-19 under him, the latter is designated as λֹּ ?δֵ ?οψֵ ?ςֶ ?δδַ ?ξֶּ ?μֶ ?κְ. Ewald looks on this in a very modern way, and thinks it was a “special house-priest” of the king’s, “who was his peculiar minister in spiritual affairs.” However, there is no more mention of a priest here than in 2 Samuel 8:18; ψֵ ?ςֶ ?δ explains λֹּ ?δֵ ?ο, and both words form together one conception; Zabud was a “privy counsellor, i.e., friend of the king’s” (Keil). Luther’s translation: the son of Nathan, the priest, is quite false. Abiathar (1 Kings 4:6) was not “minister of the king’s household” (Keil), but “master of the palace and household” (Thenius), 1 Kings 18:3; 2 Kings 18:18; Isaiah 22:15. This office did not exist under David; but was required by the larger and more splendid court of Solomon. Adoniram is the same as 2 Samuel 20:24 and 1 Kings 12:18, where he is called Adoram. He was not tithe-master (Luther), but overseer of the hirelings that had to overlook the public works, for ξַ ?ν nowhere means vectigal or impost. Ewald and Thenius think the addition of the Sept.: καὶ ’ΕλιὰβυἱὸςΣὰφἐπὶ τῆςπατριᾶς, original, but it is easy to see that it is a gloss. 1 Kings 4:7. Solomon had twelve officers. The wholly general expression πִ ?φָּ ?αִ ?ιν (from πφα to place, i.e., people in office), is made clearer by the word: the provided for, &c. Hence they were not ἡγεμόνεςκαὶ στρατηγοὶ (Josephus), neither “court cooks” (Winer), but “chief rent-receivers” (Rosen-mόller); whether they were regular chiefs or governors of provinces, the providing for the king being only a part of their office (Thenius), is uncertain. Probably their districts were not arranged with reference to the lands of the tribes, but to the fertility of the soil. Their number, twelve, has no relation to the twelve tribes, but to the twelve months of the year, in each of which one of them had to supply his quota. The list of the districts in 1 Kings 4:8-19 is perhaps made with reference to the time of delivery, and makes no account of the geographical position.—The proper names of five of the twelve officials are not given, but only their fathers’ names. It is uncertain whether they bore those names with the prefix of Ben, as the Vulgate supposes (Benhur, Bendecar, &c.). Ben-abinadab (1 Kings 4:11) is scarcely a proper name. As these men have no further historical importance, it matters little about their names. Two sons-in-law of Solomon being among them, only shows that the list gives us a view of the civil offices during the middle period of his reign. 1 Kings 4:8-22. The son of Hur, in mount Ephraim. We give here only what is most necessary about the situations and nature of particular districts. Thenius on this place, speaks at length of both. (1) Mount Ephraim, in Central Palestine, one of the most cultivated districts of all Palestine (Winer, R.-W.-B., s. v.). (2) Makaz (1 Kings 4:9) is named only here, but must belong, like Shaalbim, Beth-shemesh and Elon, to the tribe of Dan (south of Ephraim and west of Judah). (3) Aruboth (1 Kings 4:10) also does not appear elsewhere, probably a place in the tribe of Judah, to which Sochoh in the south must also have belonged (Joshua 15:48). Hepher cannot be the town Gath-Hepher in Zebulon, but only a southern district, probably west of Sochoh, where a Canaanitish king had reigned before (Joshua 12:17). (4) Dor (1 Kings 4:11), a town on the Mediterranean, nine Roman miles north of Cζsarea (Joshua 17:11). Naphat (i.e., heights) Dor is the hilly stretch of country towards the south of the town, and to this Thenius reckons the whole very fertile pasture-plain of Sharon to Joppa. (5) Megiddo, and close to it, in a southeasterly direction, Taanach (1 Kings 4:12); two towns, that lie on the slope of the Carmel mountains, at the edge of the plain of Jezreel in the tribe of Manasseh. Beth-shean, on a straight line, east of Megiddo, where the plain of Jezreel ceases and that of the Jordan meadows begins. Zartanah lay near in a southerly direction, and Abel-meholah still more south; the latter was the birth-place of the prophet Elisha. Jokneam, according to 1 Chronicles 6:53, a levite town, the situation of which is doubtful, perhaps it was the same as Kibzaim (Joshua 21:22). The district must then have included the whole land of the tribe of Manasseh on this side (west of) Jordan. (6) Ramothgilead (1 Kings 4:13), a town of the levites beyond Jordan, in the tribe of Gad, which stretched northwards along the tribe of Manasseh, and southwards along that of Reuben (Joshua 21:38; Deuteronomy 4:43). Upon ηַ ?εֹּ ?ϊof Jair, comp. Numbers 32:41; Deuteronomy 3:14; Joshua 13:30. Our passage says as plainly as possible that they were in the land of Gilead, but the country of Argob was in the land of Bashan. The sixty fortified cities that belonged to the last can therefore not be identical with ηַ ?εֹּ ?ϊ (Keil), as Bashan is always made quite distinct from Gilead (Deuteronomy 3:10; Joshua 12:5; Joshua 13:11; Joshua 17:1; 2 Kings 10:33; Micah 7:14), the translation: the “towns of Jair” is not correct either, “because: ηιδ here does not mean to live, and the German: living in a given place does not signify vita but mansio” (Cassel, zu Richt., iii. 4). The land of Bashan with Argob lay northeast of that of Gilead. The brazen bars mean that the gates of the cities were protected with brass. (7) Mahanaim (1 Kings 4:14), a town beyond Jordan (2 Samuel 17:24-27), on the borders of the tribe of Gad and the further portion of Manasseh on the Jabbok (Joshua 21:38). We have no further information about this district of Abinadab. (8) Naphtali (1 Kings 4:15), the region of the tribe of this name, was quite in the north of Palestine, on this side Jordan, west of Asher’s inheritance and bordering, on its south, the tribe of Zebulon. (9) Asher’s (1 Kings 4:16) inheritance lay along the coast of the Mediterranean, northward of the tribe of Issachar (Deuteronomy 33:24 sq.). αְ in αְ ?ςָ ?μεֹ ?ϊ must certainly be understood as in αְּ ?ΰָ ?ωֵׁ ?ψ (Luther), but Aloth, like Bealoth, is a quite unknown name, for the latter cannot be Bealoth in Judah (Joshua 15:24). Thenius boldly conjectures ςγξςμδφεψ to the road leading to Tyre. (10) Issachar (1 Kings 4:17); its country lay on this side Jordan, between Zebulon on the north and Manasseh on the south (Joshua 19:17 sq.). (11) Benjamin (1 Kings 4:18); its inheritance was between Ephraim on the north and Judah on the south, and east of Dan (Joshua 18:11 sq.). (12) Gilead (1 Kings 4:19) is used here for all the east-Jordan lands in general, but it could only apply to that part which remained over after taking out the sixth and seventh districts, that is, the southern. The kingdom of Sihon originally extended from the river Jabbok in Manasseh to the river Arnon, which empties itself into the Dead Sea (Numbers 21:24), and passed over to the tribes of Gad and Reuben. Bashan lay northeast of Sihon (Numbers 21:33). The addition: an officer, &c., means: that although this district was perhaps the largest (probably because of the barrenness of the soil), it had only one officer. Ewald would insert ιְ ?δεּ ?γָ ?δ after αΰψυ, which is very incorrect, because instead of twelve officers, according to 1 Kings 4:7, there would have been thirteen. The expression in 1 Kings 4:20 : as the sand which is by the sea, clearly refers to the promise in Genesis 22:17; Genesis 32:12. For eatingand drinking, &c., comp. 1 Samuel 30:16; Proverbs 5:17. One must either add ςַ ?γ before ΰֶ ?ψֶ ?υ (1 Kings 5:1) like the parallel passage in 2 Chronicles 9:26, or bear in mind the αְ from the preceding passage, as Keil does. Presents, a mild expression for tribute, as in 2 Samuel 8:2-6; 2 Kings 17:3-4. 1 Kings 4:22-25. And Solomon’s provision, &c. 1 Kings 4:22. αֹּ ?ψ (called ηֹ ?ξֶ ?ψ before) is the largest measure, and contains, according to Josephus, ten attic medimni [medimnus = nearly twelve gallons.—E. H.] which Bφckh reckons at 19857.7 Paris cubic inches; however, it seems from exact calculations made by Thenius (in the Stud. u. Kritik. 1846, s. 73 sq.), that Josephus is wrong, and that the measures only contained 10143 Paris cubic inches. According to this, the 30 + 60 measures of meal make 171 bushels, from which 28,000 pounds of bread were baked. “If we allow two pounds of bread to each person, Solomon’s court must have contained 14,000 people” (others compute them at only 10,000), a number which does not seem too great for the middle period of this reign. Let us think, for instance, of the great harem, the numerous servants, the body-guard, &c., and consider besides, that the families of all the court officials belonged to it, and that there were only payments in provisions. “If we take the flesh of a slaughtered ox to weigh 600 (according to the calculation of those who understood the matter), that of a cow 400, and that of a sheep 70 pounds,” the total consumption of meat would be 21,000 pounds, that is, one and a half pounds for each person; and “this is not reckoning the game and fowl for the king’s table.” There are similar accounts of expenditure at other oriental courts. “According to an ancient author (Athen. Deipn., iv. 10), Alexander found on a column at Persepolis a placard containing an account of the daily consumption at the court of Cyrus; from this list we give the following: 1,000 bushels of wheat of different qualities, the same of barley-meal, 400 sheep, 300 lambs, 100 oxen, 30 horses, 30 deer, 400 fat geese, 100 goslings, 300 pigeons, 600 small birds of various kinds, 3,750 gallons of wine, 75 gallons of fresh milk, and the same of sour milk. Besides this, there was a quantity of maize, that was gathered in single rations for the cattle..… Tavernier reckons the number of sheep daily consumed in the seraglio of the Sultan, in his time, at 500, besides a number of fowls, and an immense quantity of butter and rice” (Philippson; comp. Rosenmόller, A. u. N. Morgenland, iii. s. 166). For ιָ ?ηְ ?ξεּ ?ψ (comp. Deuteronomy 14:5) see Winer, R.- W.-B., i. s. 494. αַ ?ψְ ?αֻּ ?ψִ ?ιν only occurs here, and is variously interpreted; Kimchi thinks it means capons; Gesenius, geese; Thenius, guinea-hens; and Ewald, swans. The splendor of the court is accounted for by 1 Kings 4:24-25. The extent of Solomon’s dominion is defined according to the two towns named in 1 Kings 4:24-25. Tiphsah, i.e., Thapsζus, was “a large and populous town on the west bank of the Euphrates ; it was a place where armies crossed over that river, and a place for landing and shipping wares coming from or going to Babylon on the Euphrates” (Winer, ii. s. 612). While this town was the extreme northeasterly point, Gaza in the Philistines’ land, about three miles (nine and a half or ten Eng.) from the Mediterranean, formed the extreme southwesterly one. It does not necessarily follow, from the expression: all the region (land) beyond the river [i.e., west], that our author dwelt on the east side of the Euphrates and wrote there (see Introd. § 1), as is to be learned from Ezra 4:10 sq.; the expression belonged to the time of banishment, but was retained after the return, and, as it seems, without regard to its geographical signification, just for instance as the expression Gallia transalpina. Living under the vine and fig tree (2 Kings 18:31) describes the happy and blissful state of peace, but was not, however, taken from the description of Messiah’s reign (Micah 4:4; Zechariah 3:10) (Ewald), but on the contrary was woven into the latter. From Dan to Beersheba, boundaries of Palestine north and east (Judges 20:1; 1 Samuel 3:20; 2 Samuel 3:10). 1 Kings 4:26-28. And. Solomon had 40,000 stalls of horses, &c. In 1 Kings 4:26 the description of the court appointments, which had been interrupted by the remarks in 1 Kings 4:24-25, is continued. ΰֻ ?ψְ ?εֹ ?ϊ are horse-stalls, stables, mangers (Bochart: loculi in stabulis distincti). According to 1 Kings 10:26, Solomon had 1,400 chariots; each of these was, as the representations on Egyptian and Assyrian monuments show, drawn by two horses, making 2,800 of these; the remaining 1,200 were reserves, for if one fell it was usual to attach a third horse (Xenophon, Cyrop., vi. 1–27). τָּ ?ψָ ?ωִׁ ?ιν does not mean riders here, but saddle-horses in contrast with harnessed horses, as in 2 Samuel 1:6; Ezekiel 27:14. The opinion that Israel lived in peace (1 Kings 4:25) because Solomon had made great warlike preparations (1 Kings 4:26) with which he protected his kingdom (Thenius, Keil), is quite a wrong one; the question is not of war here, but to what the ΰֻ ?ψְ ?εֹ ?ϊ refers, namely, the maintaining of harness- and saddlehorses, and the expenses of the court. In 1 Kings 4:27, therefore, it is again said that the twelve officers who had to provide for the sustenance of all the persons in the court, had also to provide for this great number of horses; 1 Kings 4:28 then gives the kind of provision the latter received, namely, barley and straw. Oats were not cultivated in the East, therefore barley was the usual food for horses; the poorer classes alone used it for bread also (Judges 7:13, and Cassel on the place. Comp. Winer, I. s. 410). For ψֶ ?λֶ ?ωׁ see Esther 8:10; Esther 8:14. The coursers served to carry “the king’s orders to the different districts” (Thenius). To ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψιִ ?δְ ?ιֶ ?δΞωָּׁ ?ν the Sept., Vulgate, and Thenius supply as subject: the king, which is certainly false, for if Solomon sometimes changed his residence, he did not travel about with 16,000 horses (1 Kings 4:26). According to 1 Kings 10:26, the horses were placed in different towns, into which the barley and straw were brought, as Keil says: “where they (barley and straw) should be, according as the horses were distributed about.” 1 Kings 4:29-30. And God gave Solomon wisdom, &c. Hitherto the narrative treats of the organs by means of which the order and happy condition of Solomon’s kingdom was conditioned, but now it turns to the head of the realm, the king himself, and remarks that in him which particularly distinguished him and qualified him to be the ruler, namely, the wisdom he had received from God. “While ηλξδ denotes more the entire spiritual condition, ϊαεπδ designates sharpness of insight, but in ψηαμα the ingenium capax is set forth” (Thenius), the talent to take up and comprehend all, even the most diversified objects of knowledge. Hence the addition: as the sand which is by the sea, which is a figurative description of an innumerable multitude (1 Kings 4:20; Genesis 41:49; Genesis 32:13; Psalms 139:18). Luther’s translation, a comforted heart, is wrong.—All the sons of the east, that is, not only those Arabians distinguished for their skill in proverbs, but all the tribes living to the east of Palestine (also the northeast), who were famous in any branch of knowledge (Jeremiah 49:28; Genesis 29:1; Numbers 23:7; Job 1:3). Opposite these, in the west, was Egypt, the wisdom of which was almost proverbial in the ancient world (Isaiah 19:11; Acts 7:22; Joseph., Antiq., viii. 2–5; Herodot., ii. 160). There were no other lands distinguished for wisdom in Solomon’s time; the Greek learning only commenced 400 years later. 1 Kings 4:31. The sons of Mahol, not the poets (Luther), for ξָ ?ηεֹ ?μ means as appell. dance, round dance (Psalms 30:12; Psalms 149:3); but here it is a proper name. It must remain uncertain whether these four men were celebrated persons of more ancient time, or whether they were contemporaries of Solomon; we have no further information about them. Ethan and Heman, named in 1 Chronicles 15:17; 1 Chronicles 15:19 among the musicians appointed by David, but it is scarcely to be supposed that the wisest men of the time were among them. The headings of Psalms 88, 89 are more likely to refer to our Heman and Ethan, as they are there called Ezrahites. All four names are close together 1 Chronicles 2:6 : “the sons of Zerah (the sons of Judah); Zimri, and Ethan, and Calcol, and Dara;” Grotius and Le Clerc believed them to be identical with these; as also Movers and Bertheau, more recently; but even if γψγς is the same as γψς, and Ezrach the same as Serach, the difficulty still remains that Chalcol and Darda are here named sons of Mahol, and that there is nowhere else any intimation of the wisdom of Zerach’s sons. The rabbinical book Seder Olam (ed. Meyer, p. 52 sq.), alone says of them: “these were prophets that prophesied in Egypt.” 1 Kings 4:32. And he spake three thousand proverbs, &c. Proverbs 1:1-6 explains what proverbs are and what their use is. He spake is as much as: he originated them. The fixed number, 3,000, certainly shows that they were written down and collected, possibly only in part, or possibly not at all, by himself. Unfortunately, the greater number of these proverbs are lost; for if we admit that all those in the biblical book of Proverbs were composed by Solomon, yet there are only 915 verses in the book, and these are not all proverbs. There remains still less of the thousand and five songs. It is doubtful if Canticles be one of those. The 72d and 127th Psalms have Solomon’s name at the beginning, and there is no real reason to doubt the genuineness of the heading; many think ho was the author of the 132d Psalm; Ewald thinks he wrote only the 2d Psalm. 1 Kings 4:33. He spake of trees, &c. His wisdom was not only in spiritual, religious, and social matters, and displayed in doctrine and poetry, but in natural things, the entire kingdoms of plants and animals. Josephus is wrong in saying that he derived his proverbs (parables) from all these things. The cedar is the largest, most beautiful, and useful of trees, and the hyssop the smallest and most insignificant plant. The hyssop which grows on the wall is a particular kind of wall-moss (Thenius), the other hyssop is a stem-formed plant, that grows to one or two feet high (comp. Winer, R.- W.-B., s. v.). The many kinds of beasts mean the whole animal kingdom, divided according to the manner of motion: four-footed (αְ ?δֵ ?ξָ ?δ), flying, creeping, and swimming (Genesis 6:20; Genesis 7:8). This passage can scarcely mean that Solomon also wrote works on all plants and animals, but only that he understood these subjects and could “speak” of them. We need not suppose that such works, because they may have had no significance for God’s kingdom, should not also have been preserved. 1 Kings 4:34. There came of all people, &c. The greatness and extent of Solomon’s fame for wisdom are shown by the fact that he not only continued to be the type and model of all wisdom to his own people; but is so regarded in the East, even at the present day. The Koran (Sur. 27:17) praises him as knowing the languages of men and demons, of birds and ants; these all, it says, he could hold intercourse with. The Turks still possess a work of seventy folio volumes, which is called the book of Suleiman, i.e., Solomon. The whole of the wisdom and secret learning of the East is connected with his name.—From all kings, certainly means, as Thenius maintains, that they sent ambassadors, who did him homage, or received more certain information about him; comp. the narrative, chap.10. Historical and Ethical1. To represent Solomon’s kingdom in its greatness and in its prosperous, well-ordered condition, is the plain design of this entire section, and upon this account the lists of officers, &c., which in themselves are dry, acquire a higher, historical (heilsge-schichtliche) signification. The period of the judges was the time of public crudeness in which there was an absence of order, and of organic unity of the kingdom. The age of David was that of continuous wars and battles, in which indeed victory over all enemies at last came, and with it at the same time the beginning of a well-ordered condition; but not complete peace for the kingdom. This first came with Solomon’s reign (1 Chronicles 22:8-9). The reign of Solomon is the result of all preceding conflicts and divine teachings. It is the kingdom of Israel in its highest maturity. To represent it as such, it needed the authentication which our section supplies, and which in like manner in the whole history of the kings does not occur again. At this highest reach this kingdom was, upon the one side, the fulfilment of the divine promise (Genesis 22:17, and Exodus 3:17 sq.; cf. with 1 Kings 4:20, and 1 Kings 5:5), and, upon the other side moreover, it was itself a promise, an historical prophecy, a σκιὰ τῶνμελλόντων. As the whole Old Testament economy in its sensuousness and outwardness points beyond itself, to the New Testament in its spirituality and inwardness, so especially is Solomon’s kingdom the type of the Messiah’s. What the former is κατὰ σάρκα, the latter is κατὰ πνεῦμα. For the delineation of the latter, the prophets borrowed words from the delineation of the former in our section here (Micah 4:4; Zechariah 3:10. Cf. above, on chap. 1). 2. The great expensiveness of Solomon’s household is brought into the closest connection with the happiness, the prosperity and peace of the whole people (1 Kings 4:20; 1 Kings 5:5). It is hence an entire perversion when recent writers sever one passage from the connection, and cite that expensiveness among the things with which the people under Solomon were burdened, and which by and by had excited dissatisfaction and restlessness (Ewald, Gesch. Isr., iii. s. 376; Duncker, Gesch. des Alterthums, i. s. 389). In absolute states, namely, in the ancient oriental, the king is the nation in person. The splendor of the royal household represents the splendor of the entire people. Far from being a sign of the oppression of the people, it shows rather their happiness and prosperity. The account does not say: the king lived in luxury while the people were poor and felt oppressed, but: as the people, so the king, and as the king, so the people; both were satisfied and enjoyed prosperity and peace. 3. The delineation of Solomon’s wisdom follows immediately the delineation of the outward and material well-being of the kingdom, and shows in this connection that as Solomon was the representative of this well-being, so also from him, in consequence of special divine endowment, a rich, higher spiritual life, such as hitherto had not been, proceeded, and poured itself like a stream over the whole land (Eccles. 47:14 sq.). “All may be ready in a given time and people,” says Eisenlohr (das Volk Isr., ii. s. 110), “for a spiritual elevation and living action, but one only has the mind and the power for it. Hence we cannot set sufficiently high the influence of the creative personality of the highly-gifted king Solomon.” And Ewald observes (Gesch. Isr., iii. s. 350), “so there was for the people in this noble time a new age also for science, poetry, and literature, whose rich fruits continued long after the sensuous wealth and superabundance which this time brought, together with the powers of the nation, had melted away.” It was just this high condition of spiritual culture which procured for the king, and indirectly for the people, great authority, and which attracted men from all neighboring lands to hear this “wisdom.” But also in the connection in which the material and the spiritual well-being of the people are brought together, there is a reference to the truth that for the glory of a king there must be something more than greatness, power, wealth, quiet, or “eating and drinking and amusements,” and that where there is not spiritual culture and a higher life, where, for the furtherance of material interests, spiritual interests are thrust aside or neglected, the thought of a glorious condition cannot be entertained. Solomon himself says (Proverbs 3:13-14): “Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding. For the merchandise of it is better than the merchandise of silver, and the gain thereof than fine gold.” 4. The wisdom of the East and of Egypt is not so much below that of Solomon in its outward circumference (extensive), as in its most inward, characteristic being (intensive). While the former, in its deepest ground, rests upon the identification of the world with God, and at last discharges itself in pantheism, and, in consequence, is deprived almost wholly of the ethical element, this proceeds from the principle which is expressed in the words which form the title of Solomon’s proverbs: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction” (Proverbs 1:7; cf. with 1 Kings 9:10). “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.” (Comp. Umbreit, Commentar όber die Spr. Sal. Einleit., s. 1–65.) It rests upon the knowledge of the one God of heaven and earth, who hath chosen Israel and made with them a covenant, i.e., has revealed himself to them through His word, viz., “the Law.” Consequently it is essentially monotheistic, ethical, and, therefore, practical. It does not exclude the knowledge of nature, for which Solomon was also renowned (1 Kings 4:13); but the latter is only true and right when it rests upon the former, and is permeated by it. In so far the wisdom of Solomon stood unrivalled throughout the whole of the ancient Orient, and was like an oasis in the desert to which men from all the neighboring countries made pilgrimages, a radiating light which attracted all involuntarily who loved light rather than darkness. “Only forth from the soil of the spirit watered by the spring of religious faith can the tree of wisdom grow strong, and spread out its branches into all regions of life” (Umbreit, a. a. O., s. 5). But as Solomon’s kingdom refers generally to that of the Messiah (see above), so especially does Solomon’s wisdom (monotheistic-legal) point to the wisdom of Him who is greater than Solomon (12:42), who is the light of the world, and to whom all kings both from the West and the East shall come, and upon whom all the heathen shall call (Psalms 72:10-11; Isaiah 60:1-3). Homiletical and PracticalChap. 4 The Kingdom of Solomon a type of the Messiah’s (1) in its greatness and extent; (2) in its prosperity and peace; (3) in his wisdom and knowledge.—1 Kings 4:1 to 1 Kings 5:1. Wόrt Summ.: Fortunate is the government where all goes orderly. Their eyes shall look around after the faithful in the land, and pious subjects are loved and esteemed; but false people and liars, and those of a perverse heart, who have proud ways and haughtiness, and who calumniate others secretly and maliciously, it will not have nor endure about it, but will clear away and destroy after the example of David (Psalms 110).—A well-ordered state constitution is the condition of the growth and prosperity of every kingdom; but all ordinances and institutions avail nothing when requisite and proper persons are wanting for their administration and execution. To select such, and to entrust them with different administrative offices, is the first and most difficult task of a ruler. Happy the prince to whom God grants the grace to find the right persons, who can counsel him and deserve his confidence (Ecclesiastes 10:2-5).—Starke: As a court, where it is beset with flatterers, backbiters, carousers, &c., generally goes down, so also it prospers, on the other hand, when pious servants are there.—1 Kings 4:20. Starke: Not the multitude of a people causes a scarcity in the land, but the wickedness and avarice of men.—Food and drink and amusement are a gift of God (Ecclesiastes 3:13), when used in the fear of God (Ecclesiastes 11:9) and with thanksgiving (1 Corinthians 10:31; Colossians 3:17); but they become sin when, in the gift, the giver is forgotten, the belly made a god of, and serves the lust of the flesh. 1 Kings 4:21.—Cramer: The kingdom of Christ is still far greater. He rules from one end of the sea to the other, from the rising of the sun unto the going down thereof (Zechariah 9:10). All kings shall call upon Him: all the heathen shall serve Him (Psalms 72:8-10). [E. Harwood: Chap. 4 1 Kings 4:4-5. Comp. 1 Chronicles 22:7-10. David, the man of action; Solomon, the man of rest. The man of active life usually has more conspicuous virtues and more conspicuous faults than the man of rest. David proposed to build the house—the man of action was the founder: Solomon carried the plans of his father into execution. David was the founder: Solomon the builder.] 1 Kings 4:22.—As, by divine providence and ordering, there are always different conditions, high and low, rich and poor, so their manner of life cannot be the same, but must be conformable to the rank and position which has been assigned to every one by God. The household of a prince who stands at the head of a great and distinguished people ought not, indeed, give to the people the bad example of extravagant show, luxury, and riot; but it must, in abundance and splendor, surpass every private establishment, and ought not to appear needy and impoverished. 1 Kings 4:24-25 (chap. 4 1 Kings 4:20). The Blessings of Peace. (1) Wherein they consist; (2) to what they oblige. Peace nourishes: disturbance consumes. Only in peace, not in war, does a nation attain to well-being, therefore should we offer prayer and supplication for kings and all in authority, &c. (1 Timothy 2:2). Happy the land where goodness and truth are met together, righteousness and peace have kissed each other (Psalms 85:10). May the eternal God grant us, during our life, an heart ever joyous, and give us noble peace! It must be regarded as an unspeakable blessing of God when, under the protection of a wise and righteous government, every one in the nation; even the least, can remain in the undisturbed possession of his property, and can enjoy the fruits of his industry in the bosom of his family. 1 Kings 4:29-34. The Wisdom of Solomon. (1) Its origin, 1 Kings 4:29 (Proverbs 2:6; Daniel 2:21; Daniel 2:6); (2) its greatness (1 Kings 4:30 sq.); (3) its result (1 Kings 4:34). 1 Kings 4:29. Not every one receives from God an equal measure of spiritual endowment; but every one is obliged, with the gift he has received, to dispose of it faithfully, and not to allow it to be fallow (Luke 12:48; Matthew 25:14-29). In the possession of high spiritual endowment and of much knowledge, man is in danger of over-estimating himself, of becoming proud and haughty, hence the highly-gifted Solomon himself says: “Trust in the Lord” &c. (Proverbs 3:5-6). Not to elevate one’s self above others, but in order to serve them, does God bestow special gifts of the Spirit (1 Peter 4:10). 1 Kings 4:30. Heathen wisdom, great as it may be in earthly things, understands nothing of divine, heavenly things, and is therefore far below the wisdom whose beginning is the fear of the personal, living God, who has revealed himself in His word. This wisdom alone yields true, good, and abiding fruit (James 3:15; James 3:17). 1 Kings 4:32. All those who have received special gifts of spirit and understanding, act inexcusably and sin grievously when, instead of giving God the honor, and of applying them to the good of their fellow-men, they promote, by doctrine and treatise, forgetfulness of God and unbelief, and the love of the world, and the lusts of the flesh, or gross or refined immorality (Ecclesiastes 12:9; Jeremiah 9:23-24). The glory which is obtained in the world through bad books, is shame and disgrace before Him who demands account of every idle word. 1 Kings 4:33. Starke: Far better would it befit lords and princes to find their enjoyment in study rather than to seek satisfaction in dramas, plays, and in immoderate drinking. A man may be able to speak of all possible things, and, at the same time, be without wisdom, for this does not consist in varied knowledge and widespread acquirements, but in recognition of the truth which purifies the heart and sanctifies the will. Observation and investigation of nature is only of the right kind, and fraught with blessing, when it leads to the confession of Psa 104:24; Psalms 92:6-7.—Mark what the man who was wiser than all the men of his generation declares as the final result of all his wisdom and research: It is all vanity! Fear God, and keep His commandments (Ecclesiastes 1:2; Ecclesiastes 12:8; Ecclesiastes 12:13). 1 Kings 4:34. To Solomon came from all nations people to hearken unto his wisdom; but to Him who is greater than Solomon, the wise men of to-day will not listen (1 Corinthians 1:19-21).—How many travel over land and sea to seek gold and silver, but stir neither hand nor foot to find the wisdom and knowledge of the truth, which lie close at hand, and are better than gold and silver (Proverbs 8:11; Proverbs 24:14; Job 28:18). It is not enough for a wise prince that his people eat, drink, and make merry, and dwell in safety, each one beneath his own vine and fig-tree (1 Kings 4:20; 1 Kings 5:5); but he aims likewise at this, that spiritual education, science, and recognition of the truth should be extended and fostered, for this brings more consideration than power or wealth. Footnotes: 1 Kings 4:2.—[Our author translates δַ ?λּ ?δֵ ?ο “war der hφchste” for reasons given in the Exeg. Com. Keil also takes the same view of the word. On the other hand, all the ancient VV. (the Vat. Sept, however, omits the word) give the usual rendering, priest; so also Luther, and the A. V. The question really turns upon which of the names, Azariah or Zadok, the word is to be placed in apposition with. By the Masoretic punctuation, by the Chald., and by the Sept., (ὁ ἱερεύς in the nominative), it is placed in apposition with Azariah, which, according to 1 Kings 4:4, cannot be correct, if the translation priest be retained. Hence the adoption of the other sense by our author and Keil. But by the Vulg. (sacerdotis in the Gen.), by the Syr., and the A.V., it is placed in apposition with Zadok, and the difficulty is thus removed, while the ordinary sense of the word is retained. In this way, too, the absence of the ε before Elihoreph is accounted for. The sense will then be, Azariah (the son of Zadok the priest) was one of the scribes with Elihoreph and Ahiah. 1 Kings 4:3.—[Three MSS., followed by the Sept., write αο in the singular, thus making Ahiah only the son of Shisha. 1 Kings 4:5.—[Here again we have the same question of translation as in 1 Kings 4:2, but differently solved in the A.V. The Heb. expression εְ ?ζָ ?αεּ ?γαֶ ?οΞπָ ?ϊָ ?ολֹּ ?δֵ ?οψֵ ?ςָ ?δδַ ?ξֶּ ?μֶ ?κְ is rendered by the author as well as by Keil, in the same way as in the A.V. It is urged that λֹּ ?δֵ ?ο cannot be in apposition with Nathan because it is without the article (see Nordheimer’s Heb. Gr., § 816). Admitting that the Heb. usage requires λֹּ ?δֵ ?ο to be regarded as a predicate, it is further urged that it cannot mean priest, because Zadok and Abiathar were “the priests.” They certainly were the high-priests; but Zabud also may have been a priest. The Chald., Syr., and Vulg., all retain the sense of priest, and there seems no sufficient reason for rejecting it. “Zabud, the son of Nathan, was a priest, and the king’s friend.” Twelve MSS. and the Syr., for ζָ ?αεּ ?γ read ζλεψ. 1 Kings 4:9.—[Eleven MSS., followed by the Vulg., prefix the conjunction εְ to αֵ ?ιϊ; the Sept. supply its place by ἕως, and so our author translates. The Arab. uses the relative, “Elon which is in Beth-hanan.” The locality is quite unknown. 1 Kings 4:11.—[Here, as in Joshua 11:2; Joshua 12:23, it is better to preserve the force of the Heb. πָ ?τַ ?ϊ, as in the author’s version. The Vulg., Syr., Sept., and Arab. make it a part of the proper name. 1 Kings 4:13.—[The Vat. (not Alex.) Sept. omits the previous clause, and in each case, after the mention of the officer and his district, adds εἶς. 1 Kings 4:16.—[The Vulg., Sept., Syr., and Arab. make the preposition part of the name, and read Baaloth. This cannot be right. See Exeg. Com.1 Kings 4:17.—[The Vat. Sept. omits 1 Kings 4:17 here, and gives it afterwards instead of the last clause of 1 Kings 4:19. It also omits 1 Kings 4:20-26 (cf. 1 Kings 3). This whole list of proper names is variously modified in the VV. 1 Kings 4:20.—[Most printed editions of the Heb. begin chap. 5 at this point; so our author, and hence his note.—F. G.] The Sept., the Vulg., and Luther [also the A. V. and Walton’s Polyglot] reckon 1 Kings 5:1-14 as belonging to chap. 4, and begin chap. 5 with its 15th verse.—Bδhr. 1 Kings 4:21.—[There is here no preposition in the Heb., although it is supplied in the parallel place, 2 Chronicles 9:26. εְ ?ςַ ?γΞΰֶ ?ψֶ ?υτִּ ?μִ ?ωְׁ ?ϊִּ ?ιν. The Chald. has made up the deficiency by translating “from the river Euphrates unto the land of the Philistines and unto the border of Egypt,” but the Vulg. (a flumine terr� Philisthium usque ad terminem Ζgypti), Syr., and Arab. reduce Solomon’s empire to nothing. The Alex. Sept. has ἀπὸ τοῦ ποταμοῦ γῆςἀλλοφύλωνκαὶ ἕωςὁρίου ’Αιγύπτου. 1 Kings 4:23.—[ξֵ ?ΰָ ?ιַּ ?μ Vulg., cervi; Sept. (Alex.), ἐλάφοι. φְ ?αִ ?ι Vulg., capri�; Sept. (Alex.), δορκάδα. ιַ ?ηִ ?ξεּ ?ψ Vulg. bubali; Sept. (Alex.) omits. On φְ ?αִ ?ι cf. Rosenmόller’s Bochart Hierozoicoro, ii. 303. 1 Kings 4:26.—The parallel place 2 Chronicles 9:25 shows, that not ΰַ ?ψְ ?αָּ ?ςִ ?ιν but ΰַ ?ψְ ?αָּ ?ςָ ?δ. should be read, with which also Chron. 1 Kings 10:26 and 2 Chronicles 1:14 accord.—Bδhr. [The author accordingly rightly translates “four thousand;” but there is no variation in the MSS. nor in the VV. 1 Kings 4:28.—[Heb. ψֶ ?λֶ ?ωׁ, a superior kind of horse to the chariot-horses just mentioned. None of the VV. sustain the translation dromedaries. Keil translates “runners.” 1 Kings 4:31.—[The Vat. Sept. omits this clause. 1 Kings 4:32.—[Sept.: five thousand. 1 Kings 4:34.—[The Vat. Sept here adds 1 Kings 3:1, and continues: τότεἀνἕβηΦαραὼ βασιλεὺς ’Αιγύπτου, καὶ προκατελάβετοτὴνΓαζέρ, καὶ ἐνεπύρισεναὐτὴνκαὶ τὸνΧανανίτηντὸνκατοικοῦνταἐνΜεργάβ· καὶ έ̔δωκεναὐτὰςΦαραὼ ἀποστολὰςθυγατρὶ αὐτοῦ γυναικὶ Σαλωμών, καὶ ΣαλωμὼνᾠκοδόμησετὴνΓαζέρ,—F. G.] See below, chap. 5. 1 Kings 4:7. THIRD SECTION Solomon’s Buildings(1 Kings 5:1 [5:15]– 1 Kings 9:28.)A.—Treaty with Hiram in regard to the building of the Temple1 Kings 5:1-18. [15–32]1And Hiram king of Tyre sent his servants unto Solomon; for he had heard that they had anointed him king in the room of his father: for Hiram was ever 2a lover of David. And Solomon sent to Hiram, saying, 3Thou knowest how that David my father could not build a house unto the name of the Lord his God, for the wars which were about him on every side, until the Lord put them under the soles of his feet. 4But now the Lord my God hath given me rest on every side, so that there is neither adversary nor evil occurrent. 5And, behold, I purpose to build a house unto the name of the Lord my God, as the Lord spake unto David my father, saying, Thy son, whom I will set upon thy throne in thy room, he shall build a [the] house unto my name. 6Now therefore command thou that they hew me cedar trees out of Lebanon; and my servants shall be with thy servants: and unto thee will I give hire for thy servants according to all that thou shalt appoint: for thou knowest that there is not among us any that can skill to hew timber like unto the Sidonians. 7And it came to pass, when Hiram heard the words of Solomon, that he rejoiced greatly, and said, Blessed be the Lord [Jehovah] this day, which hath given unto David a wise son over this great people. 8And Hiram sent to Solomon, saying, I have considered the things which thou sentest to me for: and I will do all thy desire concerning timber of cedar, and concerning timber of fir. 9My servants shall bring them down from Lebanon unto the sea; and I will convey them by sea in floats unto the place that thou shalt appoint me, and will cause them to be discharged there, and thou shalt receive them: and thou shalt accomplish my desire, in giving food for my household. 10So Hiram gave Solomon cedar trees and fir trees according to all his desire. 11And Solomon gave Hiram twenty thousand measures [cor] of wheat for food to his household, and twenty measures [cor] of pure oil: thus gave Solomon to Hiram year by year. 12And the Lord gave Solomon wisdom, as he promised him: and there was peace between Hiram and Solomon; and they two made a league together. 13And king Solomon raised a levy out of all Israel; and the levy was thirty thousand men. 14And he sent them to Lebanon, ten thousand a month by courses: a month they were in Lebanon, and two months at home: and Adoniram was over the levy. 15And Solomon had threescore and ten thousand that 16bare burdens, and fourscore thousand hewers in the mountains; besides the chief of Solomon’s officers which were over the work, three thousand and three hundred, which ruled over the people that wrought in the work. 17And the king commanded, and they brought great stones, costly stones, and hewed stones, to lay the foundation of the house. 18And Solomon’s builders and Hiram’s builders did hew them, and the stonesquarers: so they prepared timber and stones to build the house. Exegetical and Critical1 Kings 5:1-6. And Hiram king of Tyre, &c. After the general description of Solomon’s government in the preceding section, the narrative now proceeds to give an account of his great and important undertaking, the building of the Temple (comp. the parallel account, 2 Chronicles 2). Hiram is called ηִ ?ιψεֹ ?ν in 1 Kings 5:7, 19, and ηεּ ?ψָ ?ν in Chron., and Εἵρωμος twice in Josephus. It is uncertain whether of these be the original form. According to 2 Chronicles 2:2, and the present passage also, this Hiram was the same as he who had sent David wood to build his house (2 Samuel 5:11), and it is unnecessary, on the ground of the unreliable chronology of Josephus, to reckon him to be the son of that Hiram (having his father’s name) as Le Clerc, Thenius, and others do (Antiq.,viii. 31; comp. Contr. Apion.,i. 18). If, according to Josephus, the beginning of the building of the Temple, which took place in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign, occurred in the eleventh year of Hiram, it follows that the latter must have reigned several years contemporaneously with David, and may very well have reigned twenty years more, simultaneously with Solomon (1 Kings 9:10 sq.).—The purpose of his embassy to Solomon was to congratulate him on his accession. (The Syriac adds εַ ?ιְ ?αָ ?ψֶ ?κְ ΰֹ ?ϊεֹ, which Thenius, without reason, deems original). It was evidence that he desired Solomon to continue in the same friendly relations to him as David had maintained; and it was the easier for Solomon to make that request to him, mentioned in 1 Kings 5:6. On 1 Kings 5:7-9, comp. 2 Samuel 8:13, and 1 Chronicles 22:7-11. According to Ewald and Thenius, ξμηξδ, ver 3, is equivalent to enemies (surrounding him); but in Psalms 109:3, ραα is also bund with the double accusative: they compassed me about also with words of hatred. Upon μְ ?ωֵׁ ?νιְ ?δεָֹ ?δ, see on chap. 6—τֶּ ?βַ ?ςψָ ?ς, i.e., an unhappy event, as, for instance, rebellion, famine, plague, or other suffering. It appears, from 1 Kings 5:6, that the part of Lebanon where the best cedars for building grew, belonged to Ph�nicia; it was on the northwestern part of the mountain range (Robinson, Palest., vol. iii. pp. 588–594). The Sidonians are not the inhabitants of the city of Sidon simply, but of the entire district to which that part of Lebanon belonged. They knew how to hew and prepare wood for building, for they were skilled in ship-building beyond all other nations, and built their own houses also of wood (Schnaase, Gesch. der bildenden Kόnste,i. s. 249). We see from 1 Kings 5:8 and 1 Kings 7:13, that Solomon desired cypress-wood, and a Ph�nician artisan besides (comp. 2 Chronicles 2:7; 2 Chronicles 2:13). 1 Kings 5:7-8. And it came to pass when Hiram, heard the words of Solomon, &c. “ The king of Tyre must have been very desirous of remaining on good terms with Israel, because the land of Israel was a granary for Phoenicia, and the friendship of the former was very important to the Phoenician commercial interests “(Keil). The chronicler adds to ιְ ?δֹ ?εָ ?δ (2 Chronicles 2:12), the God of Israel that made heaven and earth. It does not follow, however, as older commentators say, that Hiram acknowledged this God as the only true God, or had become a proselyte. Polytheism is not exclusive: it allows each nation to retain its divinity, and recognizes his power, when it thinks it perceives his workings or his agency and benefactions, without rejecting the specifically national gods. When Hiram, therefore, names Solomon ηָ ?λָ ?ν, because he is about to build a temple to Jehovah, it is evident that the idea of wisdom (1 Kings 5:7), essentially includes that of religion (fear of God). Cypress is, indeed, inferior to cedar; but is also fitted for building, because “it is not eaten by worms, and is almost imperishable, as well as very light” (Winer). According to 2 Chronicles 2:16, the wood for building was sent down on rafts (on the Mediterranean) to Joppa (i.e., Jaffa, coast-town on the borders of the tribe of Dan, Joshua 19:46). Thence it was conveyed overland to Jerusalem, which is situated southeast thereof. 1 Kings 5:9-13. And thou shalt … in giving food, &c. Every year, as long as Hiram furnished building-materials and workmen, he received, for the sustenance of his court, 20,000 (cor) measures of wheat, i.e., by Thenius’ reckoning, 38, 250 Dresden bushels, from Solomon; also 20 (cor) measures of oil, i.e., 100 casks, the cask containing 6 buckets. Pure oil is the finest, not going, after the usual fashion, through the press, but is obtained by pounding olives not quite ripe in a mortar (my Symbolik des Mos. Cult., i. s. 419). The chronicler does not mention this delivery to the court of Hiram; but he gives, in 2 Chronicles 2:10, the reward of the laborers promised in our 6th verse: “I will give to thy servants, the hewers that cut timber, 20,000 (cor) measures of beaten wheat, and 20,000 (cor) measures of barley, and 20,000 baths of wine, and 20,000 baths of oil.” The narrative here concerns a different thing, and no one has a right, as Thenius, to turn the 20 (cor) measures of the finest oil, destined for the court, into 20,000 of ordinary quality, and to suppose, with Bertheau, that the quantity of wine and oil is added by the chronicler according to his own whim. “Because the quantity of the wheat which Solomon gave Hiram for the use of the court was as large as that which he delivered for the Sidonian hewers of wood, it does not follow that we are justified in identifying the two accounts” (Keil). Besides, as Bertheau remarks, it appears that the account in the Chronicles does not, like our own, speak of an annual, but only of one delivery. The one account, as often happens, supplements the other. The addition, 1 Kings 5:12, means: Solomon, by virtue of the wisdom he had received from God, came to the conclusion that it would be well to accept Hiram’s propositions, and to enter into terms of friendship with him. Keil also thinks that the verse refers to the wise use he made of the working capacities of his subjects, which is referred to in the following verses, and that this verse, therefore, leads on to them. 1 Kings 5:13-15. And king Solomon raised a levy.εַ ?ιַּ ?ςַ ?μ, strictly adscendere fecit, to take out, to take away (Psalms 102:25). All Israel does not mean here the whole territory, but, as often elsewhere, the people (1 Kings 1:20; 1 Kings 8:65; 1 Kings 12:16; 1 Kings 12:20; 1 Kings 14:13). In 1 Kings 5:13 it is expressly said that these 30,000 men were (born) Israelites. Of these, 10,000 were always one month in service, and free the two following, when they cultivated their fields and took care of their houses. For Adoniram, see 1 Kings 4:6.—Besides these 30,000 men, who were not sufficient, there were (1 Kings 5:15) 70,000 that bore burdens, and 80,000 hewers in the mountains. ηφα is, “according to all Versions, to be understood of stone-cutters alone, not of wood-cutters (Gesenius, Ewald), for the (easier) working in wood was sufficiently provided for by the changing 30,000 laborers” (Thenius). The αָּ ?δָ ?ψ can be understood only of Lebanon, from the context, and not, as Bertheau thinks, of the stone-quarries of the mountains. The 70+80,000 = 150,000 men (2 Chronicles 2:18) were not changed, but were in constant service; they were not Israelites, but, on the contrary, βֵּ ?ιψִ ?ιν (as the parallel passage alluded to expressly says), i.e., strangers in the land of Israel; those of the Canaanites that remained when their land was conquered, and who were made servants (Judges 1:27-30; Joshua 16:10). In contradistinction to these 30,000 Israelites, they are named, in 1 Kings 9:21, ξַ ?νςֹ ?αֵ ?γ, i.e., servants (2 Chronicles 8:7-9). The assertion of Ewald and Distel that these 150,000 servants were of the “people of Israel,” and only “came later when the several buildings became enlarged,” is utterly erroneous.—The total number of these workmen is great, but not surprising when we consider those times, when there was no machinery, and everything had to be done by the human hand. According to Pliny (Hist. Nat., xxxvi. 12), 360,000 men had to work twenty years long at one pyramid (comp. Calmet on the place). 1 Kings 5:16. Beside the chief, &c. Thenius: “literally the chief of the overseers, and hence the usual expression, overseer: but there are no subaltern overseers mentioned. How great, then, must the number of these have been, when the chief overseers numbered several thousands? The δπφαινμωׁ ?μξδ as a description of the substantive (Vatablus: principes, qui pr�fecti erant) is properly connected therewith by the Stat. construct. (comp. Ewald, § 287 b); so, the chiefs not reckoned, those who were appointed by (or for) Solomon, and who oversaw the works.”—Chron. gives, instead of the number 3,300 (1 Kings 2:17), 3,600, which Thenius thinks the right one, and he would have the text altered accordingly; but Ewald, on the other hand, declares our number to be correct, and that of Chron. wrong. But both numbers are right, as J. H. Michaelis has proved; the difference comes from the different division of the offices of superintendence. In 1 Kings 9:23, 550 ωָׂ ?ψֵ ?ιδַ ?πִּ ?φָּ ?αִ ?ιν are named; these, with the 3,300, make 3,850. The parallel passage of Chron. (1 Kings 8:10) mentions only 250, which, added to the 3,600, gives the same number, 3,850. This coincidence cannot be chance; the number 550 evidently contains the 250, and the 300, by which the 3,600 exceed the 3,300: 250 of the whole number of overseers were, as appears from the context in 2 Chronicles 8:10, native Israelites; but 300 were foreigners. The chronicler, however, no doubt includes the latter among the subaltern overseers (3,300+300 = 3,600), because they were not on the same footing with the Israelitish overseers. 1 Kings 5:17-18. And the king commanded. The great stones should be ιְ ?χָ ?ψεֹ ?ϊ, not “weighty” (Thenius), for that is, of course, understood, nor “precious” (Keil), for why should the value of these stones be especially insisted on? but glorious, splendid, fine stones (Psalms 36:8; Psalms 45:9; Esther 1:4). It is plainly said here, as in 2 Chronicles 3:3, that these stones were for the foundation of the building, and not, therefore, for the “consolidation of the Temple structure” (Thenius). Of the latter kind, which Josephus (Arch., 15, 11, 3) so minutely describes, the Bible-text makes no mention. The ΰַ ?αְ ?πֵ ?ιβָ ?ζִ ?ιϊ are nothing else than the splendid great stones, which were shaped after being hewn out of the quarry. Vulgate: ut tollerent lapides grandes, lapides pretiosos, in fundamentum templi et quadrarent eos.—The Giblites, 1 Kings 5:18, are the inhabitants of βְּ ?αַ ?μ (Joshua 13:5), a Ph�nician town near that part of Lebanon, where the largest cedars were found; i.e., the Byblos of the Greeks. [The Engl. Ver. has simply for this word, “stone-squarers.”—E. H.] It appears, from Ezekiel 27:9, that the Giblites were remarkable for their technical skill in ship-building especially. Thenius reads εַ ?ιַּ ?βְ ?αִּ ?μεּ ?ν, and translates: “they wreathed the stones—put a border round them.” Robinson stated (Palest.) that he had found stones carved in that manner. Bφttcher rightly names these conjectures “ill-founded.” Comp. what Keil, on the passage, says against them. Historical and Ethical1. Solomon’s undertaking to build a “house” to the name of Jehovah was not an arbitrary, self-devised act, nor was it prompted solely through the wish and will of his father David, but rested upon a divine decision (1 Kings 5:5), and, as already shown in the Introduction, § 3, has its inward, necessary reason in the development of the Old Testament theocracy. The assertion that “the thought to build a magnificent temple to Jehovah in Jerusalem proceeded from the sight of the temple-service of the Ph�nicians and Philistines, and of their ostentatious cultus” (Duncker, Gesch. des Alt., i. s. 397), is entirely without foundation and contradicts all historical records. When Stephen, in his discourse before the Sanhedrin, says: “Solomon built him an house. But the Most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands,” &c. (Acts 7:47), he does not mean in any way to blame Solomon’s undertaking, or to say, as Lechler supposes (in his Bibelwerk on the place), the tabernacle was set up at God’s will and command; but the design of building a temple and the completion of it is only a human design and a human performance. For that the Most High cannot be shut up within a house, Solomon himself expressly declared at the consecration of the Temple (1 Kings 8:27). Stephen was opposing rather, from the stand-point of the New Testament, the stiff-necked, Jewish authorities, who, when the promised Messiah appeared, and the New Covenant was introduced along with Him, rejected the same, and clung with tenacious unbelief to the outward sign of the Old Covenant, to the Temple as the permanent central-point of all divine revelation. The accusation, he would say, that this Jesus of Nazareth would destroy this holy place, was in so far correct, as that He certainly had taken away the Old Covenant, and with it had abolished its sign and pledge (John 2:19). For the day of the New Covenant, the temple at Jerusalem has lost all significance. For the dwelling of God in the midst of His people conditioned through natural descent, has become transferred into a dwelling in the midst of the people who are believers in Christ, to whom the apostle appeals: Ye are the temple of the living God, in you is fulfilled, in truth, the word spoken once by God unto Israel: I will dwell in them, and walk in them, and will be their God, and they shall be my people (2 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 2:21; 1 Peter 2:4-5). To cling now to the Old Testament temple built by human hands, and to reject the living temple of the living God, Stephen pronounces as a striving against the Holy Ghost (Acts 7:51). 2. It is one of those significant divine providenoes in which the history of Israel is so rich, that as in the development of the “sacred history” the time had come for “the house of the Lord” (or for for Jehovah), in the land which alone possessed those means and agencies for the execution of the undertaking in which Israel was wanting, a king ruled who entertained a friendly sentiment towards David and Solomon, and was prepared gladly for every assistance, so that even heathen nations, whether friendly or conquered, took part in the building of the house for the God of Israel, and so contributed indirectly to the glorifying of God. It was a setting forth in act of the word: “The earth is the Lord’s, and all that therein is” (Psalms 24:1); “For the kingdom is the Lord’s, and He is governor among the nations” (Psalms 22:28); and “all the heathen shall serve Him” (Psalms 72:11). And as Solomon’s kingdom, as the most complete outward kingdom of peace, is frequently, with the prophets, a type of the Messiah’s kingdom (see above, Historical and Ethical on chap. 4), so do they behold, in the participation by the heathen in the building of the temple, a type and prophecy that the Messiah “shall build the temple of the Lord … and that they who are far off shall come and build in the temple of the Lord,” &c. (Zechariah 6:12-15). 3. “In the very time of their highest earthly splendor the people of God, in respect of worldly art, pursuit, and skill, were inferior to the neighboring Ph�nicians” (Gerlach). Solomon had no one amongst his people who could execute a work of art such as the temple was to be (1 Kings 5:6). As to individual men (1 Corinthians 7:7), so also to nations, God has distributed divers gifts, powers, and destiny. It was not the office of Israel to exercise the arts, but to be the bearer of divine revelation, and to communicate the knowledge of the One living and all-holy God to all nations. To this end God has chosen this people out of all peoples; and their entire mode of life and occupation, yea, their whole development and history, are closely connected with it. To the achievement of this its destiny must even other nations serve, with the especial gifts and powers conferred upon them. High as the Ph�nicians stood above Israel at that time in technical and artistic accomplishments (cf. Duncker, a. a. O., s. 317–320), so nevertheless did Israel, notwithstanding all its sins and errors, excel the Ph�nicians in the knowledge of the truth. Distinguished as Ph�nicia was for its art and commerce, its religion was the most depraved, and its worship most crude (Duncker, s. 155 sq.). [4. The genius of the Jewish people never achieved anything eminent in plastic art. Skill in architecture, and in sculpture, and in painting, seems to have been denied them. Their religion forbade it, and the hereditary feeling of the race was one of aversion to all arts of the “graver,” to images and forms cut in stones or upon stone, and so in their want of appreciation of beauty of form they were unable to conceive of grand structures; and when Solomon’s great buildings were undertaken, the skilled workmen and the artists connected with the work were foreigners. Dr. Prideaux quotes Josephus to this effect (Antiq., Bk. 18. c. 7): “When Vitellius governor of Syria was going to pass through Judζa with a Roman army to make war against the Arabians, the chief of the Jews met him, and earnestly entreated him to lead his army another way; for they could not bear the sight of those images which were in the ensigns under which they marched, they were so abominated by them. The ensigns therefore, for the sake of those images in them, were abominations to the Jews; and by reason of the desolations which were wrought under them by the Roman armies in conquered countries, they were called desolating abominations, or abominations of desolation, and they were never more so than when under them the Roman armies besieged and destroyed Jerusalem.” Poetic feeling, the power of song, belonged to the race; and these, under God, have impressed themselves upon the heart of the nations, so that to this day the “songs of Zion” are sung in temples which the Jewish people never could have built.—E. H.] Homiletical and Practical1 Kings 5:1-5. Solomon’s purpose to build a house to the Lord. (1) The motive. 1 Kings 5:3-5. Not ambition, the love of glory, the love of pomp, but the divine will, and the charge of his father. In every weighty undertaking one must examine and be assured that it do not proceed from selfish motives, but is the good, acceptable, and perfect will of God (Romans 12:2). (2) The time, rest and peace (1 Kings 5:4). A time of peace is the time for building in general, but especially for building houses of God, which are a memorial of thanksgiving for the blessings of peace and prosperity. (3) The request for assistance, 1 Kings 5:6. In important undertakings which are agreeable to the will of God, and propose His honor, we may and should not hesitate to trust in Him who directs men’s hearts, like the water-brooks, to ask others for aid and assistance. 1 Kings 5:1-2. True friends whom parents have gained, are an invaluable legacy for the children, for whom the latter cannot be sufficiently thankful (Eccles. 30:4). To a God-fearing man like David, if he have many enemies, yet there will never be wanting those who love him his life long, and who prize and honor him after his death, even in his children. 1 Kings 5:3. With every son it should be his earnest business, and likewise pleasure, to fulfil the will of his father, and to complete the good work which he had begun, but could not carry out. 1 Kings 5:4. When God has granted rest and peace, health and happiness, prosperity and blessing, an opportunity is thus at hand to do something for His great name. 1 Kings 5:5. If it cannot come into the mind of every one to build a house of wood and stone unto the Lord, nevertheless, every one to whom God has given wife and children is in condition to vow and to build a house unto the Lord out of living stones. I and my house will serve the Lord (Joshua 24:15). 1 Kings 5:5. Starke: One man needs another; on this account one should always serve and be amiable towards another, ministering to his good (1 Peter 4:10).—The superfluity of one must minister to the need of the others, in order that hereafter, also, the superfluity of the latter may serve for the wants of the former (2 Corinthians 8:14).—Israel knew not how to plan great buildings, especially works of art, but they did know how to serve the living God. Better to live without art than without God in the world. 1 Kings 5:21–25. The heathen king Hiram: (1) His rejoicing over Solomon and his undertaking; (2) his praise of the God of Israel; (3) his willingness to help. How far stands this heathen above so many who call themselves Christians! 1 Kings 5:6. Wόrt. Summ.: When we see that it goes well with our neighbor, we should not envy him such prosperity, but rather rejoice with him and wish him good-luck. Since Hiram, although a heathen king, has done this, how much more does it befit Christians to act thus towards each other? It proves a noble heart when a man, free from envy and jealousy, sincerely praises and thanks God for the gifts and blessings which He grants to others.—Starke: When God wishes well to a nation He bestows upon it godly rulers; but when He wills to chastise it he removes them. Hiram praises God that He bestows upon another people a wise monarch; how much more should that people itself thank God since He bestowed upon it a wise, viz., a pious king? 1 Kings 5:9. How pleasing it is when the assistance of those who can help is not wrung from them, but offered in friendship, and they are ready and heart-willing to do what lies in their power (2 Corinthians 9:7).—Wόrt. Summ.: No house, even though it be the church and temple of God, should be built to the hurt and oppression of one’s fellow-creatures. 1 Kings 5:12. The league between Solomon and Hiram: (1) Its object: a good, God-pleasing work begun in the service of God. Like kings and nations, even so individual men should unite only for such purposes. (2) The conditions of the league: each gave to the other according to his desire; neither sought to overreach the other; the compact was based upon honesty and fairness, not upon cunning and selfishness: only upon such compacts does the blessing of God rest, for unjust possessions do not prosper. 1 Kings 5:13-18. The workmen at the temple-building: (1) Israelites. Solomon acted not like unto Pharaoh (Exodus 2:23), he laid no insupportable burdens upon his people, but permits variety in the work, and Israel itself undertakes it without murmurs or complaints. How high do these Israelites stand above so many Christian communities, who constantly object or murmur when they are about to undertake any labor for their temple, or must needs bring a sacrifice of money or time. (2) Heathen (Psalms 22:29; vide Historical and Ethical). Jew and heathen together must build the temple of God, according to divine decree—a prophetic anticipation of fact as set forth Ephesians 2:14; Ephesians 2:19-22; Ephesians 3:4-6.—Seiler: The great preparations of Solomon must naturally remind us of the far greater preparations and arrangements which God has made for the building of the spiritual temple of the New Testament. How many thousand faithful laborers, how many wise and good men, has he placed in every known part of the world; how has he furnished them with wisdom and many other gifts of the Spirit, so that the great work of the glorious building may be completed! … O God! do thou still prosper thy work! Help the faithful workers in thy Church, that they may enlighten many men to thy glorification, &c.—Richter: Well for us if we serve the true Solomon in the preparations for His eternal temple. But still better is it if we are ourselves prepared as living stones to shine forever in the living temple (1 Peter 2:4-5). Footnotes: 1 Kings 5:1.—[The Vat. Sept., by omitting the first part of this clause, makes an extraordinary statement: καὶ ἀπέστειλεΧιρὰμβασιλεὺςΤύρουτοὺςπαῖδαςαὐτοῦ χρῖσαιτὸνΣαλωμὼνἀντὶ Δαυίδκ. τ. λ.1 Kings 5:3.—[The A. V. has here exactly preserved the incongruity of the Heb. of an abstract noun ξִ ?μְ ?ηָ ?ξָ ?δ, war, followed by the personal pronoun ΰֹ ?ϊָ ?ν. The Chald. avoids the difficulty by reading ξִ ?οχֳ ?γָ ?νςָ ?αְ ?γֵ ?ιχְ ?ψָ ?αָ ?ΰ = those making war. It has been suggested that the Heb. might have read originally ςֹ ?ωֵׂ ?ιδַ ?ξִּ ?μְ ?ηָ ?ξָ ?δ. 1 Kings 5:3.—The k’tib ψβμε is here decidedly to be preferred to the k’ri ψβμι.—Bδhr. [It is also the reading of many MSS., editions, and VV. 1 Kings 5:5.—[ΰָ ?ξַ ?ψΰֹ ?ξֵ ?ψμִ ?αְ ?πεֹ ?ϊ, followed by the infinitive, expresses purpose. Cf. Exodus 2:14; 2 Samuel 21:16. 1 Kings 5:7.—[The Sept. here read Θεός, not Κύριος. Cf. the parallel place 2 Chronicles 2:11, ιְ ?δεָֹ ?δΰֱ ?μֹ ?δֵ ?ιιִ ?ωְׂ ?ψָ ?ΰֵ ?μ.] 1 Kings 5:11.—[The Sept. enormously multiply this by writing καὶ εἴκοσιχιλιάδαςβαὶθἐλαίου, so also the Heb. in the parallel place, 2 Chronicles 2:9. The Syr. and Arab. still ten times more, by making it twenty thousand cor. 1 Kings 5:16.—[cf. 2 Chronicles 2:17, ωֵׁ ?ωׁ ξֶ ?ΰεֹ ?ϊ. 1 Kings 5:17.—[The Vat. Sept. omits 1 Kings 5:17 and the first half of 18. Both recensions of the Sept. add to 1 Kings 5:18, τρέαἔτη.— F.G.] The cor (λֹּ ?ψ, κορος) equals the homer, and the homer was ten time the bath. 20,000 cors = 200,000 baths. This, at a rough calculation, amounts to 260,000 bushels = between 85 and 90,000 barrels. In liquids, again, 20 cors = 200 baths. This would amount to about 1,666 or 1,670 gallons of oil. The computation must be in the rough for obvious reasons, as may be seen by reference to Smith’s Dictionary, Amer. edition, N. Y., 1870, vol. iv., article Weights and Measures. The reader can find some strange etymologies in the animadversions of Petavius upon Epiphanius’ tractate on Weights and Measures. Epiph., Opera, edit. G. Dindorf. Leipsic, 1863, vol. iv. p. 95.—E. H. B.—The accomplishment of the building of the Temple1 Kings 6:1-381 And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the Lord [Jehovah]. 2And the house which king Solomon built for the Lord [Jehovah] the length thereof was threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof twenty cubits, and the height thereof thirty cubits. 3And the porch before the temple of the house, twenty cubits was the length thereof, according to the breadth of the house; and ten cubits was the breadth thereof before the house. 4And for the house he made windows of narrow lights [with fixed lattices]. 5And against the wall of the house he built chambers round about, against the walls of the house round about, both of the temple and of the oracle: and he made chambers round about. 6The nethermost chamber was five cubits broad, and the middle was six cubits broad, and the third was seven cubits broad: for without in the wall of the house he made narrowed rests round about, that the beams should not be fastened in the walls of the house. 7And the house, when it was in building, was built of stone made ready before it was brought thither: so that there was neither hammer nor axe nor any tool of iron heard in the house, while it was in building. 8The door for the middle chamber was in the right side of the house: and they went up with winding stairs into the middle chamber, and out of the middle into the third. 9So he built the house, and finished it; and covered the house with beams and boards of 10cedar. And then he built chambers against all the house, five cubits high: and they rested on the house with timber of cedar. 11, 12And the word of the Lord [Jehovah] came to Solomon, saying, Concerning this house which thou art in building, if thou wilt walk in my statutes, and execute my judgments, and keep all my commandments to walk in them; then will I perform my word with thee, which I spake unto David thy father: 13And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will not forsake my people Israel. 14So Solomon built the house, and finished it. 15And he built the walls of the house within with boards of cedar, both [from] the floor of the house, and [unto] the walls of the ceiling: and he covered them on the inside with wood, and covered the floor of the house with planks of fir. 16And he built twenty cubits on the sides of the house, both [from] the floor and [unto] the walls with boards of cedar: he even built them for it within, even for the oracle, even for the most holy place. 17And the house, that is, the temple before it, was forty cubits long. 18And the cedar of the house within was carved with knops and open flowers: all was cedar; there was no stone seen. 19And the oracle he prepared in the house within, to set there the ark of the covenant of the Lord [Jehovah]. 20And the oracle in the forepart was twenty cubits in length, and twenty cubits in breadth, and twenty cubits in the height thereof: and he overlaid it with pure gold; and so covered the altar which was of cedar [overlaid the altar with cedar.] 21So Solomon overlaid the house within with pure gold: and he made a partition by the chains of gold before the oracle; and he overlaid it with gold. 22And the whole house he overlaid with gold, until he had finished all the house: also the whole altar that was by the oracle he overlaid with gold.23And within the oracle he made two cherubims of olive tree, each ten cubits high. 24And five cubits was the one wing of the cherub, and five cubits the other wing of the cherub: from the uttermost part of the one wing unto the uttermost part of the other were ten cubits. 25And the other cherub was ten cubits: both the cherubims were of one measure and one size [form]. 26The height of the one cherub was ten cubits, and so was it of the other cherub. 27And he set the cherubims within the inner house: and they stretched forth the wings of the cherubims, so that the wing of the one touched the one wall, and the wing of the other cherub touched the other wall; and their wings touched one another in 28the midst of the house. And he overlaid the cherubims with gold. 29And he carved all the walls of the house round about with carved figures of cherubims and palm trees and open flowers, within and without. 30And the floor of the house he overlaid with gold, within and without.1431And for the entering of the oracle he made doors of olive tree: the lintel and side-posts were a fifth part of the wall. 32The two doors also were of olive tree; and he carved upon them carvings of cherubims and palm trees and open flowers, and overlaid. them with gold, and spread gold upon the cherubims, and upon the palm trees 33So also made he for the door of the temple posts of olive tree, a fourth part of the wall. 34And the two doors were of fir tree: the two leaves of the one door were folding, and the two leaves of the other door were folding. 35And he carved thereon cherubims and palm trees and open flowers: and covered [overlaid] them with gold fitted upon the carved work. 36And he built the inner court with three rows of hewed stone, and a row of cedar beams. 37In the fourth year was the foundation of the house of the Lord [Jehovah] laid, in the month Zif: 38and in the eleventh year, in the month But, which is the eighth month, was the house finished throughout all the parts thereof, and according to all the fashion of it. So was he seven years in building it. Preliminary ObservationsThe account of Solomon’s temple, before us, together with the continuation in 1 Kings 7:13-51, is the oldest, and, at the same time, the most complete in our possession. Hence all knowledge of this world-historical building must adhere to it and found itself upon it. Next to it is the parallel account in 2 Chronicles 3, 4, which agrees with it in all essential particulars, and, as indeed the most recent criticism acknowledges, comes from an ancient source, perhaps from the same with our own here. Although significantly briefer, it gives, nevertheless, some supplementary details the accuracy of which is undoubted, and which deserve all consideration. In addition to these two historical accounts, there is also the delineation in “vision” of the prophet Ezekiel (Ezekiel 40 sq.), which indeed is very explicit in respect of the ground-plan and its measurement. In an earlier period this delineation was regarded as an essential completion and explanation of the historical accounts; later this was abandoned, because the prophet himself repeatedly explains it as “a vision” (Ezekiel 40:2; Ezekiel 43:2-3); but most recently it has again been claimed that “it is a description which, upon the whole, differs only slightly and immaterially from the temple before the exile” (Thenius). And the reason assigned is twofold: the one is the style of the description, “thoroughly jejune, deficient in all taste, giving single measurements even to the width of the doors and the strength of the walls,”—the other is the object of it, which was, according to Ezekiel 43:10-11, that “the temple (then destroyed) should be rebuilt according to Ezekiel’s model.” To this, however, it must be objected, (a) That the statement of the numbers and the measure of the foundation, extending itself to the minutest particulars, instead of taking away from the description the character of a vision, rather confirms it. The exact measuring off and bounding according to definite numbers and measurements is, as has been fully shown in my Symbolik des Mosaischen Kultus (i. s. 127 sq.), the first requisite for every space and structure which has an higher, divine destination, and imparts thereto the impress of the divine. Hence, in the description of all holy places and buildings mentioned in Scripture, the measurement and numbers are so carefully given, and especially in the visions which concern the one divine edifice, ever first a heavenly being, a “man with a measuring-chain appears, who measures off everything” (Ezekiel 40:3; Ezekiel 40:5; Ezekiel 47:3; Zechariah 2:5; Revelation 11:1; Revelation 21:15). The more the measuring goes into detail, so much the more is the whole pronounced to be out and out divine. (b) In general it contradicts the being and nature of a vision to be nothing more than a pure building-description or an architectonic direction. But here, it must be added that it contains phases which do not admit of execution in reality, as, e.g., the great stream flowing from the temple emptying itself into the Dead Sea (Ezekiel 47:1-12). If the purpose of the entire delineation had been to serve as a building-direction for the reconstruction of the temple after the return from the captivity, it would be inexplicable that it should have been disregarded as well by Zerubbabel as later by Herod, (c) As little as the delineation is purely historical, just as little also is it, as many have supposed, a mere picture of the fancy. Rather, “as Ezekiel elsewhere loves the finishing out of long allegories (see Ezekiel 16:23), so also we have here a very extended symbolical representation prophetically delivered by him” (Hδvernick, Commentar, s. 623; cf. Umbreit, Commentar, s. 257). Certainly it rests upon an historical basis, yet not upon the temple as originally built by Solomon, but upon it after many additions and alterations, as it existed just before the captivity. Yet it is and must remain a vision, and, as such, it has an ideal character, from which every effort to separate with certainty the historical basis is futile (comp. Winer, R.-W.-B., ii. s. 570). It is abundantly clear that in the inquiry upon the temple of Solomon, only the most cautious use of Ezekiel’s description should be made, and in no case is a votum decessivum due it. Besides the biblical accounts, we have from antiquity only that of Josephus (Antiq. viii. 3), of which, however, Le Clerc properly says: templum �dificat, quale animo conceperat, non quale legerat a Salomone conditum. As he is not wholly trustworthy about the transactions of his own time, he is still less in matters of antiquity; particularly “when he enters upon special descriptions, and claims to communicate detailed incidents, and measurements of heights and size, we are fully justified in doubting the accuracy of his statements” (Robinson’s Palestine, vol. 1. p. 277). In no instance does he deserve confidence when he does not agree with the biblical accounts, and that which he adds, as, e.g., the levelling of Moriah and the surrounding it with a wall, he did not derive from good ancient sources. Just as untrustworthy are the statements of the later rabbins (comp. Talmudischen Traktat Middoth, i.e., Measure, Maimonides, Jak. Jehuda Leo, and others), since they almost exclusively refer to the temple of Herod, which was very different from that of Solomon, and mingle both together, as also with that of Ezekiel. The Christian literature respecting our temple is not insignificant. The older essays, from the middle of the sixteenth to the middle of the eighteenth century, like those of Villalpando, Lundius, B. Lamy, and others, embrace the Ezekilian and Herodian temples, without distinguishing sharply what belongs to the one or to the other. From the designs adduced by them, executed in Greco-Roman style, it is clear that their results are totally untenable. While, up to a given time, men believed that they must represent the temple to have been as grand and splendid as possible, in the period of the “illumination” (Aufklδrung), they fell into the opposite extreme, and made it as small, unsightly, and insignificant as possible (J. D. Michaelis, Jahn, and others). But subsequently there has been a return to the historical, biblical account, and a simple adherence to it (Warnekros, Bauer, and others). The treatise composed by Hirt, simply in the interests of archaeology and art-history (Der Tempel Salomo’s mit drei Kupfertafeln, Berlin, 1809), gave occasion to later and more exact researches, in pure archζological and historico-ζsthetic interests. Hereupon followed the Inquiries by J. Fr. Von Meyer (Bibeldeutungen, 1812, and Blδtter fόr hφhere Wahrheit, IX. and XI.); Stieglitz (Geschichte der Baukunst. Nόrnberg, 1827); Grόneisen (Revision d. jungsten Forschungen όb. den Salom. Tempel. Kunstbl. 1831); Kopp (Der Tempel Salomo’s, Stuttgart, 1839, mit Abbild.); Keil (Der Tempel Salomo’s. Dorpat, 1839); Kugler (Kunstgesch., Berlin, 1841); Schnaase (Antiq. Bemerk. όber den Salom. Tempel in der Gesch. der bild. Kόnste I., Dόsseld. 1843); Romberg and Steeger (Gesch. der Baukunst. Leipzig, 1844); Merz (Bemerk. όber den Tempel Salomo’s. Kunstbl. 1844); my treatise: Der Salom. Tempel mit Berόcksicht. seines Verhδltn. zur heil. Architektur όberhaupt. Karlsruhe, 1848); Thenius (das vorexilische Jerusalem u. dessen Tempel, mit Abbild., im Commentar zu den Bόchern der Kφnige. Leipzig. 1849); Winer (R.-W.-B. Tempel zu Jerusalem. Leipzig, 1848); Ewald (die heiligen und kφniglichen Bauten Salomo’s in der Gesch. Israels 3. Gφttingen, 1853); Unruh (das alte Jerusalem und seine Bauwerke. Langensalza, 1861); Merz (Tempel zu Jerusalem in Herzogs R. Encyclopδdie 15. Gotha, 1862). [For the archζology and topography of the subject, see also Robinson’s Palestine, vol. i. p. 280–300. Barclay, J. T., The City of the Great King. Philadelphia, 1858. Walter Merriam Editor, The Recovery of Jerusalem, &c. by Capt. Wilson, R. E. and Capt. Warren, R. E. New York, Appleton &Co., 1871. Part I. 3.–8. and 12, also Part II—E. H.] Exegetical and Critical1 Kings 6:1. And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year, &c. This chronological statement, the first which occurs in Scripture, for the determination of an entire period, has given much occupation to the older chronologists, be cause it does not agree with the statements of the book of the Judges and with Acts 13:20. The Septuagint also has 440 instead of 480. If one add together the chronological figures of the book of the Judges, the result is, for the period of the judges alone 410 years, to which must be added 65 for Moses and Joshua, 60 for Saul and David, and 4 for Solomon, so that there are 539 years in all. According to Acts 13, the period of the judges embraced about 450 years; 65 for Moses and Joshua, 40 for Saul (1 Kings 6:21), 40 for David, and 4 for Solomon reckoned in, would give in all 599 years. Still farther, Josephus, when he speaks of the building of the temple (Antiq.viii. 3, 1), instead of 480 gives 592 years; and in two other places (Antiq.xx. 10; Contra Apion.ii. 2) 612 years. Most recently Lepsius and Bunsen have used the Egyptian and Assyrian chronology against the number 480, and have sought to prove at length, that it is to be reduced to some three hundred and odd years. Finally, Bertheau and Bφttcher maintain, with reference to 1 Chronicles 6:35 sq., where the generations of the high-priests from Aaron to Ahimaz, a contemporary of David, are given, the number 480 is the sum-total of twelve generations, 40 years to the generation (40x12=480); consequently there is no chronologically exact, but rather a probable, round number. Uncertain and doubtful, all things considered, as the statement of the text may seem, we must nevertheless, with Ewald (Gesch. Israels, ii. s. 462 sq.), Winer (R.-W.-B. ii. s. 327), Thenius (Commentar, s. 56–58), and Rφsch (das Datum des Tempelbaues im Ersten Buche der Kφnige. Studien u. Kritiken, 1863, iv. s. 712–742) adhere to it because, (a) the precision of the statement is a voucher for its accuracy. Not only is the whole number of the years given, but also the year of the reign of the king, even the mouth itself; and since after the captivity the months had other names, in order that the month itself might not be mistaken for any other, to the name Zif (ζε) it is expressly added. “which is the second month.” In all Scripture there is no chronological statement more carefully prepared; and hence, if any one can claim authority, it is this. It is unnecessary, therefore, to correct it by others, more or less vaguely and generally acknowledged, but we are justified, on the contrary, in considering it as the standard for the rest. This holds especially (b) in reference to the chronological figures of the period of the judges, which are not critically and historically above all suspicion, and cannot be added together simply, but must be understood as contemporaneous in part, and standing side by side, even if it be not demonstrably clear in how far, and with what particular numbers, this must be done. Compare the different attempts at a proof by Keil (Dφrptische Beitrδge, ii. s. 303 sq., and on Judges 3:7), Tiele (Chronologie des A. T. s. 54), Werner (Rudelbach’s Zeitschrift, 1844, iii. and 1845, i.), and Cassel (Das Buch der Richter im Bibelwerk, Einl. s. xvi.). (c) The number 450 (Acts 13:20) is not given as chronologically precise, but only as approximate (ὡς), and nothing can be determined by it. The numbers of the period of the judges appear simply to be added together in it, and the 40 years of Eli also (1 Samuel 4:18) are computed with it. (d) The statements of Josephus can all the less be taken into account, since he contradicts himself, and gives at one time 592, and at the other 612. The first number, adopted also by the Chinese Jews, rests doubtless upon the rabbinic notion that in the 480 years those only are to be reckoned in which Israel was under Israelitish judges, and that those on the other hand are to be thrown out (amounting in all to 111), when the nation was subject to foreign heathen rulers—480 + 111 = 591. This conception of the matter is destitute of all proof. The reason for the number 612 is unknown, (e) The calling in question of the number 480 upon the ground of the Egyptian or of the Assyrian chronology, proceeds upon the assumption that this chronology is assured, which, it is known, is by no means the case, and which can only be restored through a series of combinations and of unproved hypotheses. How feebly the definite statement of our text can be attacked by it, has been thoroughly and completely shown by Rφsch on the place. (f) The reading of the Sept. (440 instead of 480) is not supported by any ancient version or MS., and rests either upon the confounding of the sign τּ = 80 with ξ = 40, or upon some peculiar and even arbitrary reckoning, (g) The view that 480 is the product of 12 x 40, is inadmissible, because in that event the four years of Solomon’s reign are not in the estimate, and must be added to the 480 years, while in fact they are included within them. Had the reckoning been made according to generations, the author would have written 484. Apart from this, twelve generations are supplied us from 1 Chronicles 6 only when Aaron himself, who, according to Exodus 7:7; Numbers 33:38 sq., was eighty-three years old at the time of the departure from Egypt, is taken into the account. Besides, there is no proof that in the computation of long periods of time human age is regularly set down at forty years. As Moses was 120 years, Aaron 123, Joshua 110, Eli 98, &c., and generally, a great age was then usual, the average of human life must certainly be placed higher than at forty years. Comp. Thenius. 1 Kings 6:2. And the house which king Solomon, &c. The place where the temple was built, was, according to 2 Chronicles 3:1, Mount Moriah (comp. 2 Samuel 24:18 sq.), which our author presupposes as sufficiently known. [The uneven rock of Moriah had to be levelled, and the inequalities filled by immense substructions of “great stones,” “costly stones,” “hewed stones.” Stanley, Jewish Church.—E. H.] In 1 Kings 6:2-10 the measurement and single portions of the structure are given. The measurements are determined according to the cubit, and indeed the older (2 Chronicles 3:3), which Thenius reckons at one foot six inches Rhenish, and one foot four inches Paris, measure [= 1 foot six inches Eng. measure]. Here, and in all the subsequent statements, they refer to the interior spaces. The component parts of the structure are the house, the porch, and the “chambers round about” (Umbau). The first is the building proper, to which both others are attached as additional and subsidiary. The whole was situated according to the points of the compass. The front, or entrance-side, was towards the east, the rear wall was towards the west, the two sides towards the south and north (1 Kings 7:39; Ezekiel 8:16), which also was the position of the tabernacle (Exodus 26:18 sq.;Exodus 36:33 sq.). The main building, the house (δַ ?αַּ ?ιִ ?ϊ), was built of thick stone walls (1 Kings 6:6-7, and had within two compartments: the front is called in 1 Kings 6:3 “the temple of the house” (δֵ ?ιαַ ?μδαַּ ?ιִ ?ϊ), and the rear, in 1 Kings 6:5, “the oracle” (ηַ ?γְּ ?αִ ?ιψ). The word δֵ ?ιλָ ?μ comes from the Arabic, to be large, high (2 Chronicles 3:5), hence the front compartment was “the great house” (δַ ?αַּ ?ιִ ?ϊδַ ?βָּ ?γεֹ ?μ) in contradistinction with the rear, which was the shorter half, and also lower. The Vulg., after Jerome, translates the word γְּ ?αִ ?ιψ by oraculum, i.e., oraculi sedes, and the Lex. Cyrilli explains the δαβὶρ of the Sept. by χρηματιστήριον. It is, however, not derived from γִּ ?αֵ ?ψ = to speak, but from γָּ ?αַ ?ψ in its primary signification = to adjoin, to follow after (comp. Dietrich in Gesen.), and signifies, also, simply the compartment in the rear, following upon the large room. The windows which the house had (1 Kings 6:4), were certainly placed high, where it overtopped the “chambers round about” (Umbau) with their three stories. How many windows there were, whether upon all the four sides of the house, or only upon three, or only upon the two length-walls, we do not gather from the text. The designs of Thenius and Keil place them all around the house, with the exception of the facade, where the porch was. Nor is the size of the windows given, but it is added ωְׁ ?χֻ ?τִ ?ινΰֲ ?θֻ ?ξִ ?ιν, i.e., “wide within, narrow without” (Luther, after the Chald.), but “windows with closed beams, i.e., windows the lattice of which could not he opened and shut at pleasure as in ordinary dwelling-houses, 2 Kings 13:17; Daniel 6:11” (Keil). The lattice consisted of strong cross-pieces, and not of wickerwork. The window-opening may have been, certainly, according to the account of the Chaldee and of the rabbins, inasmuch as the walls were very thick, wider on the inside than on the outside, as is the case in the windows of Egyptian buildings, and answers for the purposes of admitting light and air, and of letting off smoke, only there is nothing of it in the words of the text. 1 Kings 6:3-4. And the porch before the temple of the house, &c. As the word ΰεּ ?μָ ?ν comes from ΰεּ ?μ, i.e., to go before, it signifies also a projection: but we are not, as in 1 Kings 7:6, where δָ ?ςַ ?ξּ ?εּ ?γִ ?ιν (pillars) is expressly added, to represent it as a portico or a colonnade. It stretched across the entire facade of the house, and its length was equal to the breadth of the house, viz., 20 cubits. Its breadth, i.e., its depth, measured 10 cubits. The text does not mention the height, but 2 Chronicles 3:4 gives it at 120 cubits, which is certainly incorrect; for, as Thenius properly remarks, (1) “a structure of this sort could not have been designated as an ΰεּ ?μָ ?ν, but must have been called a ξִ ?πְ ?γַּ ?μ (tower); (2) the chimney-like proportions: 20, 10, 120, are not only inconsistent with (the notion of) the pylon of a temple, but are also statically impossible. [If it were but 10 cubits (15 feet) deep, it seems impossible that it could have been 120 cubits (180 feet) high: and the theory of Mr. Ferguson that the height refers to a “superstructure on the temple,” would make the temple itself a very grotesque building. See the art., however, on the Temple in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. iv. New York, 1870.—E. H.] From these considerations we cannot, with justice, suppose the chronicler to be guilty of arbitrary exaggeration, but we must rather suspect the text of corruption, which is all the more probable, since the verse in question bears even elsewhere marks of corruption.” According to v. Meyer’s probable conjecture, instead of ξֵ ?ΰָ ?δεְ ?ςֶ ?ωְׂ ?ψִ ?ιν, we should read: ΰξεϊςωψιν, i.e., 20 cubits (in Ezekiel 42:16 also, whether the reading be ΰξεϊ or ξΰιϊ is uncertain). The latter is adopted by the Syr., the Arab., and the Sept. (Cod. Alexand.). Thenius and Bertheau maintain, on the other hand, that as the house was 30 cubits high, the sign μ = 30 was originally in the text, but that through the obliteration of the upper portion of the letter it became λ = 20. And certainly, in behalf of the supposition that it was 30 cubits high, we may urge, in part, the absence of any statement of the height in our text, which is the more easily explicable if the height of the “porch” and of the temple were the same, and, in part, the circumstance that the side-building was 20 cubits high on the outside, consequently the “porch” would not have been especially distinctive or prominent had it been of the same height (Keil). That the “porch” had thick stone enclosure-walls with a wide entrance (Thenius), cannot be concluded from the obscure passage of Eze 41:26; still less is the view established that each side-wall had a window. To me it seems that the “porch” had only side-walls and a ceiling, but to have been entirely open in front, so that windows were unnecessary. The extremely inadequate description of the “porch,” contrasted with the very careful description of the house and of both its compartments, can only be founded in the fact that it did not belong especially, or as an integral part, to the sanctuary, but was only a subordinate addition thereto. 1 Kings 6:5. And against the wall of the house he built, &c. The word ιָ ?φεּ ?ςַ comes from ιָ ?φַ ?ςsternere, to spread or strew something for a bed, and means literally stratum, a bed (Psalms 63:6; Job 17:13). Symmachus renders it by κατάστρωμα. So this building was very properly called, because it spread itself out against the lower half of the house 30 cubits high, and, as it were, lay upon it. ιָ ?φεּ ?ςַ is gen. com. and stands as collective masculine in 1 Kings 6:5; 1 Kings 6:10, of the whole of the side-structure (“chambers”), but it is feminine in 1 Kings 6:6, when the single, or three stories of the same, one over the other, are mentioned (see Gesen. on the word). The ΰֶ ?ϊ before χִ ?ιψεֹ ?ϊ is scarcely the sign of the accus., “reaching to the walls” (Keil), but a preposition, and defines more particularly the preceding ςַ ?μ—χִ ?ιψ, as indeed both prepositions elsewhere are synonymous (comp. Psalms 4:7 with Psalms 67:2). If it can mean simply “in connection with the walls” (Thenius), then the statement is that (Umbau) “the chambers round about” were affixed to the walls. It went round the entire house, so that the two side-walls of the porch above stood free, and caused the latter to appear all the more distinctive. The three stories one above the other of this side-structure (1 Kings 6:5), had each φְ ?μָ ?ςεֹ ?ϊ, i.e., literally “ribs” [joists, so Bp. Horsley on the place.—E. H.], which can mean nothing else than that they were “divided by partitions into distinct compartments” (Merz). It comes to the same thing when Keil, who rejects “ribs” as the meaning, translates nevertheless “side-chambers.” According to Ezekiel 41:6, where, however, the reading is not entirely certain, the number of these chambers was 1Kings 33: according to Josephus, with whom the moderns agree, there were 30—viz., 12 upon each side-wall of the house, and 6 upon the rear-wall. 1 Kings 6:6 states how the entire side-structure (“chambers round about”) were built into the chief-structure, the house itself. The wall of the latter had, upon the outside, rests (ξִ ?βְ ?ψָ ?ςεֹ ?ϊ, literally contractions, lessenings [“for he placed stays with retractions against the house.” Bp. Horsley.—E. H.]). It was thickest at the ground, and kept this thickness to the height of five cubits; then succeeded a rest (like a settle), which was one cubit broad. Then again, after an elevation of five cubits, there was another rest, one cubit broad; there was also another rest of like height and breadth. Upon these rests the ends of the beams, which served for the ceiling of each story, were laid, and had in them their support. The outer wall of the side-structure had no rests, but was built perpendicularly; hence, as our verse states, the uppermost story was one cubit broader (deeper) than the middle, and the middle again was one cubit broader than the lowermost. The wall also of the house must have been very thick below—at least four cubits, for its thickness above the side-structure, bearing in mind the rests, amounted certainly to one cubit. Thenius and Keil place the thickness at six cubits, but this seems unnecessary. The reason given for this mode of construction is, “ that the beams should not be fastened into the walls of the house” i.e., that the large, costly stones should remain whole and uninjured (ωְׁ ?μֵ ?ξָ ?δ), that no holes should be cut into them for the purpose of inserting the ends of the ceiling-beams. 1 Kings 6:7, which is a parenthesis, refers to this, and means that “all the stone-work had been so prepared in advance, that in the actual putting up of the building, stone-cutting was no longer necessary” (Thenius). According to 1 Kings 6:8, the entire side-structure had but one door, which was placed on the south side: whether in the middle (Thenius) or at the foremost apartment near the porch (Ewald, Merz) is uncertain; probably the latter. That a door within the house opened into the side-structure, has been erroneously concluded from Ezekiel 41:5. The walls of the house were nowhere broken through, and certainly the historical account knows nothing of such a door. The winding stairway obviously was within the side-structure. The word φֵ ?μָ ?ς in 1 Kings 6:8, and in Ezekiel 41:5; Ezekiel 41:9; Ezekiel 41:11, is like ιָ ?φεּ ?ςַ in 1 Kings 6:5; 1 Kings 6:10, in the singular, and stands collectively for the whole of the side-chambers.—The text says nothing of the perpendicular outside wall of the side-structure. Thenius appeals to Ezekiel 41:9 for the supposition that this was a stone-wall five cubits thick. In that case it would have been as thick as the side-chambers of the lower story were broad (1 Kings 6:6): and why should the wall of these have been so thick? Then, too, the ceiling-beams of these chambers would, of necessity, have been inserted into these walls, which is inconsistent with 1 Kings 6:7. Hence it seems to me much more probable that this exterior wall, as indeed the entire side-structure, which was only subordinate in any event, was built of cedar.—The text does not state the purpose or design of these “chambers round about.” They served for the preservation of temple utensils and temple stores (Keil), perhaps also of consecrated gifts (Ewald); but they were scarcely “expensively furnished bedrooms” (Thenius). 1 Kings 6:9-10. And so he built the house, &c. In roofing, the building of the house was ended. But we must not, as many formerly, and even Hirt himself now, fancy a gable-roof. The silence of the text respecting its form allows us to presuppose that it was, as with all oriental buildings, a flat roof furnished with a parapet (comp. Deuteronomy 22:8). εַ ?ιִּ ?αְּ ?τֹּ ?ο is not, with Merz, to be understood of the wainscoting, but, with Keil, of the roofing, for the account of the former begins first at 1 Kings 6:15. βֵּ ?αִ ?ιν are not planks, as the word for the most part is translated, but beams, as such were certainly indispensable for roofing. ωְׂ ?γֵ ?ψֹ ?ϊ are scarcely “hewn cedar-timbers” (Thenius), but boards which were laid upon the beams. The αΰָ ?ψֲ ?ζָ ?ιִ ?ν refer to both the preceding. Without doubt this cedar covering was overlaid with firm flooring, perhaps even with stone slabs. Thenius very unnecessarily wishes βַּ ?αִּ ?ιν to be read for βֵּ ?αִ ?ιν, and then suggests “a flat roof vaulting” but in the ancient Orient there were never any arched roofs. In 1 Kings 6:10δַ ?ιָּ ?φεּ ?ςַ is again collective, for, according to it, not the whole side-structure, but each of its three stories, was five cubits high inside. The mention of the side-structure here is in reference to the roofing. While 1 Kings 6:9 speaks of the roofing of the house, 1 Kings 6:10 states how it is related to that of the side-structure. Therefore the height is again mentioned, with the observation, “and he fastened the house with timber of cedar.” If Solomon be the subject with the preceding εַ ?ιִּ ?αֶ ?ο (Thenius), or ιָ ?φεּ ?ςַ (Keil), the sense is: the roofing of the three stories (five cubits high each) of the side-structure was done with cedar timbers, which, with their ends, lay upon the rests of the walls of the temple, and likewise united the side-structure with the house, thus making it a complete whole. Entirely false is the translation: he covered the house with cedar-wood (Gesenius), as if the stonewalls were overlaid, upon the inside, with cedar, of which there is nowhere the slightest trace. That the roof of the side-structure, moreover, was horizontal, level, like that of the house itself, scarcely requires mention. 1 Kings 6:11-19. And the word of the Lord came to Solomon, &c. The interruption of the description of the temple, by these verses, shows plainly that what is therein stated took place during the progress of the building. From 1 Kings 9:2, comp. with 1 Kings 3:5, it is clear that we have to think not of a revelation of Jehovah, but of a divine promise communicated through a prophet (perhaps Nathan), such as happened to David (2 Samuel 7:12 sq. and 1 Chronicles 22:10), to which reference is made in 1 Kings 6:12. Solomon thereby obtained the promise that Jehovah, as He had formerly dwelt among the people in a “tabernacle,” for the sign and pledge of the covenant established with Israel, would dwell in the house about to be built, and that the covenant-relation also should continue, if the king upon his part should keep the covenant, and walk in the ordinances of Jehovah. Such a promise necessarily encouraged and strengthened Solomon in his great and difficult undertaking, as it reminded and urged him to the performance of his sacred obligations. 1 Kings 6:14-19. So Solomon built the house, &c. 1 Kings 6:14 resumes the description of the building, which had been interrupted by 1 Kings 6:11-13, and which from 1 Kings 6:15 is applied to its interior. The overlaying of walls with wood, which again was covered with metal, and gold in particular, is an old Oriental custom, extending from Ph�nicia to Judea (comp. Mόller, Arch�ology, translated by John Leitch, p. 214 sq.; Schnaase, Gesch. der bild. Kόnste, i. s. 160; Weiss, Kostόmkunde, i. s. 365). The covering with gold was not mere gilding, but consisted of thin gold plates (Symb. des Mos. Kultus, i. s. 60). According to 2 Chronicles 3:6, the walls also were adorned with precious stones, which is credible enough since these were expressly named amongst the objects which Solomon obtained in abundance from Ophir (1 Kings 10:11), and it was the custom in the Orient to make use of them in buildings and utensils (comp. the same, s. 280, 294, 297). 1 Kings 6:16 says explicitly and distinctly that the main space was separated from the Debir by a cedar wall; hence surely it is an error upon the part of Thenius when, by an appeal to Ezekiel 41:3, he supposes, in place of this wall, a stone-wall two cubits thick covered with wood and gold. Even in the tabernacle of the covenant it was not a plank-wall (Exodus 26:15), but a curtain merely (1 Kings 6:33) which separated its two divisions from each other. Even the massively-constructed Herodian temple had no such wall, of which besides, the Rabbins, according to Josephus (Bell. Jud. i., 5, 5, 5), knew nothing (Lightfoot, Descrip. temp. Hieros., 1 Kings 15:1). The cedar wall, for the rest, since it reached from the ground to the beams of the ceiling, must have been thirty cubits high. The addition “μְ ?χֹ ?γֶ ?ωׁ δַ ?χֳּ to μִ ?γְ ?αִ ?ιψ shows the design of the latter, and proves that the γְּ ?αִ ?ιψ does not mean oraculum or locutorium, for had it this signification, its object would have been denoted by the word itself, and no explanatory addition would have been necessary.—According to 1 Kings 6:16-20 the two divisions of the house were of the following dimensions: the room at the farthest end took off from the entire length of the building (which was 60 cubits), twenty, and from its height (30 cubits), twenty. It was also, as is expressly stated in 1 Kings 6:20, twenty cubits long, broad, and high, and consequently was a complete cube in shape. The front compartment was forty cubits long, twenty broad, and thirty high. For since its breadth and height are not given here (1 Kings 6:17), it must have had the breadth and height of the house mentioned above (1 Kings 6:2), otherwise, as in the case of the rear compartment, it would have been expressly noticed. That the front compartment was not only longer, but higher also, larger generally than the rear, its name even proves δֵ ?ιλָ ?μ (see above on 1 Kings 6:2). It is hence decidedly incorrect when Kurtz and Merz suppose that the front compartment was only twenty cubits high, that over the entire house there was an upper room ten cubits high fitted up for the conservation of the reliques of the tabernacle of the covenant, and that this room is designated by what 2 Chronicles 3:9 names δָ ?ςֲ ?μִ ?ιεϊ, and which the Sept. renders by τὸ ὑπερῷον. The following considerations make against this view: (1) How could one have reached this supposed upper chamber? Not from the side-structure, for the ceiling of its uppermost story did not reach to the floor of the supposed “upper room:” the thick walls of the house, moreover, had no door above the level of the side-structure. Just as little could one have reached it from the interior of the house, for in neither compartment was there a stairway which led thither: there was no opening in the ceiling. (2) The windows of the house (1 Kings 6:4) were above the side-structure, which (the ceilings of the three stories being taken into the account) was certainly eighteen cubits high: there remained, therefore, the house being thirty cubits high, but twelve cubits for the windows. If now from these twelve cubits, ten are allowed for the upper room, what space remains for the windows, which certainly were not very small, and which were necessary to admit light and air into the house? (3) From the extremely abrupt words of the Chronicles, “And the alioth he covered with gold,” it follows only that alioth (upper chambers) were somewhere, but not where they were; and since the Chronicles in its abbreviated description says nothing of the entire side-structure with its stories and chambers, we have at least as much right, with Grόneisen, to suppose the alioth to be the chambers of the side-structure, as an upper room extending the length of the whole building, and which is nowhere else mentioned. The reliques of the tabernacle could easily have been preserved in the several chambers of the side-structure. [For the other view, see Art. Temple, above cited. But our author seems to me to have fully disposed of this doubtful matter. It would seem impossible from our author’s reasoning that there should have been a large upper chamber over the “holy place.”—E. H.] If now we must, according to all the accounts, regard the front compartment as thirty cubits high, the question still remains respecting its relation to the rear, which was but twenty cubits high. Stieglitz and Grόneisen are of the opinion that the rear compartment, viewed externally, was ten cubits lower than the front, which was the case also with Egyptian temples [and like the chancel in the so-called Gothic church.—E. H.]. But 1 Kings 6:2 conflicts with this: it gives the height of the entire house at thirty cubits, and does not limit it to the front compartment. Apart from all other considerations, we cannot appeal to the adytum of the Egyptian temples, because it was not connected with the fore-temple, but was separated from it by chambers and passages, and was an independent structure (Mόller, Arch�ology, p. 190 sq.; Leitch (German edit.) s. 258; Schnaase, Gesch. der bild. Kόnste, i. s. 392). We must certainly assume that there was a room over the rear compartment ten cubits high. Bφttcher thinks this was open in front and only having chains hanging as its partition (1 Kings 6:21); in itself, “very improbable” this (Winer), and besides it is against 1 Kings 6:16, according to which the cedar wall before the holy of holies went from the floor to the beams of the ceiling. Besides, 1 Kings 6:20 does not say that the cedar wall was only twenty cubits high, but only brings into prominence the fact that on all its sides the holy of holies measured twenty cubits. As the room in question was inaccessible, Ewald rightly observes that it “had been left apparently entirely empty.” It had no especial design, and was what it was simply that the holy of holies might be a perfect cube. Upon this point more will be remarked farther on, in respect of the significance of the temple. For particular words on 1 Kings 6:17-20, see above, Textual and Gram.1 Kings 6:20-22. And covered the altar, &c. And he overlaid the altar with cedar. Thus only should we translate the concluding words of the 20th verse, and not, with Le Clerc, J. D. Michaelis, and others—he overlaid the altar of cedar, namely, with gold like the rest. Apart from the fact that ξִ ?ζְ ?αֵּ ?ηַ is without the article, and not in the construct, the “gold” is first mentioned in the concluding words of the 22d verse. There the altar is more specifically referred to by ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψΞμַ ?γְּ ?αִ ?ιψ, which cannot mean “which belonged to the Debir,” in the sense that it stood within it; for the holy of holies was designed only as the receptacle of the ark of the covenant (1 Kings 6:19), and never had an altar. The altar of incense in the holy place is meant. Its position was “in front of the curtain” (μִ ?τְ ?πֵ ?ι) (Exodus 40:26), i.e., “before the ark of the testimony” (Exodus 40:5), and therewith also “before Jehovah” (Leviticus 16:12; Leviticus 16:18), enthroned above the ark. It stood also in special relation to the Debir. If now this altar were “overlaid” with cedar, we are shut up to the supposition that “the body of it was of stone” (Keil). But this was the peculiar, distinguishing feature of the altar of burnt-offering, which was required to be composed of earth or of stones (Exodus 20:24-25), and the frame of which, consequently, was filled with the same material (comp. Symbol, des Mos. Kult., i. s. 481, 488). The much smaller altar of incense was a simple frame with a covering, which was wanting in the altar of burnt-offering (Exodus 30:1-3). In distinction with the latter, it is named in Ezekiel 41:22, “the altar of wood.” The body of it could not have been of stone. These difficulties disappear only through the translation of the Sept.: καὶ ἐποίησεθυσιαστήριονκέδρου. It read also ειַּ ?ςַ ?ωׂ instead of εַ ?ιְ ?φַ ?σ, which Thenius holds to be genuine. In that case the absence of the article in ξִ ?ζְ ?αֵּ ?ηַ is explained, as well also as the concluding observation in 1 Kings 6:22 : And the whole altar [of cedar] before the Debir, he overlaid with gold. The words in 1 Kings 6:21 are obscure and difficult: εַ ?ιְ ?ςַ ?αֵּ ?ψ(and he made a partition) by the chains of gold before the oracle (Debir). Thenius is of opinion that the subject here, viz., ΰֶ ?ϊΞδַ ?τָּ ?ψֹ ?λֶ ?ϊ is omitted, and then translates, “he hung the curtain before the Debir with gold chains.” This curtain was before the door of the latter, and was hung in such a manner that it could be moved this way and that, “by means of golden chainlets each provided with an end-ring, upon a round stick upon which these rings were made to slide.” But this mysterious chain-work, as Winer names it, is by no means “forever explained and done with,” by this suggestion. For, according to it, the chief thing in the text, the mention of the curtain, is wanting. But no MS. nor any ancient version names this supposed missing object. And if any one wish to insert it, then must the words “and he overlaid it with gold” refer to the curtain; and this is impossible. Besides, the text says only “with chains,” and does not know anything either of end-rings or of round sticks, both of which are essential, and far more necessary than the “chainlet” for the sliding, this way and that, of the curtain. With De Wette, Gesenius, Ewald, and Merz, ιςαψ is to be translated, he bolted, as in Chaldaic ςαψΰ means a bolt, and for αְ ?ψִ ?ιηִ ?ν, i.e., bolt (Exodus 26:26), the Chaldee has ςαψιο. But then the question is, what was bolted? According to Calmet and others, it was only the, door of the Debir, which had two leaves. But in that case it would have been necessary to take away the chains on the day of Atonement—a thing nowhere hinted at, and in itself highly improbable. Obviously the bolting chains were not a movable but a fixed contrivance running across the entire wall. They held together the parts of the wall made of cedar, like the bolts on the planks of the tabernacle (Exodus 26:26), and likewise represented the Debir as a barred, closed room. A further argument for this: ψϊεχεϊ comes from ψϊχ, which means to bind, to chain together, and in Arabic to shut up, and the expression φָ ?τεֹ ?ο the concealed, the closed, is used by Ezek. (1 Kings 7:22) of the holy of holies. The supposition of v. Meyer and Grόneisen, that there was in the cedar wall an opening above the door, which like the capitals of the two brazen columns was covered (1 Kings 7:15 sq.;2 Chronicles 3:16) with a net or lattice-work, is just as untenable as that the chains served the purpose of decoration only (Jahn).—In 1 Kings 6:22 all that had been said hitherto about the gilding, [done with thin plates and not with gold-leaf.—E. H.] is again brought together and emphasized. It is by no means declared by the expression “the whole house,” that the interior of the porch was gilt (Thenius): it refers only to the holy place and to the holy of holies, since the porch is explicitly distinguished from the house (Keil). 1 Kings 6:23-28.—And within the oracle (Debir) he made two chambers, &c. The reason why olive-wood was used in the construction of these figures was owing to its firmness and durability. In Greece it was employed to make images of the gods (Winer, R.-W.-B., ii. s. 172). The etymology of the word λְּ ?ψεּ ?α is to this day so variously stated, that nothing reliable can be gathered from it respecting the form and shape of the cherubim. From Exodus 25:18 sq. and Exodus 37:7 sq., we gather only thus much—that the cherubim over the ark had two wings, and that their faces were opposite each other and directed towards the ark. Nor do we learn anything more from our text and from 2 Chronicles 3:10-13. It is only said that each was ten cubits high, and that each of the wings measured five cubits; that they stood upon their feet, and that their faces were turned towards the house, i.e., towards the large compartment, and also how that those upon the ark of the covenant could have had but one face. Ezekiel, on the other hand, in his vision of the throne of God and of the temple, gives something more definite. According to the first and tenth chapters the cherubim were ηַ ?ιεֹ ?ϊ, i.e.,ζῶα, living creatures (not θῆρες, wild beasts) with four wings and four faces. On the right side the faces were those of a man and of a lion, on the left those of a bull and of an eagle. The human element seems to have preponderated in their form (Ezekiel 6:5). But according to Ezekiel 41:18, the cherubim represented upon the walls and doors of the temple, between palm-trees, had but two faces, the one of a man and the other of a lion. The former were on the right side and the latter on the left. The apocalyptic vision of the throne, Revelation 4:7, in which the four types of creatures composing the cherub are separated and stand round the throne, having six wings each, rests upon that of Ezekiel. From everything we have, it appears that the cherub was not a simple but a complex or collective being; and when he has now one, then two, then again four faces, or two, or four, or six wings; when, too, the four types of which he is composed are separated side by side, so we gather still farther that he had no unalterable, fixed form, but that one element or another was prominent or subordinate according to circumstances. In fact, one element might even disappear without any change in the fundamental idea attaching to the cherub. This has been questioned warmly by Riehm recently (De Natura et notione symbolica Cheruborum. Basil, 1864). He maintains that before the exile the cherub had a fixed form, viz., that of a man standing upright, with wings. The later description in Ezekiel’s vision is a departure from this characteristic and original form, and, for the sake of the “throne, chariot” moving towards the four quarters of the world, gives to the cherubim with it four faces, yet not four component parts. The three faces added to the original one human face by Ezekiel are borrowed from the grandest and strongest of creatures whether living on the earth or in the air. He was induced to do this probably by the Babylonian grouping together of animals which he had learned during the captivity. We remark against this: If any person, on the one hand, knew well enough the forms of the cherubim both in the tabernacle and in the temple, and would, on the other hand, adhere firmly to ancestral institutions and to priestly traditions, that person was Ezekiel, the son of a priest. How is it possible that this prophet, who was emphatically warned by the sight of the “images of the Chaldeans,” doubtless mythological (Ezekiel 23:14), portrayed on the walls, should himself have been induced, by means of these, to alter completely the sacred cherub-form, and to have made to it arbitrary and self-appointed additions? Umbreit (Hesekiel, s. xii.) rightly says: “So far as the form of the cherubim is concerned, the prophet has certainly copied the original type of the temple, the ark of the covenant and the tabernacle floating in his imagination, with conscientious fidelity; but in particular instances he has enriched the idea by the addition of more complete features, without changing anything essentially.” The assertion that he gives to the cherub not a fourfold composition, but only four faces, is a mistake, take, for he gives to him the feet of a bull, the wings of an eagle, and the hands of a man (Ezekiel 1:6-9); and in the passage 1 Kings 10:14, which, indeed, in a critical respect is not free from suspicion, the word λְ ?ψεּ ?α stands for bull, so that many interpreters think that the bull is the prevailing element in the composition of the cherub. Besides, in every living creature the face is the chief thing, by which in fact it is recognized; and when Ezekiel gives to the cherub four faces, he signifies thereby that those four types of being unite therein. To delineate cherubim is consequently a hazardous business, because the form is not fixed; nor as yet is there anything perfectly satisfactory. The latest, by Thenius (tab. 3, fig. 7), is borrowed, almost painfully, from Egyptian sculptures. It is remarkable that the archζologists are forever finding the original of the cherub in Egypt, while neither the sphinx nor any other Egyptian complex creature presents the four types united in the cherub. On the other hand, Asiatic, and particularly Assyrian, images, exhibit all four together (comp. Neumann, die Stiftshόtte, s. 68 sq.). Nevertheless the cherub is not a copy of these, but is the pure and specific product of Hebrew contemplation. Upon this, more, farther on.—The words of 1 Kings 6:24 state that the four horizontally outstretched wings took in the entire breadth of the Debir (twenty cubits); that they also touched on the right and left, the north and south wall, and each other in the centre, while it presupposes that they (i.e., the wings) stood close to each other at the shoulder-blades. Under the outspread wings the ark of the covenant was placed, as 1 Kings 8:6 plainly says; and it is hence an error when Ewald asserts that the cover of the ark was renewed, and in place of the old cherubim, those massive wooden and gilt were fastened upon it—a thing impossible, for they stood 10 cubits apart (1 Kings 6:27), while the ark was 3½ cubits long (Exodus 25:10). 1 Kings 6:29-30.—And he carved all the walls of the house, &c. Comp. 1 Kings 6:18. Keil and others understand by ξִ ?χְ ?μַ ?ςַ ?ϊ “basso-relievo,” Vulgate c�latur� eminentes, which, however, cannot be established by the word itself. For although χָ ?μַ ?ς means to set in motion, to sling (1 Samuel 17:40; 1 Samuel 25:29; Jeremiah 10:18), this signification is not available here. But it becomes clear through the following τִּ ?ϊּ ?εּ ?ηֵ ?ι from τָּ ?ϊַ ?η to break open, to open, then to furrow, to plough (Isaiah 28:24); τִּ ?ϊּ ?εִּ ?ηιν in Exodus 28:11; Exodus 39:6, is used for the work of the graver in stone, and in Exodus 28:36; Exodus 39:30 of engraving in metal. The figures, moreover, were not in basso relievo, but were sunken. 1 Kings 7:31 cannot avail, for with reference to the figures upon the flat surface of the “bases,” it is said in 1 Kings 6:36εַ ?ιְ ?τַ ?ϊַּ ?η, and this agrees with χָ ?μַ ?ς, which means in Arabic, loco dimovit. Most of the figurative representations upon the old Egyptian monuments were wrought after this fashion (Thenius). The forms of the cherubim upon the walls were different from the colossal figures under which the ark in the Debir rested. According to Ezekiel 41:19, “a lion-face was towards a palm-tree upon one side, and a man’s face towards the palm-tree on the other side,” so that there was always a cherub between two palm-trees. These had not four faces, but assuredly the wings of the eagle and the feet of the bull were not wanting. We are not to think of palm-branches (Ewald), nor of palm-leaves (Luther), but of palm-trees, such as we see upon ancient coins, and such as Titus caused to be struck off, out of the booty from Jerusalem, with the inscription Jud�a capta (Lamy, de Tabernaculo, p. 783; Winer, R.-W.-B., i. s. 252). We may, with the Arabic version, understand by “open flowers,” lilies, for these certainly belonged to the emblems of the sanctuary (1 Kings 7:19; 1 Kings 7:22; 1 Kings 7:26). 1 Kings 6:18 names, besides the flowers, τְּ ?χָ ?ςִ ?ιν also, which is regarded generally as synonymous with τַ ?χֻּ ?ςֹ ?ϊ, 2 Kings 4:39, and is translated “coloquinths” (i.e., wild or spring gerkins which burst at the touch). We should then understand by it: “egg-shaped decorations like that of our architectonics.” (Thenius, Keil). But the intimate connection with graven figures in the highest degree significant, such as cherubim, palm-trees, and lilies, makes against a wholly meaningless, empty decoration, a thing not known to oriental sacred architecture. Add to this that in another passage the τַּ ?χֻּ ?ςֹ ?ϊ are described as deadly, a fruit so dangerous and unwholesome would have suggested just the opposite of that which was represented by the other symbolical figures. If it were employed simply on account of its egg-shape, why these “coloquinths,” since they were not alone round, why not eggs simply? The stem τָּ ?χַ ?ς does not mean simply to burst, but also circumire, in hiphil conglomerare, circumagere, and τχςϊinvolucrum, glomus, globus, so also τχιςΰglomus, fasciculus convolutus vel colligatus (Buxtorf, Lex. Chald. et Talm., p. 1790). In its intimate connection with τְ ?θεּ ?ψֵ ?ιφִ ?φִ ?ιν, will τְּ ?χָ ?ςִ ?ιν be taken to mean flower-bundles, i.e., buds; and so the translation is, budding and blown flowers (flower-work). Possibly this flower-work had the form of wreaths, only we can scarcely, with Thenius, translate τθεψι = “festoons, garlands of flowers.” Whether the three kinds of graven figures were distributed in single panels, and such panels were in two or three rows, one over the other, after the analogy of Egyptian temples, must be left undecided, owing to the silence of the text.—Thenius wishes the “without” of 1 Kings 6:29-30 to be understood of the porch; but nothing has been said of the porch from 1 Kings 6:3, and it would have been necessary therefore to designate it by a word. According to 1 Kings 6:20ξִ ?μִּ ?τְ ?πִ ?ιν can be referred only to the Debir, and not to the interior of the whole house, consequently by μַ ?ηִ ?ιφεֹ ?ο the large compartment must be meant. 1 Kings 6:31-35. And for the entering of the oracle, &c. The rabbins, whom many interpreters, even to v. Meyer and Stier, follow, translate the difficult words δָ ?ΰַ ?ιִ ?μξְ ?ζεּ ?ζεֹ ?ϊηֲ ?ξִּ ?ωִּׁ ?ιϊ: “the lintel (entablature) of the (or with the) posts, a pentagon.” The sense would then be: the lintel of the doors supported two posts abutting one against the other, at an angle which, with it, formed a triangle, and together with the door, a pentagon. [Thus: E. H.] But this is decisively contradicted by that which follows in 1 Kings 6:33 of the door of the larger compartment, the corresponding ξֵ ?ΰֵ ?ϊψְ ?αִ ?ςִ ?ιϊ, which cannot possibly be translated “out or of a four-cornered, i.e., a square,” but only “out of a fourth.” Besides this, a pentagonal door is without an example in the ancient East. Bφttcher and Thenius translate, “the entrance-wall with posts of a fifth thickness.” But this is founded upon the wholly erroneous supposition that the wall before the holy of holies was two cubits thick (see above, on 1 Kings 6:16); of which two cubits, then, the door-posts must have taken in a fifth. Suppose that ΰַ ?ιִ ?μ here means the entrance-wall, still ηֲ ?ξִ ?ωִּׁ ?ιϊ can never be translated “fifth thickness.” “It is in the highest degree surprising that when the thickness of the entrance-wall door-posts is stated, nothing is said of the size of the doors themselves” (Keil). Manifestly the text states just this, but still does not say that from each wall there were five cubits to the door: for the doors midway, there were ten cubits remaining (Lightfoot), but the entrance to the Debir took in, with the posts, a fifth of the wall, i.e., was four cubits broad. The entrance to the chief compartment, on the other hand (1 Kings 6:33), measured one fourth of the wall, was consequently five cubits broad, and larger than that which opened into the Debir, which was appropriate enough for the main entrance. The height of the two entrances is not given. According to 1 Kings 6:34 the two wings of the door of entrance into the holy place were folding leaves, i.e., either they were longitudinally like leaves bound together, which could be so folded that it would not be necessary always to open the whole door-wing (Thenius); or the two leaves were the upper and lower halves of each door-wing (Keil, Mertz, Ewald); probably the latter.—From the words of 1 Kings 6:32 : “and spread gold upon the cherubim,” as well as “fitted upon the carved work” (1 Kings 6:35), Thenius concludes that the figures only, both upon the doors and also the walls of the temple, were overlaid, so that “they must have contrasted splendidly with the brown-red cedar.” But this contradicts 1 Kings 6:20; 1 Kings 6:30, and especially 1 Kings 6:22, where ςַ ?γΞϊֹּ ?ν is expressly added to the “whole house,” which does not say merely that such gold-overlaying was partial throughout the house, but that the interior was completely so overlaid. The very floor, upon which no figures were carved, was overlaid with gold; surely the walls and doors were not partially so only. The problematical addition in both verses renders conspicuous the fact that the overlaying with gold did not cover up the figures carved upon the wood, but that it was impressed upon all the elevations and the depressions alike, and that they could be distinctly seen (Keil).—The Chronicles mentions, besides the doors (2 Chronicles 3:7), the veil also (1 Kings 3:14), the presence of which is not to be doubted (after Ewald), since the object of it was not to divide the two compartments, but rather to cover the ark with the throne (Exodus 40:3; Exodus 40:21), and was an essential feature of the sanctuary. If even the Herodian temple, which did not contain the ark of the covenant, had nevertheless “the veil of the covering” (Exodus 39:34; Exodus 35:12; Matthew 27:51), how much less would Solomon have dispensed with it. The non-mention of it in the account now before us has no more significance than when, in the following verses, the inner court alone is described, and the fact of the “outer” court is entirely passed by. 1 Kings 6:36-38. And he built the inner court, &c. This designation presupposes a larger court, which is mentioned expressly in the Chronicles (2 Chronicles 4:9), and, in distinction from that of “the priests,” is described as “the great court.” The inner court is called, in Jeremiah 36:10, the “higher,” because it lay somewhat above the level of the court intended for the people. The statements about the structure of both are singularly meagre. No one doubts that they were square-shaped (comp. Exodus 27:9 sq.;Ezekiel 40:47). The words, “three rows of hewed stones,” &c., can refer only to the enclosing walls. There were three rows of squared stones, one over the other, and a layer of cedar. λְּ ?ψֻ ?ϊֹ ?ϊ are certainly not beams properly, but planks, thick boards, for of what use would beams have been here? The opinion that upright cedar beams, resting upon the uppermost row of stones, formed a low palisade, is erroneous (Merz). The people in the outer court, by such an arrangement, would have been deprived of a view of the sanctuary and of the holy offices in the inner court. It was manifestly but a low enclosure, over which those outside of it could look (2 Chronicles 7:3). The outer court doubtless had stone walls surrounding it because, according to 2 Chronicles 4:9, doors overlaid with brass led into it. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ C.—The accomplishment of the building of the palace, and the preparation of the vessels of the temple 1 Kings 7:1-511 But Solomon was building his own house thirteen years, and he finished all his house. 2He built also the house of the forest of Lebanon; the length thereof was a hundred cubits, and the breadth thereof fifty cubits, and the height thereof thirty cubits, upon four rows of cedar pillars, with cedar beams upon 3the pillars. And it was covered with cedar above upon the beams [side chambers], 4that lay on forty-five pillars, fifteen [i.e., chambers] in a row. And there were windows [beams] in three rows, and light [front] was against light [front] in three ranks. 5And all the doors and posts were square with the windows 6[beams3]: and light [front] was against light [front] in three ranks. And he made a porch of pillars; the length thereof was fifty cubits, and the breadth thereof thirty cubits: and the porch was before them: and the other pillars and the thick beam [threshold] were before them. 7Then he made a porch for the throne where he might judge, even the porch of judgment: and it was covered with cedar from one side of the floor to the other [from the floor to the floor]. 8And his house where he dwelt had another court within the porch, which was of the like work. Solomon made also a house for Pharaoh’s daughter, 9whom he had taken to wife, like unto this porch. All these were of costly stones, according to the measures of hewed stones, sawed with saws, within and without, even from the foundation unto the coping, and so on the outside toward 10[from the outside even to] the great court. And the foundation was of costly 11stones, even great stones, stones of ten cubits, and stones of eight cubits, And above were costly stones, after the measures of hewed stones, and cedars. 12And the great court round about was with three rows of hewed stones, and a row of cedar beams, both for the inner court of the house of the Lord [Jehovah], and for the porch of the house. 13, 14And king Solomon sent and fetched Hiram out of Tyre. He was a widow’s son of the tribe of Naphtali, and his father was a man of Tyre, a worker in brass: and he was filled with wisdom, and understanding, and cunning to work all works in brass. And he came to king Solomon, and wrought all his work. 15For he cast two pillars of brass, of eighteen cubits high apiece; and a line of twelve cubits did compass either10 of them about. 16And he made two chapiters of molten brass, to set upon the tops of the pillars: the height of the one chapiter 17was five cubits, and the height of the other chapiter was five cubits: and nets of checker work [lace-work], and wreaths of chain-work, for the chapiters which were upon the top of the pillars; seven11 for the one chapiter, and seven for the other chapiter. 18And he made the pillars [pomegranates], and two rows round about upon the one network, to cover the chapiters that were upon the top with pomegranates [top of the pillars]: and so did he for the other chapiter. 19And the chapiters that were upon the top of the pillars were of lily-work in the porch, four cubits. 20And the chapiters upon the two pillars had pomegranates also above, over against the belly which was by the network: and the pomegranates were two hundred in rows round about upon the other chapiter. 21And he set up the pillars in the porch of the temple: and he set up the right pillar, and called the name thereof Jachin: and he set up the left pillar, and called the name thereof Boaz. 22And upon the top of the pillars was lily-work: so was the work of the pillars finished. 23And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other [from lip to lip]: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about. 24And under the brim of it round about there were knops compassing it, ten in a cubit, compassing the sea round about: the knops were cast in two rows, when it was cast. 25It stood upon twelve oxen, three looking toward the north, and three looking toward the west, and three looking toward the south, and three looking toward the east: and the sea 26was set above upon them, and all their hinder parts were inward. And it was an handbreadth thick, and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies: it contained two thousand baths. 27And he made ten bases of brass: four cubits was the length of one base, and four cubits the breadth thereof, and three17 cubits the height of it. 28And the work of the bases was on this manner: they had borders [panels], and the borders [panels] were between the ledges: 29and on the borders [panels] that were between the ledges were lions, oxen, and cherubims: and upon the ledges there was a base above: and beneath the lions and oxen were certain additions made of thin work [were wreaths of hanging work]. 30And every base had four brazen wheels, and plates [axletrees] of brass: and the four corners thereof had undersetters [four feet thereof had shoulders]: under the laver were under-setters 31[the shoulders] molten, at the side of every addition [wreath]. And the mouth of it within the chapiter and above was a cubit: but the mouth thereof was round after the work of the base, a cubit and a half: and also upon the mouth of it were gravings with their borders [panels], foursquare, not round. 32And under the borders [panels] were four wheels; and the axletrees [holders] of the wheels were joined to [were in the base] the base: and the height of a wheel was a cubit and half a cubit. 33And the work of the wheels was like the work of a chariot wheel: their axletrees, and their naves, and their felloes, and 34their spokes, were all molten. And there were four undersetters [shoulders] to the four corners of one base: and the undersetters [shoulders] were of the very base itself. 35And in the top of the base was there a round compass of half a cubit high: and on the top of the base the ledges [holders] thereof and the 36borders [panels] thereof were of the same. For [And] on the plates of the ledges [holders] thereof, and on the borders [panels] thereof, he graved cherubims, lions, and palm-trees, according to the proportion [room] of every one, and additions 37[wreaths] round about. After this manner he made the ten bases: all of them had one casting, one measure, and one size [form]. 38Then made he ten lavers of brass: one laver contained forty baths: and every laver was four cubits: and upon every one of the ten bases one Lamentations 1 Kings 7:39 And he put five bases on the right side of the house, and five on the left side of the house: and he set the sea on the right side of the house eastward over against the south. 40And Hiram made the lavers [pots], and the shovels, and the basins. So Hiram made an end of doing all the work that he made king Solomon for the house of the Lord [Jehovah]: 41the two pillars, and the two bowls of the chapiters that were on the top of the two pillars; and the two networks, to cover the two bowls of the chapiters which were upon the top of the pillars; 42and four hundred pomegranates for the two networks, even two rows of pomegranates for one network, to cover the two bowls of the chapiters that were upon the pillars; 43and the ten bases, and ten lavers on the bases; 44and one sea, and twelve oxen under the sea; 45and the pots, and the shovels, and the basins: and all these vessels, which Hiram made to king Solomon for the house of the Lord [Jehovah], were of bright [burnished] brass. 46In the plain of Jordan did the king cast them, in the clay ground [compact soil] between Succoth and Zarthan. 47And Solomon left all the vessels unweighed, because they were exceeding many: neither was the weight of the brass found out. 48And Solomon made all the vessels that pertained unto the house of the Lord [Jehovah]: the altar of gold, and the table of gold, whereupon the shewbread was, 49and the candlesticks of pure gold, five on the right side, and five on the left, before the oracle, with the flowers, and the lamps, and the tongs of gold, 50and the bowls, and the snuffers, and the basins, and the spoons, and the censers of pure gold; and the hinges of gold, both for the doors of the inner house, the most holy place, and for the doors of the house, to wit, of the temple. 51So was ended all the work that king Solomon made for the house of the Lord [Jehovah]. And Solomon brought in the things which David his father had dedicated; even the silver, and the gold, and the vessels, did he put among the treasures of the house of the Lord [Jehovah]. Exegetical and Critical1 Kings 7:1. But Solomon was building his own house, &c. 1 Kings 7:1 forms a heading to the section concluding at 1 Kings 7:12. The palace consisted of several buildings following upon one another, all of which, i. e., his “whole” house, Solomon finished in thirteen years; but he only required seven years to complete the temple, because, perhaps, there were more buildings in the former, or fewer workmen were employed on them. The place where the palace was built cannot be, according to Ewald, the so-called Ophel, i.e., the continuation of the temple-mount (Moriah), which diminished gradually as it stretched towards the south, but Mount Zion, which was divided from Moriah by the valley of Tyropζon. It is clear from 2 Kings 11:19, that the way from the temple led immediately “down” to the palace. When Josephus says (Antiq.,8, 5, 2), that the palace stood opposite to the temple (ἄντικρυς), it could only have been built on the northeast side of Zion. The palace of the Asmoneans stood there too, from which a bridge led over the valley to the temple on Moriah (see Keil on the place). As to the entire building, the dim intimations of the text do not give us a perfect idea of it. The descriptions of Josephus and those of the Rabbins, especially Judah Leo, contradict the text in many points, and are only arbitrary, unfounded additions. The earlier interpreters of the text could throw no light on it, and archζologists have hitherto been altogether silent, or have attempted no exact description. Thenius alone has succeeded in throwing the greatest light on the subject. The most recent description by Unruh (das Alte Jerusalem und seine Bauwerke, s. 95 sq.) is deserving of no notice. [In this matter, Ewald (Gesch. iii. s. 339) expresses himself with some hesitation. He says that the palace was built probably upon the southerly continuation of the temple-mount, usually called Ophel, i.e., hill, hillock, or knob. In the recently published work, The Recovery of Jerusalem, the same view is urged upon pp. 222–3, and also upon p. 240 sq. The English and American explorers would seem at least to favor this supposition, and in the work just referred to, on p. 233 there is a plan showing approximately the rock on Mount Moriah, and there the palace is placed to the south of the temple, with the Tyropζon on one side, and the vale of Kedron on the other,—this being quite remote from the position assigned the palace by our author. Nor do I think that our author’s reasons for supposing it to have been built upon the northeast corner of Mount Zion sufficent to overthrow the general opinion.—E. H.] 1 Kings 7:2. He built also the house of the forest of Lebanon, &c. This was the first of the various buildings composing the palace, therefore by no means a separate summer residence apart on Mount Lebanon (Dathe, Michaelis, and others). It was only given the name of Lebanon on account of the multitude of cedars standing alongside of each other. According to 1 Kings 10:16 sq., and Isaiah 22:8, it seems to have served chiefly, if not altogether, as an armory; the Arabic says, “A house for his weapons.” The space, 100 cubits long and 50 broad, enclosed, as appears 1 Kings 7:9, a thick stone wall thirty cubits high, but probably only upon three sides, as we shall presently show. The expression Upon four rows of cedar pillars is to be connected with words at the beginning: he built. The four rows of pillars stood along the surrounding wall, thus forming a peristyle which enclosed a court-yard. The expression θεּ ?ψ says this plainly; for it cannot be understood differently, here, from 1 Kings 7:4; 1 Kings 7:18; 1 Kings 7:20; 1 Kings 7:24; 1 Kings 6:36; Ezekiel 46:23, where it everywhere means a row enclosing and running round a space. The text does not at all justify Keil’s supposition “that four rows of pillars stood on the longest sides of the building, but divided, so that but two rows were on each side;” there is no mention of the longest sides in the text. Weiss’ view is just as incorrect (Kostόm-kunde, i. s. 357), that is, that there was a row on each of the four sides of the building, four rows of pillars standing together. The number of the pillars is not given, but they could not have been few, as their appearance was that of a forest. It is not necessary, however, to suppose, with Thenius, that there were 400. They must have stood close together, and could not have been very thick, for the breadth of the peristyle did not exceed ten cubits, and enough room must have been left to pass comfortably between the pillars. The Vulgate translates explanatorily: quatuor deambulacra inter columnas cedrinas.—Beams of cedar were placed on the rows of pillars, and formed the foundation for the three-storied superstructure of cedar-wood, which rested against the stone wall, and was probably so joined to it that the beams which formed at the same time the ceiling of the lower part and the floor of the upper part of the building were inserted in it. Each of the three stories had φְ ?μָ ?ςֹ ?ϊ, i.e. (1 Kings 6:5; 1 Kings 6:8 ; Ezekiel 41:6) side-chambers. The numbers, forty-five, fifteen each row, have been supposed to refer to the immediately preceding ςַ ?ξּ ?εּ ?γִ ?ιν by nearly all the commentators, who have been misled by the masoretic punctuation; but they were quite wrong. It is impossible that the pillars on which the three-storied structure. rested, could only have numbered forty-five, divided into three rows. They could not have supported a structure 100 cubits long and 50 broad. Neither could the building have been named “forest of Lebanon” from forty-five scattered pillars. Thenius, with whom Keil agrees, rightly refers the numbers to the δַ ?φְּ ?μָ ?ςֹ ?ϊ as the principal matter, which is further defined by the ςַ ?μΞδָ ?ςַ ?ξּ ?εּ ?γִ ?ιν, and translated, “and the chambers, forty-five in number, which were built upon the pillars, fifteen in each course, had also coverings of cedar-wood.” But if the forty-five rooms were so divided that each of the three surrounding rows of the story had fifteen, we are obliged to admit that the stories only covered three sides of the square space, since forty-five cannot be so divided into four parts as to make twice as many rooms on the two long sides of 100 cubits as on the two other sides of fifty cubits. On the other hand, the fifteen rooms of each of the three rows are very naturally and simply divided, if we imagine six on each long side and three on the rear side. In that case, either the colonnade and the three-storied structure that rested on it would not have continued over the front short side of the wall that surrounded the square space, and it must have been provided only with entrance-gates, or else this wall only enclosed three sides of the square, so that the building stood quite open in the front. The last is not admissible, because 1 Kings 7:12 says that the whole palace was surrounded by a great court, which had a stone wall running around it, and also doubtless doors that could be shut.—The text itself says of the side-chambers, and light was against light in three ranks. The word ξֶ ?ηֱ ?ζָ ?δ occurs only here, and does not mean the same as ηַ ?μּ ?εֹ ?ο windows, but aspectus, prospectus. Towards the interior of the building the chambers stood open (Sept.: καὶ χῶραἐπὶ χῶραντρισσῶς), so that the view from each of the chambers in the rows over one another opened on the opposite one. This rather resembled a gallery, which was divided off by board partitions into single chambers. [Like boxes at the theatre.] The doors, which led from one room to another, were square (1 Kings 7:5); where εְ ?δַ ?ξְּ ?ζζּ ?εֹ ?ϊ is subjoined, we must either translate, with the posts, or, what seems better, read as Thenius εְ ?δַ ?ξֶּ ?ηֱ ?ζεֹ ?ϊ, which also suits the repeated “light against light.” The entrances, as well as the front openings which stood opposite each other, were square; so says the Sept.: τὰ θυρώματακαὶ αἱ χῶραιτετράγωνοι. By ωָׁ ?χֶ ?σ we are to think, after the ωׁ ?χτιν in 1 Kings 7:4, of the beams over the openings and doors. There is nothing decisive about the height of the rooms. Of the height of thirty cubits for the whole edifice, eight may have been for the colonnade, eighteen for the three stories, and four for the different ceilings (Then. and Keil). The entire arrangement of the building is still frequently met with in the East; a court surrounded by colonnade and galleries (Winer, R.-W.-B., i. s. 466). Since, as already remarked, costly armor and weapons were preserved or displayed here, the inner space was used no doubt for assemblies of warriors, for the body-guard, &c. 1 Kings 7:6-7. And he made a porch of pillars, &c. 1 Kings 7:6-7 contain the account of the second building that belonged to the entire palace. It stood inward from the armory, and had two divisions, viz., the porch of pillars and the throne or hall of judgment. The measures, 60 cubits long and thirty broad, are generally thought to belong only to the porch of pillars, and older commentators have believed, from analogy with 1 Kings 6:3, that because fifty cubits are the measure of the breadth of the armory, the length was to be understood as the breadth, and the breadth as the depth, as in the temple-porch; so that the porch of pillars must have immediately adjoined the armory. But the name ΰεּ ?μָ ?ν contradicts this; its etymology does not signify (see on 1 Kings 6:3) an adjoined rear part, but can only mean a fore-building. Besides, the porch of pillars itself had again a porch, so that it cannot have been immediately joined to the armory. The fifty cubits are to be wholly understood of the length. So we may describe the porch of pillars as “a colonnade,” running from the front to the rear, “probably roofed in, but open at the sides (Porticus), and leading to the porch of judgment” (Thenius, Keil). But the width of thirty cubits does not suit the length of fifty cubits, if it was only a passage to a building; it suits an independent structure alone. The armory, that was not in the least like a passage, resembled the fore-space of the temple, and other buildings; it was twice as long as it was broad. How, then, could a building, the breadth of which was three-fifths of its length, be a mere passage? If the porch of pillars were only a passage to the hall of judgment, it is inexplicable why the text gives only the size of the subordinate part, and says not a word about those of the main portion. All this forces us to the conclusion that the measure is that of the whole building, including, therefore, both divisions, the porch of pillars and porch of judgment. The latter must have been, then, the rear division, in which, like the debir of Jehovah’s house, the throne described (1 Kings 10:18, sq.) stood; the former the front, a building of pillars in fact, where they who were admitted to the king’s audience assembled, or over whom he sat in judgment. This view explains why the porch of pillars had also a fore-porch and an entrance-space, such as a mere passage never has, but which is appropriate only to buildings. This fore-porch was no doubt an entrance-space, the roof of which was supported by two or four pillars, as the Targumists explain the word ςָ ?α, a threshold space, a “perron with steps” (Keil). If both divisions of the building are called ΰεּ ?μָ ?ν, it is because it was the entrance building of the king’s peculiar residence. The concluding words of 1 Kings 7:7 : covered with cedar from one side of the floor to the other, can mean only this: that the floor of the porch of pillars, as well as the floor of the porch of judgment, was covered with cedar. Keil explains: “from the lower floor to the upper, in so far, namely, over the porch of judgment as there were rooms built;” the floor of the latter being the ceiling of the hall of judgment. The existence of an upper structure is not, however, hinted at, and how could the text, instead of simply saying from the floor to the ceiling, speak of a floor without saying of what it was the floor. The Vulgate translates: a pavimento usque ad summitatem; the reading must have been different therefore, and as the Syriac has it thus also, Thenius supposes that instead of δַ ?χַּ ?ψְ ?χַ ?ς it originally stood δַ ?χּ ?εֹ ?ψεֹ ?ϊ in the text, which is to be understood, as in 1 Kings 6:15-16, of the beams of the roof. In this case the words might bear the meaning, which seems very admissible, that the porch walls were lined with cedar from the floor to the roof-beams. 1 Kings 7:8. And his house where he dwelt, &c. Solomon’s dwelling-house and that of his wife were indeed separate houses, but formed together the third building in connection with the palace. This building had another court within the porch, i.e., behind the porch of judgment. Both dwellings were like unto this work, that is, they had walls of cedar-wood like the porch of judgment, and were splendidly and gorgeously made. The queen’s house was behind that of the king, according to the universal Eastern custom (Winer, R.-W.-B., i. s. 468); it is not only here, but also in 1 Kings 9:24, expressly said, that it was built for Pharaoh’s daughter, not therefore for a harem (Thenius). The 700 wives and 300 concubines afterwards mentioned (1 Kings 11:3) could scarcely have lived in the queen’s own house. Thenius gives the reason why the king’s and queen’s dwellings are not more accurately described: “because in most cases there was only access to the porch of judgment, and because audience of the king, even in the court of his residence, had probably become very difficult to obtain in Solomon’s reign.” But the reason was more likely that, whilst the armory and the porches of pillars and of judgment were uncommon buildings, the dwelling-house did not differ from ordinary dwellings in its architecture and furnishing, except in being more costly. It required, therefore, no minute description. 1 Kings 7:9-12. All these were of costly stones, &c. What 1 Kings 7:9-10 state, must be taken to refer to all three buildings that formed the palace. [Mr. T. O. Paine is of opinion that 1 Kings 7:9-12 “are concerning the temple again—because the pillars are stone. In the house of the king they are cedar, 1 Kings 7:2.” But this writer, after much pains-taking labor, does not satisfy.—E. H.] They could have been no mere wooden erections, but had walls of square stones, cut inside and outside (see on 1 Kings 5:31) even unto the coping,i.e., “to the corner-stones on which the beams of the roof rested” (Keil). The Sept. has ἕωςτῶνγείσων, but γείσον is the roof projection. Thenius thinks this was “the pinnacle-like protection of the flat roofs;” this edge, however, is nowhere called θְ ?τָ ?ηεֹ ?η, but ξַ ?ςֲ ?χֶ ?δ (Deuteronomy 22:8). The words: on the outside toward the great court, mean, according to Thenius, “from the outside (front) to the great (rear) court.” But this ξִ ?ηεּ ?υ cannot mean something entirely different from the immediately preceding word. An “outer” court presupposes an “inner” one (1 Kings 6:36), but not a rear one, and the inner could never be called “great,” in distinction from the outer one. The great court was evidently that which surrounded all the palace buildings (Ewald); and we must suppose that there was such an one even if not named here. All the buildings were formed of square stones from top to bottom, and the same even used outside too, even to the outer great court. Even the foundations, which were not seen outside, were made of these larger stones (1 Kings 7:10). Lastly (1 Kings 7:11), it is added that this great court had the same surrounding as the inner temple court, namely, three rows of stones and one of cedar (see on 1 Kings 6:36). Keil and Le Clerc think the porch of the house to be (1 Kings 7:12) the “columned- and throne-hall” of the palace, which had the same surrounding as the great court had. The text, however, mentions, besides the latter, only one court of the dwelling (1 Kings 7:8), but says nothing about a third court around that porch. The words immediately preceding suggest scarcely anything else than the porch of Jehovah’s house; but as this had no court, the meaning must be, as with the court, which was within or before the porch. [So Bp. Horsley, after Houbigant, suggests that perhaps for εμηφψ, we should read λδηφψ, like the inner court.—E. H.] Calmet only finds the similarity there in ut parietes mixtam lapidibus cedrum exhiberent.1 Kings 7:13-14. And the king. … and fetched Hiram. 1 Kings 7:13. Comp 2 Chronicles 2:13. According to this, Hiram was the son of a Tyrian, and of an Israelitish woman from the neighboring Dan, in the tribe of Naphtali, not, as the Rabbins say, an adopted son. His skill is described in the same words as that of Bezaleel in Exodus 31:3 sq., only the addition, “filled with the spirit of God” is wanting. The art of casting brass is very ancient; the making of this metal, which “has a peculiar red color and strong lustre, and is of considerable hardness” (Rosenmόller, Alterthumsk., IV., i. s. 156), was much earlier understood than that of iron (Winer, R.-W.-B., ii. s. 90). In what now follows we have only a description of the vessels that were added to those of the tabernacle; the others are merely named. The Chronicles alone mention the altar of burnt-offering (II. 1 Kings 4:1). 1 Kings 7:15-20. And he cast two pillars of brass. 1 Kings 7:15-22. Comp. 2 Chronicles 3:15-17; 2 Chronicles 4:12 sq.;2 Kings 25:17; Jeremiah 52:21 sq. Each of these pillars,i.e., the shafts, was eighteen cubits high and twelve in circumference, was four fingers thick, and hollow within (Jeremiah 52:21). As the Chronicles alone, differently from all other passages, gives thirty-five cubits as the height, this number is “evidently formed by changing the sign ιη = 18, into μδ = 35” (Keil). [The conjecture of Abarbinel, that the chronicler gives the sum-total of the height of the two pillars, is gravely adopted by Bp. Patrick on the place.—E. H.] The chapiters were cast separately, and then placed on the shafts; each of the former was five cubits high (1 Kings 7:16), and had, as 2 Chronicles 4:12 relates, an upper and lower part. λֹ ?ϊֶ ?ψֶ ?ϊ sometimes denotes the entire capital (1 Kings 7:16), sometimes the upper (1 Kings 7:19) and sometimes the lower part (1 Kings 7:17-18; 1 Kings 7:20). The upper part was lily-work (1 Kings 7:19; 1 Kings 7:22), i.e., in the form of a full-blown lily-cup. As ωׁ ?εּ ?ωַׁ ?ο means only lily, Thenius has no grounds for supposing it to be the lotus, because there were pillar capitals in Egyptian buildings which had the form of the lotus-flower. The lotus-flower does not once occur in the entire Old Testament, but the lily very often, for it was common in Palestine, and grows without cultivation (Winer, R.-W.-B., ii. s. 28). The molten sea had also the same form (1 Kings 7:26). The four cubits (1 Kings 7:19) are not the measure of the diameter of the lily-work (Thenius), but of its height, which was much more important for the form of the entire capital, than the diameter, which was easily discoverable from the given circumference of the pillar. [Bp. Horsley takes the view which Thenius has adopted. He translates, “and the chapters that were upon the top of the pillars (were) in a socket (αΰμεν) of the shape of a lily of four cubits,” and adds, the four cubits are to be understood, I think, of the general breadth of the lily, &c.—E. H.] And it is the more impossible to doubt that this upper part of the capital was the largest and principal part, as 1 Kings 7:22 expressly repeats at the close of the whole description: “and upon the top of the pillars was lily-work.” Some think it should be three instead of four cubits high as in 1 Kings 7:19, but they have no grounds but the uncertain passage 2 Kings 25:17, where there was very probably a change of δ = 5 into β = 3. The lower part of the capital, which was only one cubit, is not very clearly described. It was made of checker or net-work (1 Kings 7:17), pomegranates (1 Kings 7:18), and a belly (1 Kings 7:20). Instead of the last (αֶ ?θֶ ?ο) in 1 Kings 7:41-42; and in 2 Chronicles 4:12-13, βֻּ ?μָּ ?δ occurs, i.e., arch, swelling (see Gesenius, W. B., an βָּ ?μַ ?μ). This arching was μְ ?ςֵ ?αֶ ?ψ, i.e., on the other side of the net-work (1 Kings 7:20), therefore not on it or over it, but behind or under it. In so far as the net-work lay over or upon it, it could, as seen from outside, be described as lying beyond it (Keil). The net-work consisted of seven wires (βְּ ?γִ ?ιμִ ?ιν); it was chain-work, the wires being plaited like a chain, woven crosswise together, thus forming a lattice-work or net. It is not that they hung down like chains (Gesenius). Possibly the text in 1 Kings 7:17 may not be wholly above suspicion, but Thenius undertakes a daring and unjustifiable critical operation when he blots out chain-work, chiefly because the Sept. does, and reads ωְׂ ?αָ ?αָ ?δ for ωִׂ ?αָ ?ςָ ?δ twice, and then translates: “and he made two lattices or trellis-wires to cover the capitals that (were) on the tops of the pillars, one for one and one for the other capital.” Lastly, the pomegranates, of which there were 200, 100 in a row (1 Kings 7:20), were, no doubt, in a row above, and a row below the net-work, and thus served for a border to the latter. According to Jeremiah 52:23, 96 of the 100 pomegranates were ψψּ ?ηַ ?δ, which means neither “open to the air,” i.e., uncovered (Bφttcher, Thenius), nor dependentia (Vulgate), or “hanging free” (Ewald), but only “windwards” (Hitzig), i.e., turned to the four quarters of the heavens, as ψεּ ?ηַ in Ezekiel 42:16-18 (comp. Ezekiel 37:9); four pomegranates marked the places where each two quarters of the heavens met. The text says nothing of pedestals for the pillars; but it would scarcely have passed over so important a part of the pillars had they existed. 1 Kings 7:21. And he set up the pillars, &c. There have been, and still are to this day, two opinions in sharp contrast one with the other as to the precise place where the two pillars were erected. According to one, they supported the roof of the porch, which stood quite open at the front (see Meyer, Merz), or the projection of the entrance leading to it (Ewald, Thenius); according to the other, they stood alone, before the porch, and without supporting anything (Stieglitz, Kugler, Schnaase, Winer, Keil). After repeated investigation of the subject, I find it impossible to subscribe to either opinion. Against the first there are the following objections: (a) The pillars were brazen, and begin the list of all the metal articles, which were first finished by the peculiarly skilful artisan Hiram, after the building of the temple was completed (1 Kings 6:14; 1 Kings 6:37-38). If they had been designed to bear up the roof of the porch or the projection of its entrance, they could not have been vessels, but necessary integral parts of the building; but as this was “finished” without them, and as supporting pillars of brass are never found in stone and wooden buildings; these pillars, which were works of art, could not have had an architectural but only a monumental character, and this is shown by the names attached to them. Stieglitz truly says: “It was their separate position alone which gave these pillars the impressive aspect they were designed to wear, and the significant dignity with which they increased the grandeur of the whole, while they shed light upon its purpose.” (b) The entire height of the pillars was (with their capitals) twenty-three cubits; but that of the porch was either twenty or thirty cubits (see on 1 Kings 6:3). In the first case the pillars must have been too high, in the latter too low, to bear up the porch-roof; for even if they had pedestals, these could not have been seven cubits high, (c) As the text does not mention any portal to the porch, still less does it say anything of any “projection” over the same, which was borne up by the pillars (Thenius), or of any “beam” joining the pillars above, on which there was another structure, or “decoration” (Ewald). The appeal to Amos 9:1 : “Smite the lintel of the door, that the posts may shake,” is quite out of place, for ρִ ?τִּ ?ιν never mean the projections of buildings, but the thresholds (Judges 19:27; 2 Kings 12:10; Isaiah 6:4). Neither can anything be proved from Ezekiel’s vision (Ezekiel 40:48), for the two pillars are not once named in it. The Sept. indeed mentions a μέλαθρονἐπ’ ἀμφοτέρωττῶνστὺλων, in 1 Kings 7:20, but this was quite gratuitous; they do not translate 1 Kings 7:20 at all, but give a completely different one, a mere gloss, of which the Hebrew text does not contain a word. We must conclude, then, that they stood separately. But in respect now of the other opinion, that they were placed in front of the porch, the αָּ ?ΰεּ ?μָ ?ν in 1 Kings 7:19 contradicts that, as does also μְ ?ΰֻ ?μָ ?ν in 1 Kings 7:21. However we may understand 1 Kings 7:19, which is certainly obscure, αְּ ?ΰεּ ?μָ ?ν cannot be translated, “in that manner, or according to the porch” (Keil), which would be equivalent to λָ ?ΰεּ ?μָ ?ν, which Raschi accepts, and which means “that the lily-work was on the pillar-capitals as well as on the porch.” Now there is not one word about the lily-work on the porch. Still less can αָּ ?ΰεּ ?μָ ?ν mean μִ ?τְ ?πֵ ?ιϊָ ?ΰεּ ?μָ ?ν, but only in the porch. Further, μְ ?ΰֻ ?μָ ?ν cannot be translated: “before the porch” (Luther), or “at the porch” (Keil), i.e., in front, but only, for the porch. As the molten sea and the bases were for the outer court, the golden altar, candlestick, and shewbread for the house, so the two pillars were for the porch, and stood in it as the former stood in the court and the house. The Sept. give in 1 Kings 7:15 : καὶ ἐχώνευσετοὺςδύοστύλουςτῷ αἰλὰμτοῦ οἵκου, and translate, 1 Kings 7:21 : καὶ ἔστησετοὺςστύλουςτοῦ αἰλὰμτοῦ ναοῦ. With this 2 Chronicles 3:13; 2 Chronicles 3:17 fully agrees; it says he made μִ ?τְ ?πֵ ?ιδַ ?αַּ ?ιִ ?ϊ two pillars, … and placed the pillars ςַ ?μΞτְּ ?πֵ ?ιδַ ?δֵ ?ιαָ ?μ. For if they were in the porch, they must have stood immediately before the house, that is, before the principal compartment. But it says nowhere that he placed them before the porch. If the latter were thirty cubits high, as most think, the pillars could have stood free inside, as their monumental character required. 1 Kings 7:21-22. And called the name thereof, &c. Thenius justly remarks: “There can be nothing more improbable than that pillars standing at the entrance to God’s house should have been named after the donor, or their architect (Gesenius); and it is impossible to understand the assertion, ‘that they were no doubt named at their erection and dedication, after men much liked at that time, perhaps some of Solomon’s young sons’ (Ewald).” But Thenius’ own assertion does not seem less improbable; namely, that “the pillars, which apparently bore up the entire building of the temple (?) had the characters ιָ ?αִ ?ιοαָּ ?ςֹ ?ζ, i.e., He (the Lord) founds (or: may He found) with strength, engraved, or formed in the casting, and that the people read these words, which should be taken together (?), separately, and … gave them as names to the pillars.” Aside from every other consideration, it is not, he had inscribed ιλιοαςζ on the two pillars; but: he called the name of the one at the right ιλιο, and called the name of the one at the left αςζ; so these were two distinct “names,” and not a sentence of connected words. We have no reason to change αֹּ ?ςַ ?ζ to ιָ ?λִ ?ιο ;αָּ ?ςֹ ?ο means rather: statuit, fundavit, and is used about the founding and establishing of the kingdom, the throne, and the sanctuary (1 Kings 6:19; Ezra 3:3; 2 Samuel 7:12; 2 Chronicles 17:5). αֹּ ?ςַ ?ζ is composed of ςַ ?ο, strength, power, firmness (Genesis 49:3), and αεֹ, i.e., in Him, Jehovah. The name means exactly the same as in Isaiah 45:24, αַּ ?ιδεָֹ ?δ … ςֹ ?ζ, a thought often occurring in the Old Testament (Psalms 28:7-8; Psalms 46:2; Psalms 62 (7) 8; Psalms 86:6; Psalms 140:7; Isaiah 49:5; Jeremiah 16:19). The first name denotes the founding and establishing of the central sanctuary, in contrast with the tabernacle; the second denotes the firmness and stability of the same. Simonis (Onom., s. 430, 460): Stabiliet templum, in illo (Domino) robur.1 Kings 7:23-26. And he made a molten sea, &c. Comp. 2 Chronicles 4:2-5. The name ιָ ?ν only means the great quantity of water that the vessel contained. Latini ejusmodi vasa appellant lacus (Castel.). The 10 cubits denote the diameter, 30 the circumference, not certainly the mathematical proportion, but very near it, for we must reckon 9 cubits and rather more than half a cubit for the diameter, for 30 cubits of circumference. The 5 cubits are for the depth of the vessel, which was not cylindrical, as some old pictures represent, but, according to 1 Kings 7:26, was shaped like a lily, with an edge curved outwards, and widening out considerably lower down. It could only hold 2,000 baths of water (1 Kings 7:26) with a form like that, as Thenius (Stud. u. Kritiken, 1846, I.) has proved. Chronicles, on the contrary, gives 3,000 baths (2 Chronicles 4:5), but this is a confusion of the signs α and β (Keil); it is also a mistake of the pen when 1 Kings 7:3 gives τχψιν instead of τχςιν. The latter does not mean coloquinths, but flower-buds (see above, on 1 Kings 6:29). The two rows must have been pretty close together, under the edge of the vessel. The position of the 12 oxen is remarked especially, but nothing said of their size or height. Thenius thinks they must have been as high as the vessel at least; this would make the whole vessel 10 cubits high. It is impossible to say whether the feet of these oxen rested on the floor of the court, as on a brazen plate (Keil), or whether they stood in a basin. As the priests had only to wash their hands and feet, the vessel was provided (so the rabbinical traditions say) with faucets for letting out the water. It is very improbable that the water came from the mouths of the oxen, as many suppose. 1 Kings 7:27-39. And he made ten bases of, &c. The description of these vessels, 1 Kings 7:27-39, is involved in much more obscurity than that of the two brazen pillars. All the pains which the latest commentators have spent upon it have not cleared it up fully, because the text (under consideration) is no longer the original one; the old translations are widely different from it, and do not agree together. The insertions also which we have admitted into our translation, following now Thenius, and now Keil, do not claim to have solved the exegetical riddle. Above all, it is necessary to realize what the object of these vessels was. 2 Chronicles 4:6 says that the priests “washed such things as they offered for the burnt-offering,” i.e., those parts of the sacrificial animal which were placed on the altar to be burnt, as ordered in Leviticus 1:9 (comp. Ezekiel 40:38). Hence it appears that the basin which held the water for washing was the chief thing in that complicated vessel, and all the other parts only made for the sake of that one part. The altar of burnt-offering of the temple was 10 cubits high (2 Chronicles 4:1); a step for the priests to stand on, when performing their functions, was much more needed in this altar than in that of the tabernacle, which was only 3 cubits high (Exodus 27:1-5). Now, in order to perform the washing of the parts for sacrifice at the altar itself, without descending, the basins must, on the one hand, have stood high, and higher than the altar-step, and on the other, have been movable also, so that they could have easily been brought backwards and forwards, filled or emptied. So we see that a wheelwork was needed for the high basins or lavers. The basins, bases, and wheelwork were then the component parts of the vessel. The basins (lavers), being the simplest part, are the least explicitly described in 1 Kings 7:38. The word αִ ?ιּ ?εֹ ?ψ occurs oftenest, for the basins of the tabernacle (Exodus 30:18; Exodus 30:28; Exodus 31:9, &c.); these were not cylindrical, as is well known, but shaped more like a kettle; and nowhere else is a vessel described which has the form of a pot or jug. It appears from Zechariah 12:6, that a fire-basin (pan) was of a flatter shape than a kettle, and had at least the form of a cooking-pot, as Zόllig thinks (die Cherubimwagen, s. 79, 94). The measure 4 cubits can only be understood, like 1 Kings 7:31, to apply to the diameter (Thenius), and not to the depth. Thenius reckons the 40 baths at 12 eimer and 16 kannen, Dresden measure. [Without a parade of decimals, in the rough as one may say, the Dresden kanne is about one quart (+). Seventy-two kannen are one eimer, i.e., seventy-two quarts. 72Χ12=864 quarts. To these must be added 16 quarts, and the whole amount Isaiah 880 quarts or 220 gallons. If however any one wishes to work out the sum, it may be well to add that 1 kanne = 0.937 liter, and 1 liter = 1.0567 quart (wine-measure).—E. H.] In respect of the second main part of the vessel, the baseξְ ?λεֹ ?πָ ?η, so much is certain, that it was a four-cornered box, which consisted of strong, edge-bands on the top and on the bottom, along, the sides, as well as at the corners: into which the walls (or panels) were introduced, and were held by these edge-bands as in a frame. Figures were engraved on these walls (panels, ξִ ?ρְ ?βְּ ?ψεֹ ?ϊ): lions, oxen, and cherubim (according to Josephus, distributed in three different fields). The box had also 4 feetτְ ?ςָ ?ξεֹ ?ϊ (1 Kings 7:30), at the 4 corners, no doubt; with which it stood upon the axle-trees of the wheel work. It is very difficult to form an adequate and just view of the 4 undersetters,αְּ ?ϊֵ ?τֹ ?ϊ, which are named in 1 Kings 7:30 with the feet, and in 1 Kings 7:34 with the wheel work; they must have projected certainly from the feet, but it is uncertain in what manner they were connected with the box, and what they bore—whether indeed they bore anything. The box seems to have been open at the bottom, but it had an arched covering at the top (1 Kings 7:35) with a round ornament, a crown αֹ ?ϊֶ ?ψֶ ?ϊ (1 Kings 7:31) on which the basin was placed. But the nature of the hands or holders ιָ ?γεֹ ?ϊ and their relation to the arched cover and the crown, is obscure. They must have been rather broad, as the figures were engraved upon them as well as on the cover (1 Kings 7:35-36). It is equally difficult to say where and how the borders mentioned in 1 Kings 7:29-30; 1 Kings 7:36, μιεֹ ?ϊ, were put on. According to 1 Kings 7:29 they were ξַ ?ςֲ ?ωֵׂ ?δξεֹ ?ψָ ?γ, by which Thenius, appealing to the ξִ ?χְ ?μָ ?ςεֹ ?ϊ in 1 Kings 7:31, and εַ ?ιְ ?τַ ?ϊַּ ?η in 1 Kings 7:36, understands “work of cutting in, i.e., sunken work;” but if the text meant this, why did it not make use of the identical expressions? The specific word must denote something specific; it remains only to take the usual translation, “hanging work” (Vulgate: dependentia), “which certainly does not mean festoons hanging free, and waving in the air” (Keil); ξεֹ ?ψָ ?γ means a declivity (hanging) in a local sense (comp. Joshua 7:5; Joshua 10:11; Jeremiah 48:5). According to 1 Kings 7:29 the borders were on the edge-frames above as well as under the carved work upon the side walls of the box or chest, for αֵּ ?ο cannot be here, as Keil has it, a substantive, “and upon the ledges there was a base above,” but only an adverb (De Wette, Thenius, and others), as in 1 Kings 7:18. But we cannot with certainty ascertain the meaning of “at the side of every addition” (wreath) at the end of 1 Kings 7:30. [Bp. Horsley, “at the side of every addition.” Rather “each over-against a compound figure.” The shoulder-pieces (instead of “undersetters”) went just so far down within the base as to be on a level with the compound figures on the outside.”—E. H.] The “additions (wreaths) round about” in 1 Kings 7:36 are the same as mentioned in 1 Kings 7:29. The third main part, i.e., the wheels, differed so far from wheels of ordinary vehicles that their axle-trees were not immediately under the box or chest, but under its feet, so that the edges moved completely under the box, and the carved work on its sides was not hid by the wheels (1 Kings 7:32). But it is impossible to determine the relation of the hands or holders of the wheels to the feet of the box and to the shoulder-pieces (1 Kings 7:30). The description of the wheels begun in 1 Kings 7:30 is continued in 1 Kings 7:32-34; but 1 Kings 7:31 treats of the upper part of the box, which is further described in 1 Kings 7:35-36; strictly speaking, therefore, 1 Kings 7:31 should stand immediately before 1 Kings 7:35-36, or else 1 Kings 7:31; 1 Kings 7:35-36 immediately before 1 Kings 7:30. Fortunately the whole of the difficult section from 1 Kings 7:27-39 does not treat of a main integral part of the temple, and not even of one of the principal vessels, but only of one that is subordinate and secondary. Its description, therefore, obscure as it is, may be regarded as sufficient, at least as far as concerns its purpose. The best drawings that have been made of this vessel are those of Thenius (Commentar, taf. III., fig. 4), and Keil (Archόologie, I., taf. 2, fig. 4); and the most defective of all, whether ancient or modern, that of Unruh (das Alte Jerusalem, Fig. 11). 1 Kings 7:40-47. And Hiram made the lavers, &c. 1 Kings 7:40. The first part of this verse forms a kind of independent section, for the lavers, shovels, and basins did not belong to the bases, but were, like the latter, utensils of the altar of burnt-offering. The lavers were for carrying away water, &c., the shovels for removing the ashes, the basins for catching the blood that spouted from the sacrifice (Exodus 27:3; Numbers 4:14). It is remarkable that the text never names the chief vessel of all, the altar of burnt-offering; for it was made anew at the same time (2 Chronicles 4:1), and upon a larger scale. Perhaps it was not made by Hiram, who only executed the more artistic brass-castings, among which this altar could not be reckoned. The words, and so Hiram made an end of doing all the work, &c., begin the general list of all the vessels Hiram had made, the brass, from 1 Kings 7:40-47, and the golden, from 1 Kings 7:48-51. The former were all of bright brass (ξְ ?ξֹ ?ψָ ?θ), i.e., it was polished after the casting, so that it shone like gold (see above, on 1 Kings 7:13), but it was no actual aurichalcum (Vulgate); Josephus says, χαλκὸςτὴναὐγὴνὅμοιοςχρυσῷ καὶ τὸ κάλλος. The region between Succoth and Zarthan is mentioned as the place where the brass works were cast in the clay, i.e., in moulds of potters’ earth. Succoth (Judges 8:5; Joshua 13:27) lay beyond Jordan, not on the south side of Jabbok (Keil), but rather northwards, for it could not possibly have been very far from Zarthan, which 1 Kings 4:12 places near Bethshean, on this side Jordan. Consequently the foundry must have been on this side too; Burkhardt says (Reise, II. s. 593) that the “soil is all marl, and the further shore has no hollows whatever.” Comparison of both places shows that they lay diagonally opposite, and there was no larger ground suitable for the brass foundry in this side of the valley above (or below) Zarthan (Keil). The quantity of brass was so great (comp. 1 Chronicles 18:8), that it was not necessary to weigh it out carefully for each distinct vessel; and the weight of each cannot therefore be ascertained. εַ ?ιַּ ?πַּ ?η, 1 Kings 7:47, does not mean: he laid them down, but he let them lie, i.e., he did not weigh them, as the following verses show. 1 Kings 7:48-51. And Solomon made all thevessels … of gold. We are not to conclude from the subject, “Solomon,” that Hiram made only the brazen vessels (Thenius). As Hiram also knew how to work in gold (2 Chronicles 2:13), it is far more likely that Solomon intrusted him also with the goldsmith’s work. The golden vessels are evidently only named, and not described, because they were made like those of the tabernacle (comp. Exodus 30:1 sq.; Exodus 25:23-40), only upon a larger scale. The addition in 2 Chronicles 4:8 : “he made also ten tables, and placed them in the temple, five on the right side and five on the left,” is declared to be an error by modern interpreters; but we might just as reasonably strike out the account of the altar of burnt-offering, which is not given in our text. The account is so definite that it cannot be a pure invention; besides, soon after, in 1 Kings 7:19, the plural δַ ?ωֻּׁ ?μְ ?ηַ ?πֹ ?εϊ occurs, and it is said also in 1 Chronicles 28:16 : “And (David gave to Solomon) by weight … gold for the tables of shewbread, for every table.” Now when 2 Chronicles 29:18 mentions but one table, this is no contradiction (Thenius); for it says in 2 Chronicles 13:11 : “and we burn, i.e., light, the golden candlestick every evening;” and yet, according to our text, there were 10 candlesticks. One asks, Why 10 tables? but we, on the other hand, ask, “Why 10 candlesticks, if only one were lighted? There is no ground for the opinion that the rest of the tables served for the purpose of resting the candlesticks upon them; for then there must have been 11 of them, and instead of being called tables of shewbread (1 Chronicles 28:16) they must have been called tables of the candlesticks.—Which David had dedicated (1 Kings 7:51). According to 2 Samuel 8:7-12; 1 Chronicles 18:7-11, David had taken a quantity of brass, silver, and gold from the conquered Syrians, Moabites, Ammonites, Philistines, and Amalekites, which treasures he dedicated to sacred purposes. 1 Chronicles 22:14; 1 Chronicles 22:16 also alludes to the great store of these metals. Immense as was the quantity of brass and gold needed for the temple, the supply was not exhausted. The rest consisted partly of unwrought gold and silver, partly of vessels, and was preserved in the sanctuary itself. Probably some of the side-chambers served as a treasury.Historical and Ethical1. The king’s house was the second large building that Solomon undertook. “After the completion of the sacred building … he began the building of an house which should shed lustre on the second power in Israel, the kingdom which was then approaching its culminating point” (Ewald). 1 Kings 9:1; 1 Kings 9:10 accords with our passage, in placing the two buildings near together. The section from 1 Kings 7:1-12 is therefore no addition, interrupting the description of the temple-building, but is purposely assigned that place; and the description of the vessels, 1 Kings 7:14-50, is a sequel to that of the temple, and forms the transition to chap. 8. To Israel the monarchy had become a necessary institution, and stood so little in opposition to divine rule, that it rather served to sustain the latter; the king not being an absolute sovereign, and, as in other Eastern states, God’s vicegerent, but a servant of Jehovah, who had to execute His orders and to maintain the law (= covenant). Like the theocracy, the monarchy also had reached its highest point through David; and Solomon represents this culminating point. When, therefore, a spacious, splendid house was built for an abiding dwelling-place, a sign and monument of Jehovah’s might and truth, instead of the tabernacle hitherto used, it was fitting that it should be a house corresponding with the greatness and prosperity of the kingdom. Therefore the building, which was a token and pledge of the theocracy, was followed by one which represented the kingdom; and both stood, according to their signification, on two opposite neighboring hills. [We must repeat our doubts of the author’s topography here. See above, Exeget. on 1 Kings 7:1.—F. H.] 2. The plan and arrangement of the king’s house quite accord with the conception Israel had of the calling of the monarchy. When the people desired a king, they said to Samuel, “that our king may judge us, and fight our battles” (1 Samuel 8:20). The first or foremost of the three buildings which together formed the royal palace, namely the armory, set forth the mission of the king against his enemies; and it represented his protecting war-strength; the next building, the porch of pillars and the porch of the throne, or of judgment, signified the vocation of the king in respect of his subjects, viz., judging and ruling (see above on 1 Kings 3:9; 1 Samuel 8:5-6; 2 Samuel 15:4); it represented the royal elevation and majesty; lastly, the third and innermost building was the real dwelling-house, where the king lived with his consort; a private house which he had an equal right with any of his subjects to possess. The plan of the palace thus was very simple, and follows so clearly from the nature of the relations, that we need not seek for the model of it anywhere. Least of all should we be likely to find such in Egypt, although Thenius does not doubt that “Solomon built the royal residence after Egyptian models,” and then refers us to the palaces at Medinat-Abu, Luxor, and Carnac. Just the main feature in the one we have been considering, i.e., the three parts forming a completely united whole, is wanting in these Egyptian buildings, which besides were entirely of stone, and consequently quite differently constructed. Where is there anything in Egypt that in the least approximates to the house of the forest of Lebanon, with its numerous wooden pillars and galleries? Solomon’s palace, as well as the temple, belonged entirely to the architecture of anterior Asia, but the fundamental idea upon which its plan and interior arrangement rested, was essentially and specifically Israelitish. 3. The calling of Hiram from Tyre to finish all the temple-vessels, was occasioned by the want of distinguished artists in Israel (see above on chap. 5 No. 3). As Hiram’s mother was an Israelite, which is expressly mentioned, we may well suppose that he was not unacquainted with the God whom his mother worshipped, and therefore was better able than all other Tyrian artists to enter into the right spirit and meaning of the works which Solomon intrusted to him. But besides this, the sending for Hiram is important, inasmuch as it shows that Solomon desired to have real works of art, and that he so little despised art as the handmaid of religion, that he even sent for a heathen and foreign artisan. In his “wisdom” he regarded the command, Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image, not as the prohibition of every species of religious sculpture. In this respect he rises far above the Pharisaism of Josephus, who accounts the images of the oxen supporting the molten sea, and the lions near his throne, as much breaches of the law as the peopling of his harem with foreign women (Joseph., Antiq. 8, 7, 5). Modern spiritualism, which rejects all plastic art in the service of the church, by an appeal to a false interpretation of our Lord’s words in John 4:24, is a lapse into the narrow-minded Jewish Pharisaism. [The service of art in the Christian Church, and its employment by Christians in behalf of the interests of religion, is always recognized except in periods of intense reforming life, when an iconoclastic spirit is apt to develop itself. The men who “denuded” the churches in the sixteenth and in the seventeenth centuries, regarded “ornaments” as snares to the conscience, and as the foster-nurses of superstitions. The principle laid down and developed by Neander is the true one, viz., that the design of the Christian religion, which is to promote holiness of life, should be kept constantly in view; and that the beautiful should be observed and employed subordinately to this design. When the beautiful becomes, or tends to become, supreme in worship and in Christian art, then it becomes unlawful. Solomon, in the luxuriance of his nature, undoubtedly was exceptional in his taste for ornament; and, in this respect, he did not represent the genius either of Judaism or of the Hebrew race. And the tradition as being against him, was true to the instincts of the race.—E. H.] 4. The well-defined difference of the materials of the vessels used in Solomon’s temple next strikes us. Those made for the interior of the building were all of gold; all those outside of it, of brass. The design of this is apparent. Gold (see Historical, &c., on chap. 6 No. 5), by virtue of its surpassing splendor, is the celestial metal, and was therefore fitted for the typical heavenly dwelling, where all is gold. Brass (see Exeget. and Crit. remarks on 1 Kings 7:13) most resembles gold in color and brilliancy, but stands in the same relation to it that iron does to silver (Isaiah 60:17); it approaches nearest to gold, and is fitted, not indeed for the building itself, but for its approaches, the porch and the outer court. There were, then, no new vessels unknown in the tabernacle; but the two pillars, Jachin and Boaz, were new. There was the old ark of the covenant in the holy of holies (chap, 1 Kings 8:3), the altar, candlestick, and table in the holy place, the altar of burnt-offering (brazen altar) in the outer court (2 Chronicles 4:1); the molten sea instead of the laver (Exodus 30:18), and the lavers instead of the basins, which it is to be presupposed from Leviticus 1:13 were used. The increased size of some of these vessels, such as the altar of burnt-offering and the brazen sea, as well as the multiplication of others, such as the candlestick, the table, and the “bases,” was called for in part by the increased size of the sanctuary, and the relation of the house (palace) to the tent, and in part by the extension of the central-cultus. 5. The two pillars Jachin and Boaz were no more an innovation than the erection of a house instead of a tent; they owed their existence to the conditions that distinguished a new period of the theocracy. This we learn from their suggestive names. Jachin refers to the fact that Jehovah’s dwelling-place, hitherto movable and moving, was now firmly fixed in the midst of His people; Boaz tells of the power, strength, and durability of the house. Both were monuments of Jehovah’s covenant with His people, monuments of the saving might, grace, and faithfulness of the God of Israel, who at last crowned the deliverance from Egypt, by dwelling and reigning ever in a sure house in the midst of His people. It stands to reason that such pillars could not have been placed before the tent; they could only stand before the house, where they belonged to the porch, for it was the latter that gave to the dwelling-place the appearance of a house and a palace, in distinction from that of a tent. They were formed in accordance with their signification, being not of wood, not slender and slight, but of brass, thick and strong, which gave the impression of firmness and durability. The crown (capital), which is the principal characteristic of every pillar, consisted mainly, as did the brazen sea, of an open lily-cup. The Hebrew named the lily simply “the white,” (ωׁ ?εּ ?ωַׁ ?ο from ωׁ ?εּ ?ωׁ, to be white;) it is, therefore, a natural symbol of purity and of holiness to him. The priests, as the “holy ones” (Ex. 3:27 sq.), were dressed in white (Numbers 16:7), and the high-priest, the holiest of the holy, wore, on the great day of atonement, white garments, instead of his usual many-colored ones; and these white robes were called “holy garments” (Leviticus 16:4; Leviticus 16:32). Inasmuch as “holiness” was the characteristic and fundamental idea of the Israelitish religion, the “white,” i.e., the lily, seems to have been their religious flower, as the lotus was the well-known sacred flower of the Indian and Egyptian religions. Besides this, the lily is nowhere more indigenous than in Palestine (Matthew 6:28; Winer, R.- W.-B., ii. s. 28), and it may therefore be named the flower of the promised land, as the palm was its tree (see above, Histor. and Ethical, in chap. 6 No. 6, b). If the capitals of the pillars were thus always and everywhere decorated with carvings of flowers, no more characteristic and suitable one could be chosen for the capitals before the “holy temple” (Psalms 5:7; Psalms 79:1; Psalms 138:2) than the lily. The pomegranates on the capital, and which were also on the high-priest’s robe, are no less characteristic (Exodus 28:33 sq.). As the apple is the figure generally of the word (Proverbs 25:11), so the pomegranate, the noblest and finest of all apples, is the symbol of the noblest, most precious word, that of Jehovah, which is essentially law (= covenant). Just as this law is a complex unity, consisting of a number of single commands, that delight the heart and are sweeter than honey (Psalms 19:9; Psalms 19:11), so the pomegranate encloses a number of precious, delicious, and refreshing seeds. The Chaldee paraphrast renders the words (Ecclesiastes 4:13, thus: “Thy youths are filled with (divine) laws, like pomegranates,” and 1Kings 1 Kings 6:11 : “if they are full of good works (i.e., of the law) like pomegranates.” The Gemara also uses the expression: ”Full of the commandments (of God) as a pomegranate” (comp. Symbol des Mos. Kult., ii. s. 122 sq.). Now the union of this symbol with the lily is very natural, for the law was the revealed sacred will of Jehovah, and the covenant, which was identical with it, was a covenant of holiness. The symbol, therefore, bore the seal of the same number as the law and covenant, i.e., ten. Each row of pomegranates consisted of ten times ten; they were adjusted to the different quarters of the heavens, exactly as the typical heavenly dwelling was, the kernel and centre of the same being the law laid up in the ark. The nets, or net-work, connected with the significant symbols of the lily and pomegranate, cannot be viewed as mere ornaments, used only “for graceful and suitable fastenings of the pomegranates” (Thenius). The number seven engraved on them (the symbolical number of the covenant-relation and of sanctification) (Symb. des Mos. Kult., i. s. 193) shows the contrary. But their signification cannot be exactly known, through utter want of analogous objects to judge from. The later critics have declared these pillars to have been only imitations of heathen symbols, but this is a very uncritical and superficial view. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ B.—The Consecration of the Temple1 Kings 8:1-661 Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel, and all the heads of the tribes, the chief of the fathers of the children of Israel, unto king Solomon in Jerusalem, that they might bring up the ark of the covenant of the Lord [Jehovah] out of the city of David, which is Zion. 2And all the men of Israel assembled themselves unto king Solomon at the feast in the month Ethanim, which is the seventh month. 3And all the elders of Israel came, and the priests took up the ark. 4And they brought up the ark of the Lord [Jehovah], and the tabernacle of the congregation, and all the holy vessels that were in the tabernacle, even those did the priests and the Levites bring up. 5And king Solomon, and all the congregation of Israel, that were assembled unto him, were with him before the ark, sacrificing sheep and oxen, that could not be told nor numbered for multitude. 6And the priests brought in the ark of the covenant of the Lord [Jehovah] unto his place, into the oracle of the house, to the most holy place, even under the wings of the cherubims. 7For the cherubims spread forth their two wings over the place of the ark, and the cherubims covered the ark and the staves thereof above. 8And they drew out the staves, that the ends of the staves were seen out in the holy place before the oracle, and they were not seen 9without: and there they are unto this day. There was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone, which Moses put there at Horeb, when the Lord [Jehovah] made a covenant with the children of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt. 10And it came to pass when the priests were come out of the holy place, that the cloud filled the house of the Lord [Jehovah], 11so that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud: for the glory of the Lord [Jehovah] had [omit had] filled the house of the Lord [Jehovah]. Then spake 12Solomon, The Lord [Jehovah] said that he would dwell in the thick darkness. 13I have surely built thee an house to dwell in, a settled place for thee to abide in for ever.14And the king turned his face about, and blessed all the congregation of Israel: and all the congregation of Israel stood; 15and he said, Blessed be the Lord [Jehovah] God of Israel, which spake with his mouth unto David my father, and hath with his hand fulfilled it, saying, 16Since the day that I brought forth my people Israel out of Egypt, I chose no city out of all the tribes of Israel to build an house, that my name might be therein; but I chose David to be over my people Israel. 17And it was in the heart of David my father to build an house for the name of the Lord [Jehovah] God of Israel. 18And the Lord [Jehovah] said unto David my father, Whereas it was in thine heart to 19build an house unto my name, thou didst well that it was9 in thine heart. Nevertheless, thou shalt not build the house; but thy son that shall come forth out of thy loins, he shall build the house unto my name. 20And the Lord [Jehovah] hath performed [established] his word that he spake, and I am risen up [established10] in the room of David my father, and sit on the throne of Israel, as the Lord [Jehovah] promised, and have built an house for the name of the Lord 21[Jehovah] God of Israel. And I have set there a place for the ark, wherein is the covenant of the Lord [Jehovah], which he made with our fathers, when he brought them out of the land of Egypt. 22And Solomon stood before the altar of the Lord [Jehovah] in the presence of all the congregation of Israel, and spread forth his hands toward heaven: 23And he said, Lord [Jehovah] God of Israel, there is no God like thee, in heaven above, or on earth beneath, who keepest covenant and mercy with thy servants that walk before thee with all their heart: 24who hast kept with thy servant David my father that thou promisedst [spakest to11] him: thou spakest also with thy mouth, and hast fulfilled it with thine hand, as it is this day. 25Therefore now, Lord [Jehovah] God of Israel, keep with thy servant David my father that thou promisedst [spakest to] him, saying, There shall not fail thee a man in my sight to sit on the throne of Israel; so that thy children [sons] take heed to their way, that they walk before me as thou hast walked before me. 26And now, O God of Israel, let thy word, I pray thee, be verified, which thou spakest unto thy servant David my father. 27But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded? 28Yet have thou respect unto the prayer of thy servant, and to his supplication, O Lord [Jehovah] my God, to hearken unto the cry and to the prayer, which thy servant prayeth before thee to-day: 29that thine eyes may be open toward this house night and day, even toward the place of which thou hast said, My name shall be there: that thou mayest hearken unto the prayer which thy servant shall make toward this place. 30And hearken thou to the supplication of thy servant, and of thy people Israel, when they shall pray toward this place: and hear thou in heaven thy dwelling-place: and when thou hearest, forgive. 31If any man trespass against his neighbour, and an oath be laid upon him to cause him to swear, and the oath come before thine altar in this house: 32then hear thou in heaven, and do, and judge thy servants, condemning the wicked, to bring his way upon his head; and justifying the righteous, to give17 him according to his righteousness. 33When thy people Israel be smitten down before the enemy, because they have sinned against thee, and shall turn again to thee, and confess thy name, and pray, and make supplication unto thee in this house: 34then hear thou in heaven, and forgive the sin of thy people Israel, and bring them again unto the land which thou gavest unto their fathers. 35When heaven is shut up, and there is no rain, because they have sinned against thee; if they pray toward this place, and confess thy name, and turn from their sin, when thou afflictest them: 36then hear thou in heaven, and forgive the sin of thy servants, and of thy people Israel, that thou teach them [when thou teachest them (by affliction)] the good way wherein they should walk, and give rain upon thy land, which thou hast given to thy people for an inheritance. 37If there be in the land famine, if there be pestilence, blasting, mildew, locust, or if there be caterpillar [if there be consuming locust]; if their enemy besiege them in the land of their cities; whatsoever plague, whatsoever sickness there be; 38what prayer and supplication soever be made by any man, or by all thy people Israel, which shall know every man the plague of his own heart, and spread forth his hands toward this house: 39then hear thou in heaven thy dwelling-place, and forgive, and do, and give to every man according to his ways, whose heart thou knowest; (for thou, even thou only, knowest the hearts of all the children of men;) 40that they may fear thee all the days that 41they live in the land which thou gavest unto our fathers. Moreover, concerning a stranger, that is not of thy people Israel, but cometh out of a far country for thy name’s sake; 42(for they shall hear of thy great name, and of thy strong hand, and of thy stretched-out arm;) when he shall come and pray toward this house; 43hear thou in heaven thy dwelling-place, and do according to all that the stranger calleth to thee for: that all people of the earth may know thy name, to fear thee, as do thy people Israel; and that they may know that this house, which I have builded, is called by thy name. 44If thy people go out to battle against their enemy, whithersoever thou shalt send them, and shall pray unto the Lord [Jehovah] toward the city which thou hast chosen, and toward the house that I have built for thy name: 45then hear thou in heaven their prayer and their supplication, and maintain their cause. 46If they sin against thee, (for there is no man that sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captives unto the land of the enemy, 47far or near; yet if they shall bethink themselves in the land whither they were carried captives, and repent, and make supplication unto thee in the land of them that carried them captives, saying, We have sinned, and have done perversely, 48we have committed wickedness; and so return unto thee with all their heart, and with all their soul, in the land of their enemies, which led them away captive, and pray unto thee toward their land, which thou gavest unto their fathers, the city which thou hast chosen and the house which I have built for thy name: 49then hear thou their prayer and their supplication in heaven thy dwelling-place, and maintain their cause, 50and forgive thy people that have sinned against thee, and all their transgressions wherein they have transgressed against thee, and give them compassion before them who carried them captive, that they may 51have compassion on them: for they be thy people, and thine inheritance, which thou broughtest forth out of Egypt, from the midst of the furnace of iron: 52that thine eyes may be open unto the supplication of thy servant, and unto the supplication of thy people Israel, to hearken unto them in all that they call for unto thee. 53For thou didst separate them from among all the people of the earth, to be thine inheritance, as thou spakest by the hand of Moses thy servant, when thou broughtest our fathers out of Egypt, O Lord [Jehovah] God.54And it was so, that when Solomon had made an end of praying all this prayer and supplication unto the Lord [Jehovah], he arose from before the altar of the Lord [Jehovah], from kneeling on his knees with his hands spread up to heaven. 55And he stood, and blessed all the congregation of Israel with a loud 56voice, saying, Blessed be the Lord [Jehovah], that hath given rest unto his people Israel, according to all that he promised: there hath not failed one word of all his good promise, which he promised by the hand of Moses his servant. 57The Lord [Jehovah] our God be with us, as he was with our fathers: let him not leave us, nor forsake us: 58that he may incline our hearts unto him, to walk in all his ways, and to keep his commandments, and his statutes, and his judgments, which he commanded our fathers. 59And let these my words, wherewith I have made supplication before the Lord [Jehovah], be nigh unto the Lord [Jehovah] our God day and night, that he maintain the cause of his servant, and the cause of his people Israel at all times, as the matter shall require: 60that all the people of the earth may know that the Lord [Jehovah] is God, and that there is none else. 61Let your heart therefore be perfect with the Lord [Jehovah] our God, to walk in his statutes, and to keep his commandments, as at this day. 62And the king, and all Israel with him, offered sacrifice before the Lord [Jehovah]. 63And Solomon offered a sacrifice of peace offerings, which he offered unto the Lord [Jehovah], two and twenty thousand oxen, and an hundred and twenty thousand sheep. So the king and all the children of Israel dedicated the house of the Lord [Jehovah]. 64The same day did the king hallow the middle of the court that was before the house of the Lord [Jehovah]: for there he offered burnt offerings, and meat offerings, and the fat of the peace offerings: because the brazen altar that was before the Lord [Jehovah] was too little to receive the burnt offerings, and meat offerings, and the fat of the peace offerings. 65And at that time Solomon held a feast, and all Israel with him, a great congregation, from the entering in of Hamath unto the river of Egypt, before the Lord [Jehovah] our God, seven days and seven days, even fourteen days. 66On the eighth day he sent the people away: and they blessed the king, and went unto their tents joyful and glad of heart for all the goodness that the Lord [Jehovah] had done for David his servant, and for Israel his people. Exegetical and Critical1 Kings 8:1-7. Then Solomon assembled, &c. The section 2 Chronicles 5:2 to 2 Chronicles 6:42, which is for the most part like it, may be compared with this whole chapter. The little word ΰָ ?ζtime denotes, like 1 Kings 8:12 (comp. Joshua 10:12; Exodus 15:1), the point of time which immediately follows what is above related, and means, what indeed the context infers, namely, that as soon as all the vessels were finished (1 Kings 7:51), Solomon proceeded to dedicate the temple. In accordance with the great importance of the temple-building to the whole theocracy, he called together the elders, i.e., the presiding officers of communities, and also the heads of the tribes and the families, that the entire people might thereby be represented. The solemnity took place at the feast in the month Ethanim, which is the seventh month. The usual interpretation of δָ ?ΰֵ ?ϊָ ?πִ ?ιν, month of the flowing rivers (rainy season), is more acceptable than that of Thenius, gift (fruit) month, or that of Bφttcher, suspension of the equinox. This month was called Tisri in our writer’s time and later; upon this account he expressly says that Ethanim was the seventh. The feast of tabernacles occurred on the 15th of this month (Leviticus 23:34); it was the greatest and best observed of all the three yearly festivals, and was especially called “the feast” by the Jews (Symb. des Mos. Kult. ii. s. 656). Solomon therefore very fitly solemnized the dedication of the temple at the time of this feast. Although the text gives here only the month and the day, and not the year, it is of course to be understood that it was the first feast of tabernacles that occurred after the completion of the temple in the eighth month (1 Kings 6:38); consequently it fell in the following year. The opinion that the dedication took place in the seventh month of the same year, in the eighth month of which the temple was finished (Ewald), needs no refutation. The assertion of Thenius, with which Keil also now agrees, appears more probable. He thinks that the temple was not dedicated until twenty years from the commencement of the building, i.e., thirteen years after its completion; because the divine answer to the dedication prayer, according to 1 Kings 9:1-10, did not come till the temple of Jehovah and the king’s house were both finished (1 Kings 6:38; 1 Kings 7:1), and in the Sept. chap. 9 begins with these words: “And it came to pass, when Solomon had finished the building of the house of the Lord, and the king’s house (after twenty years), he assembled, &c.;” but the passage, 1 Kings 9:1, certainly does not say that the dedication did not take place for twenty years, or that Jehovah immediately thereafter appeared to Solomon; it speaks not only of the completion of both those buildings, but of all the others besides, which Solomon had begun (1 Kings 9:19), so that we must in that case place the dedication much later than twenty years (see below, on 1 Kings 9:1). As to the words of the Sept., they are unmistakably a gloss from 1 Kings 9:1; 1 Kings 9:10, inserted here, and such as is found nowhere else, either in a MS. or in any other ancient translation, and therefore can never be regarded as the original text. When we consider how very desirous David was to build an house unto the Lord, that when he was not permitted to do so, he pressed the task as a solemn duty upon his son, that Solomon then, as soon as he had established his throne, began the building and continued it with great zeal; it seems utterly incredible that he should have left the finished building thirteen years unused, and delayed its dedication until the twenty-fourth year of his reign. The weightiest reasons alone could have induced him to do so, but we hear nothing of any such. Even if we suppose the vessels not to have been finished as soon as the building, but to have been commenced after its completion, still it could not have taken thirteen years to make them; and there was no reason why the dedication of the temple should have been put off until the palace was finished, the latter requiring no solemn dedication, while the speedy dedication of the central sanctuary was an urgent necessity if the restoration of the unity of worship, commanded by the law, was to be established. To bring up the ark of the covenant of the Lord. In the march through the wilderness, the ark was covered with some cloths, and carried by the levites (Numbers 4:5; Numbers 4:15), but on special occasions, the priests themselves carried it, as here and in Joshua 3:6; Joshua 6:6. Not only the ark, but the tabernacle, which had hitherto stood at Gibeon (2 Chronicles 1:3-4), with all its vessels, was brought out from Zion into the temple. While the priests carried the ark, the levites (1 Kings 8:4) carried the other things pertaining to the tent, all of which were doubtless preserved in the rooms of the side-structure. When the procession reached the temple (1 Kings 8:5), the ark was laid down in the outer court before the entrance to the holy place, and a great and solemn sacrifice offered; then the priests bore the ark to its appointed place. For 1 Kings 8:6-7 see above, on 1 Kings 6:23 sq.1 Kings 8:8-9. And they drew out the staves, that the ends, &c. 1 Kings 8:8, which has had the most various interpretations put upon it, is nothing but a parenthesis following the concluding words of the preceding verse, explaining how it happened that the great cherubim-statues, with their wings stretched across the entire width of the sanctuary (1 Kings 6:27), not only overshadowed the ark itself, but even its staves. As it says in Exodus 25:15, the staves were never to be removed, but were to belong inseparably to the ark. If the cherubim-statues then were to overshadow the ark, they should also cover the staves inseparably united to it. Now as the ark lay lengthwise north and south in the holy of holies, and the wings of the cherubim-statues stretched from the southern to the northern wall of the holy of holies, the staves which they overshadowed with their wings must have been placed north and south, i.e., on the longer sides of the ark, as Josephus (Ant.iii. 6, 5) expressly states. Therefore, their heads or ends could be seen from the sanctuary (great space) only close before the holy of holies (Debir). The reason why the staves were so long (εַ ?ΰֲ ?ψִ ?λεּ is to be understood as intransitive, as Keil remarks; as in Exodus 20:12; Deuteronomy 5:16; Deuteronomy 25:15, and not to be translated: they made the staves long, as Kimchi and Thenius make it, for thus ΰֵ ?ϊּ should stand before δַ ?αַּ ?γִּ ?ιν) was in consequence of the weight of the ark, which must have been considerable, because the stone tables of the law were inside of the ark; and it was carried by more than four, perhaps by eight priests, who did not touch it, as was commanded in Numbers 4:15. And as the holy of holies was only intended for the ark of the covenant (1 Kings 6:19), and the latter was only two and a half cubits long, with its long staves inseparable from it, it took up nearly the whole space. The oldest interpretation of our verse was borrowed from the Rabbins; it says that the staves were drawn so far forward that their ends touched the veil of the most holy place, and caused visible protrusions on the outside; but this is disproved by the fact that the staves were placed on the longest side of the ark, and pointed south and north, not east and west, consequently could not have touched the curtain. Thenius, with whom Merz and Bertheau agree, explains the simple sentence in 1 Kings 8:8 “by optical laws: when a person at the entrance of the holy place (he makes ξִ ?οΞδַ ?χֹּ ?γֶ ?ωׁ mean that) could have seen through the open door the ends of the staves of the ark which was in the middle of the holy of holies, these staves must have been, according to the laws of perspective, seven cubits long.” This highly ingenious explanation rests, as Keil justly remarks, on ill-founded suppositions, comp. Bφttcher Aehrenl. ii. s. 69. The words ςַ ?μΞτְּ ?πֵ ?ιδַ ?γְּ ?αִ ?ιψ cannot be translated: “from the great space before the debir,” but mean, from the sanctuary, “when a person stood close before the dark holy of holies” (Ewald), or “near the most holy” (Merz). It is certain that the writer of these books had not the remotest thought about the laws of optics and perspective. The addition, and there they are unto this day, means: though the ark now had its fixed resting-place, the staves were left, according to the command Exodus 25:15, in order to signify that it was the same ark, which dated from the time when Israel was chosen to be a covenant people. The expression “unto this day,” also occurring, 1 Kings 9:21; 1 Kings 12:19; 2 Kings 8:22, shows that the writer drew from a manuscript written before the destruction of the temple, and did not deem it necessary to deviate from its words. 1 Kings 8:9. There was nothing in the ark, &c. 1 Kings 8:9 returns to the ark itself, and emphasizes the fact that it was brought into the holy of holies (1 Kings 8:6) because it preserved the original document of the covenant which God made with Israel, which consisted of the “ten commandments that the Lord spake unto them” (Deuteronomy 10:4). By virtue of this document, the ark was the pledge of the covenant relation; and at the same time was the fundamental condition of the religious and political life of Israel; it naturally formed the heart and central point of the sanctuary or dwelling-place of Jehovah in the midst of His chosen people (compare Symb. des Mos. Kult., i. s. 383 sq.); “there would have been no temple without the ark of the covenant, that alone made it a sanctuary” (Hengstenberg). According to Hebrews 9:4, the ark contained, besides the tables of the law, the golden pot with manna (Exodus 16:33), and Aaron’s rod (Numb. 17:25). The endeavor has been made to reconcile this passage with the one under consideration, by the supposition that those two additional objects were no longer in the ark in Solomon’s time, having only been there when Moses lived, the latter period being the one in the mind of the writer to the Hebrews (Ebrard, Moll, and others). But the passages quoted only say they were laid “before Jehovah” or “before the testimony;” not in the ark. The Jewish tradition alone renders it in (Schφttgen, hor. Hebr. p. 973), and this tradition, with which the reader of this epistle may have been familiar, was probably in the writer’s mind, for he was not desirous of giving an exact archζological description (comp. Tholuck and Bleek on Hebrews 9:4). V. Meyer’s opinion, which Lisco also adopts, that the manna and rod were not in the ark any longer because “the direct theocracy, with its spiritual sceptre, and its blessings, had departed, and the people had an earthly king who was now to guide and watch over them,” is in the highest degree erroneous. Horeb is not the highest summit of the mountains of Sinai, but a general name for the mountain-range of which Sinai is only a part: comp. Thenius on the place. 1 Kings 8:10-13. And it came to pass, when the priests were come out of the holy place, &c. Exodus 40:34-35, is almost the same as 1 Kings 8:10-11; “then a cloud covered the tent of the congregation, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. And Moses was not able to enter into the tent of the congregation, because the cloud abode thereon (ωָׁ ?λַ ?ο) and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle.” It is plain that the author meant, what once happened at the dedication of the tabernacle took place again at the dedication of the house. The cloud, not a cloud (Luther), but that, in and with which, as once at the tabernacle, the glory of the Lord came down, though naturally not the same cloud as at that time. What 1 Kings 8:10 says of the cloud, 1 Kings 8:11 says of the glory of the Lord; it filled the house, not only the most holy place, but the whole dwelling, so that the priests were prevented for a moment from performing their functions in the sanctuary. We cannot possibly conceive this to have been the cloud of smoke “which, rising from the burning offerings on the altar, veiled the glory of the Lord” (Bertheau on 2 Chronicles 5:14); for in this case the priests themselves would have been prevented from officiating. Nor can we, on account of the λְ ?αּ ?εֹ ?γΞιְ ?δεָֹ ?δ, think as Thenius, of the “bright and streaming cloud” which the Rabbins name ωְׁ ?λִ ?ιπָ ?δ, for Solomon could not have said, on beholding it: Jehovah dwells αָּ ?ςֲ ?ψָ ?τֶ ?μ; this word denoting, as Thenius himself rightly says, “exactly the black darkness;” and he takes an unwarrantable liberty when, as the Chaldee, he reads αִּ ?ιψεּ ?ωָׁ ?μַ ?νִ for it. It is admitted that the “darkness must refer to the cloud” just also as that which in Exodus 19:9 is named φָ ?πָ ?ο is called ςֲ ?ψָ ?τֶ ?μ in Exodus 20:21; and in Deuteronomy 4:11; Deuteronomy 5:9; Psalms 97:2, both words are conjoined as synonymies. Keil, too, thinks the ςָ ?πָ ?ο is the shekinah, for he says: “the glory of the Lord, which is like a consuming fire, manifested itself in the cloud.” But this also is contradicted by the words of Solomon, that the Lord dwells in the (thick) darkness; the text has not a syllable about a fiery appearance; and certainly a consuming fire cannot be thought of here, where the subject is the gracious presence of the Lord. Abar-banel indeed thinks that the fire of the cloud burst forth from it, after Solomon’s prayer, and consumed the burnt-offering, 2 Chronicles 7:1; but it expressly says in this passage, that fire came “from heaven” (and therefore not out of the cloud). Keil further remarks: “This wonderful manifestation of the divine glory only took place at the dedication; afterwards, the cloud was visible in the holy of holies only on the great day of atonement, when the high-priest entered there” (Leviticus 16:2). This, however, is quite contrary to the rabbinical belief, which was that the shekinah hung constantly above the ark of the covenant; and it also presupposes that the wonderful manifestation was regularly repeated on that solemnity of atonement, although neither the text nor the Jewish tradition mentions such a thing; and this would have no analogy with God’s miracles, which never recur regularly on a particular day. Our text only mentions a dark cloud, which, as it filled the whole house, must necessarily have only been a passing phenomenon; it served to show that the Lord, as once in the tent, would now henceforth dwell in the house built for Him. λְ ?αεֹ ?γΞιְ ?δεָֹ ?δ stands, as Solomon’s phrase in 1 Kings 8:12 shows, for Jehovah himself, and is the standing Old Testament designation of the being (majesty) of God [like the δόξα of the New Testament.—E. H.], raised absolutely above all that is creaturely, yet stooping (ωָׁ ?λַ ?ο, Exodus 40:35), i.e., concentrating himself, in order to manifest and assert himself, either blessing and saving as here, or punishing and destroying, as for instance, in Psalms 18. The Lord said. Because there is no passage showing that the Lord spoke those words, Thenius translates ΰָ ?ξַ ?ψ “the Lord proposeth to dwell in the thick darkness: or, He has made known that He will dwell in the thick darkness;” but just because the Lord had said so, Solomon beheld in the cloud a sign that he had come down to dwell in the temple (ωָׁ ?πַ ?ο); he remembered the plain declaration Exodus 19:9; Leviticus 16:2. “Overpowered by that sublime moment, and filled with joy that he was counted worthy of the favor of being allowed to build a house for the Lord, he utters the joyful words” (Bertheau): αָּ ?πֹ ?ηαָ ?πִ ?ιϊִ ?ι, surely! I have built; for which Chron. gives ΰֲ ?πִ ?ιαָ ?πִ ?ιϊִ ?ι; I, yea, I have built. For the words in 1 Kings 8:13, an house to dwell in, a settled place, see on 1 Kings 6:2, a, Historical and Ethical.ςεֹ ?μָ ?ξִ ?ιν is similar to Joshua 4:7; Job 19:24; 1 Kings 1:31 (comp. Hengstenberg, Christol. ii. s. 432 sq.). According to 2 Chronicles 5:12 sq., songs of praise, accompanied by harps and psalteries, burst forth, as the priests came out of the sanctuary. 1 Kings 8:14-21. And the king turned his face, &c. Solomon had spoken the words of 1 Kings 8:12-13 with his face turned to the temple; but he now turned towards the people who were in the outer court, and who listened standing, i.e., with proper reverence, to the following discourse. This is a solemn declaration (1 Kings 8:15-21) that the temple was undertaken and finished according to Jehovah’s word and will. The course of thought is, compared with 2 Chronicles 6:4-11, as follows: “so long as Israel, after the departure from Egypt, wandered about, and had not come into possession of the promised land, Jehovah had chosen no abiding dwelling-place, His habitation was movable—a tent. But after He had chosen David to be king, and brought His people by him to the full and quiet possession of the promised land, it was fitting that He, as well as the nation, should have an abiding dwelling-place. Jerusalem being the city of David, and the central point of the kingdom promised to him ‘for ever,’ Jehovah had chosen this very city for His ‘everlasting’ habitation. It was, however, forbidden to my father, David, to execute His purpose, namely, to build an house to the name of the Lord, instead of the tent; according to divine direction, He deputed this work to me, whom Jehovah had already confirmed as his successor. I then, specially commissioned and empowered to do so, have built this house, and brought into it the ark of the covenant, the pledge of the divine gracious presence; and the cloud that has just now filled the house, as once it did the tent, is the sign that Jehovah will dwell here.” The promise, the fulfilment of which Solomon refers to in this discourse, is that of 2 Samuel 7:4-16, comp. with 1 Chronicles 22:6-11; 1 Chronicles 28:2-7. For the expression: that my name shall be there, the pregnant meaning of which we may gather from its constant repetition (1 Kings 8:16-19, comp. 29, 43, 44), see above, on chap. 6 Histor. and Ethical, 2, 6. It is worthy of notice that at the beginning and the conclusion of the address (1 Kings 8:16; 1 Kings 8:21), the building of the temple is placed in relation to the deliverance from Egypt. Comp. above on 1 Kings 6:1. 1 Kings 8:22-26. And Solomon stood before the altar of the Lord.2 Chronicles 6:13 mentions that Solomon had a brazen scaffold (λִ ?ιεֹ ?ψ) made, which he mounted, and then knelt down to pray (comp. v. 54); as the text says nothing of its form, we will not decide whether it had, as Thenius thinks, a square support, and a rounded edge. Certainly it was a species of pulpit, not behind, but before the altar of burnt-offering. It does not follow from πֶ ?βֶ ?γ, that Solomon again turned his face to the temple (Thenius): it means before, opposite; the people therefore could not have stood behind him, which must have happened, had he turned his back to them. The spreading out the hands is a sign of praying, just as our folding of the hands is (Exodus 9:29; Exodus 9:31; Psalms 44:21; Psalms 143:6; Isaiah 1:15; Isaiah 65:2, &c.). Modern criticism has pronounced the dedication prayer in its given form, 1 Kings 8:23-61, to be unauthentic. De Wette and Stδhelin place the time of its composition in the period of the exile. Ewald admits that it is, “notwithstanding its length, a very fine discourse; but belonging, in the style of thought, rather to the seventh than the eleventh or tenth century,” and thinks that it was most probably composed by the first of the so-called elaborators of Deuteronomy. According to Thenius, there is a sketch in the prayer to be held as historical, though it be brief; but it contains considerable interpolations, as 1 Kings 8:44-51; and the frequent coincidence with passages in Deut. and Josh., as well as “the style, which is so often diffuse, verbose, and watery (!), denote a more recent working up.” We remark, on the other hand: that the text containing the prayer, in Chron., perfectly coincides with that in Kings, except in a few particulars; but this proves that it was not taken from the latter, but that both accounts were derived from a common source. So much then is certain, that our writer did not invent the prayer, but found it in the original which he drew from, and gave it again—as the similar text of Chron. shows—unaltered. The only question then is, of what date was the common original? 1 Kings 11:41 names as such the “book of the acts of Solomon,” and the chronicler, “the book of Nathan the prophet” (2 Chronicles 9:29). The latter, however, cannot certainly belong to the seventh century, still less to the time of the captivity; it evidently was written, as Bleek justly remarks, “in view of the state of things, when the temple, the city of Jerusalem, and David’s kingdom still existed.” As to the “thoughts,” Thenius admits that the verses 27, 28, 41–43, 58, 60, “are fully worthy of a Solomon,” and this without being able to prove that the others are unworthy of them; they are, on the contrary, in fit connection and perfect harmony with them (for the so-called interpolations of the 1 Kings 8:44-51, see below, on the place). We can only conclude that this prayer was of later composition, because of its harmony with some passages of Deut. and Lev., if these books also belong to a later period; and this is unproved. But with equal propriety, inversely, we may conclude from the prayer, that these books were in existence in the time of Solomon, and were known to him as the pupil of a prophet. Finally, if the style and composition of the prayer, because they are verbose and watery, prove later working up, this objection rests on purely subjective taste; and we have just as good a right to hold, as Ewald does, that it is, “in spite of its length, a very fine discourse.” It is incredible besides, that a discourse, holding so important a place in Old Testament history, should have been composed later, and falsely put into the mouth of the great king; we must believe, on the contrary, that if ever a speech were written down and preserved carefully, it was that one. 1 Kings 8:23-26. Lord God of Israel, &c. 1 Kings 8:23-26, form the introduction to the prayer which is united to the speech, 1 Kings 8:15-21, and gives praise and thanks to God for having already fulfilled the promise made to David (1 Kings 8:23-24) in so far as the house (2 Samuel 7:5-16) was concerned, uniting with it the request that the Lord would further fulfil it, with regard to the house, i.e., the rape of David, and their sitting upon the throne of Israel (1 Kings 8:25-26). The address, there is no God like Thee, &c., means: not that there is no god among all those in heaven and earth like Thee: but, nothing is like to Thee, who art in heaven above and on earth below. Jehovah, the God of Israel, is not compared here with other gods, but on the contrary, is described as the only true God (comp. Deuteronomy 4:39; Joshua 2:11; 2 Samuel 7:22; 2 Samuel 22:32). He had shown himself such especially by His keeping of the covenant, by His mercy (Deuteronomy 7:9; Daniel 9:4), and by the fulfilment of His gracious promise. αַּ ?ιּ ?εֹ ?νδַ ?εֶּ ?δ 1 Kings 8:24 as in 1 Kings 3:6. The house, as it now stands, is a witness to His faithfulness to the covenant. Thenius remarks on 1 Kings 8:26 : The urgency of the petition is shown by its concise repetition. 1 Kings 8:27-30. But will God indeed, &c. The prayer passes, at 1 Kings 8:27, to its chief object, the temple, with which all the rest of it is occupied. αִּ ?ι at the beginning is used here as in 1 Samuel 29:8; 1 Kings 11:22; 2 Kings 8:13; Jeremiah 23:18, “merely as an impressive introduction to the interrogatory sentence that leads to the real prayer” (Thenius), and is not, therefore, a mere confirming particle, as Keil, who connects our verse with 1 Kings 8:26 instead of with 1 Kings 8:28-30, repeatedly asserts. The petition in 1 Kings 8:26 : that God would indeed keep the house (dynasty) of David on the throne, was not founded on the fact that the heaven of heavens could not contain Him, still less that temple. On the contrary, the entire contents of the following prayer are, that God would hear all the prayers that should be offered in this place; hence Solomon very naturally begins with the thought, can the infinite, unconfined Deity really have His dwelling here? The expression, the heaven and heaven of heavens, can have nothing to do with the different heavens taught by Jewish theology (Schφttgen, hor. hebr. p. 719), but is the description of the heavens in their all-embracing extent, as Deuteronomy 10:14; Psalms 115:16. This is the connection of 1 Kings 8:27-28 : Thou art the infinite God whom no house built by man can contain, but I beseech Thee to show thyself here, as a God who answers prayer. In 1 Kings 8:28 Solomon prays that God would hear his present prayer, and in 1 Kings 8:29-30 that He would also in the future always hear the prayers of the king and people in this place. The different expressions for prayer in the verses 28–30 are not very different in their meaning, and are placed near together here, to describe every kind of prayer. The words, that thine eyes may be open (1 Kings 8:29), do not mean that God was besought to watch over the building, and take it under His almighty protection, but always to see, when any one prayed there, and to hear his prayer, to turn His eyes and ears toward the house (comp. Psalms 34:16). For the placing of the temple and heaven (1 Kings 8:30) in antithesis, which is done indeed through the entire prayer, see above, on chap. 6 Histor. and Ethic. 2 c. The prayer for forgiveness is joined to the prayer for hearing, at the conclusion, as also in 1 Kings 8:34; 1 Kings 8:36; 1 Kings 8:39; 1 Kings 8:50, because man, who is full of sin and guilt, can only hope for the acceptance of his prayer when his sins are forgiven; every answer to prayer rests on the sinpardoning grace of God. 1 Kings 8:31-32. If any man trespass against, &c. The prayer that God may hear in general is now followed, from 1 Kings 8:31 on, by prayers for particular cases, of which there are seven altogether; which is no more remarkable than that the Lord’s prayer, Matthew 6:9 sq., also contains the sacred number seven, the number of the covenant (Symb. des Mos. Kult. i. s. 193). The first of the seven prayers (1 Kings 8:31-32) concerns the observation of the oath as sacred, namely, in cases like those of Exo 22:7-10 and Lev. 5:21–24. For ΰֵ ?ϊΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ it is ΰִ ?ν in 2 Chronicles 6:22; it means: the case happening, that=when (Keil). εּ ?αָ ?ΰΰָ ?μָ ?δ cannot be translated; and the oath comes, as the article is wanting to ΰָ ?μָ ?δ; all the old translations give: comes and swears. Before the altar, i.e., the place of divine witness and presence (Exodus 20:24). Thou bringest his deed upon his head, i.e., thou punishest him for his false oath (Ezekiel 9:10). We receive no answer from the commentators to the question, why is the prayer with respect to the oath placed foremost in the seven petitions? Perhaps the reason is as follows: The temple, which is constantly and impressively exalted in the chapter we are considering, was built to the name of Jehovah, which should be deemed holy; but the oath was nothing more than the calling upon the sacred name; i.e., the name of that God who had made himself known as a holy God, and who does not allow the misuse of his name to go unpunished (according to Sir 23:9, ὅρκος is equivalent to ὀνομασίατοῦ ἁγίον, comp. 1 Kings 8:11 : ὁ ὀμνύωνκαὶ ὀνομάζων); they swore by the name of God, is an oath-form in Leviticus 19:12; Deuteronomy 6:13; Deuteronomy 10:20; Isaiah 48:1; Jeremiah 12:16; Jeremiah 44:26. The false oath was a contemptuous use of the name to which the house was built; but it was the chief requirement from him who stood in the holy place, that he should not swear falsely, Psalms 24:3-4. The command to keep the name of God holy, stands also first among the commandments of the fundamental law (Exodus 20:7), and it is the first of the seven petitions in the Lord’s prayer: hallowed be Thy name (Matthew 6:9). 1 Kings 8:33-34. When thy people Israel be smitten down, &c. The second petition concerns the case of captives, who had, through their guilt, merited overthrow, and were led away by their conquerors; and beseeches Jehovah for the return of the people to their native land. To be taken away from the land of promise, to be separated from communion with the covenant people, in whose midst Jehovah dwelt, and to live among heathens, was the greatest of all misfortunes to an Israelite, and it was very natural to pray against it. And confess thy name must be connected with ωָׁ ?αεּ; if they, feeling their guilt, acknowledge Thee God, dwelling and manifesting thyself here; it is not then the same as: praise Jehovah (Gesenius, Winer). It is unnecessary to seek a direct association of ideas between this second and the first petition. Thenius says: “The internal welfare of the state was secured by fidelity and faith arising from fear of God, but that welfare could be in peril from without.” Nor is there here a direct reference to Leviticus 26:17 and Deuteronomy 28:25, as Keil asserts. 1 Kings 8:35-40. When heaven is shut up, &c. The third petition (1 Kings 8:35-36), and the fourth (1 Kings 8:37-40), concern divine judgments by means of long-continued drought and land-plagues. As the rain, on which the fertility of the soil, and therefore all outward prosperity, depended in the East, was a sign of divine blessing (Ezekiel 34:26 sq.), so drought was a sign of curse and punishment (Leviticus 26:3; Leviticus 26:19; Deuteronomy 28:15; Deuteronomy 28:23; Deuteronomy 11:17; Amos 4:7; Haggai 1:11). The meaning of 1 Kings 8:36 is: when the people were brought into the right way again, by the merited chastisement, then he beseeches God to hear their supplication, and to forgive their sin and to send rain again. In 1 Kings 8:37 there are coincidences with Leviticus 26:25; Deuteronomy 28:22; but hunger, plague, blasting, and mildew are elsewhere mentioned as divine chastisements (Amos 4:9-10; Jeremiah 14:12; Jeremiah 24:10; Ezekiel 6:12; Ezekiel 14:21). ηָ ?ρִּ ?ιμ is in apposition (according to Keil), to describe the plague of locusts (Deuteronomy 28:38); Thenius thinks the copula before it, which the chronicler and the old translations give, is wanting, and that a worse kind of locust is meant (Joe 1:4; Psalms 78:46). αְּ ?ΰֶ ?ψֶ ?υωְׁ ?ςָ ?ψָ ?ιε is literally: in the land of his gates, which, however, gives no sense; it is clear that αָּ ?ΰָ ?ψֶ ?υ must be read (as Bertheau has it), and ωְׁ ?ςָ ?ψָ ?ιε be supplied with α, as is clear from Deuteronomy 28:52 : “thou shalt be besieged in all thy gates, in thy whole land.” Thenius unnecessarily reads, according to the Sept. (ἑνμιᾷ τῶνπόλεωναὐτῶν) αְּ ?ΰַ ?ηַ ?ϊ instead of αΰψυ. The words say—when the enemy is in his land, yea, even besieging his well-protected towns. The wasting of the land by locusts was similar to the wasting by hostile armies, that invaded the land like locusts (Judges 6:5). Which shall know every man, &c. (1 Kings 8:38), i.e., when each one should see the connection “between his sin and the plague inflicted on him by God, and allow it to work out his chastisement” (Bertheau). According to his ways (1 Kings 8:39), i.e., by the repentant heart, shown in all his conduct. Whether this repentance is really felt, He alone, who “searches the hearts” of the children of men, can know (Jeremiah 17:10). The reason of the hearing of prayer is given in 1 Kings 8:40 : continuance in godly fear (comp. Deuteronomy 4:10). 1 Kings 8:41-43. Moreover concerning a stranger, &c. The fifth petition (1 Kings 8:41-43) ranks with the former ones: but not only those belonging to thy people Israel, who may call upon Thee here, hear also every stranger who does so; that all people of the earth, &c. In the law (Deuteronomy 15:14-16) it was provided that a stranger, sojourning among the Israelites, might sacrifice with them; Solomon goes further, and declares that the great deeds of God in Israel, the seal and crown of which was the temple as a fixed dwelling-place of Jehovah, were to work out the salvation not only of Israel, but the conversion of all the nations of the earth. To reach that end may God hear every stranger who comes to this house and calls upon Him for His name’s sake (i.e., because he had heard of the might and greatness displayed on Israel, 1 Kings 8:42). The expressions in 1 Kings 8:42 refer essentially to the wonderful exodus from Egypt (Deuteronomy 4:34; Deuteronomy 5:15; Exodus 6:6), which had reached its climax in the building of the temple (see above, on 1 Kings 6:1). The words in 1 Kings 8:43 : that they may know that this house … is called by thy name (πχψΰςμ), are a formula that occurs as here and in Jeremiah 7:10-11; Jeremiah 7:14; Jeremiah 25:29, about the temple, and about the people Israel in Deuteronomy 28:10; Isaiah 4:1; Isaiah 63:19; Jeremiah 14:9; Jeremiah 15:16; 2 Chronicles 7:14; and is intimately related to the expression, to lay the name of Jehovah upon (ςμ) a thing or person (Numbers 6:27; Deuteronomy 12:5; Deuteronomy 16:6; 1 Kings 11:36, &c). The latter was thus marked as one to whom God reveals himself (names himself), i.e., manifests and communicates himself, so that he stands in union and communion with Him (Amos 9:12, comp. Hengstenberg, Christologie, iii. s. 231 sq.). Through the hearing of the prayers which the heathen offered here to Israel’s God, they as well as Israel were to experience that His “name” was there (1 Kings 8:16), i.e., that He manifested and proved himself there to be God. The usual translation of the expression, that this house is called by Thy name, or bears Thy name, is therefore quite wrong. What good would it have done the heathen to know that the house Solomon built was called by Jehovah’s name? But the following is equally erroneous: “that Thy name has been invoked upon this temple (at its dedication), i.e., that this temple has been dedicated under effective invocation of Thy continued help” (Thenius); it was not that the heathens were to know that the temple had been solemnly consecrated, but that the God who dwelt there would hear their as well as Israel’s prayer, and that hence He is the only true God (1 Kings 18:37; Psalms 65:3). 1 Kings 8:44-50. If thy people go out, &c. The sixth petition (1 Kings 8:44-45), and the seventh (1 Kings 8:46-50), relate to the conceivable cases, in which the people cannot pray at Jehovah’s house, because they are far from it. The first case is, when the people should be whithersoever Jehovah should send them, i.e., in war, according to Jehovah’s appointment and approbation; they were then to pray towards the city in which the temple was. The other case is, if having grievously sinned against Jehovah, and in consequence, being vanquished and led away captive to another land, they were then to repent, and direct their prayers towards the country, the city, and the house where Jehovah dwelt. The outward turning was the sign of the inward turning to the God of Israel, who as such has His dwelling-place in the temple, and is a real confession to this God, who never leaves His people, if they do not forsake Him. Maintain their cause, 1 Kings 8:45 (comp. Psalms 9:5; Deuteronomy 10:18). This presupposes that the war is a just one. The three expressions for sinning are scarcely to be distinguished with precision from each other, as Keil thinks, but are only meant to include every conceivable kind of sin. Thenius asserts that the verses 44–51 are a “section added later, perhaps by the elaborator,” for such a petition, which belongs properly to 1 Kings 8:33-34, cannot follow 1 Kings 8:43; the custom of turning towards Jerusalem is first mentioned in writings subsequent to the exile (Daniel 6:11; Ezra 4:58), and the last petition, 1 Kings 8:46-51, was occasioned by the Babylonian captivity, just also as the formula of the confession of sin, 1 Kings 8:47, belonged to a later period (Daniel 9:5; Psalms 106:6). On the other hand, both petitions are exactly in the right place; the five previous ones refer to cases in which prayer is offered at the temple itself; the last two to cases where the praying people cannot come to the temple. They therefore follow quite naturally; besides this, the case in 1 Kings 8:44 is evidently quite different from that in 1 Kings 8:33 sq., for in the latter there is an armed invasion by the enemy, in which some are taken prisoners; and in the former (1 Kings 8:44) the people go out to battle under the divine order. Turning towards the temple was a very natural custom, and mentioned not only in 1 Kings 8:44; 1 Kings 8:48, but in 1 Kings 8:38, before, and also in Psalms 5:8; Psalms 28:2. As the temple, being Jehovah’s dwelling, was a pattern of the heavens, His real dwelling-place, it followed that as men stretched out their hands to heaven, so they stretched them towards the temple in prayer; it is, at any rate, impossible to prove that this custom came in first after the captivity. The carrying away conquered nations was “a fundamental maxim of despots which prevailed in the ancient orient” (Winer, R.-W.-B., i. s. 357, and the writings quoted there); when therefore Solomon, in counting up the misfortunes and straits in which Israel could fall, thinks lastly of this most grievous case, it is less surprising that he should rather than that he should not have mentioned it, especially since it was repeatedly threatened in the law (Leviticus 26:33; Deuteronomy 28:25; Deuteronomy 28:36; Deuteronomy 28:64; Deuteronomy 4:27). The petition is quite general, and there is not the slightest allusion to any particular captivity. The confession in 1 Kings 8:47 is by no means of a kind that could have only been made in exile (comp. Numbers 14:40; 1 Samuel 7:6; Psalms 51:6; Psalms 32:5), and we might, inversely, with more justice maintain that the Jews in exile appropriated this most expressive word for the deepest guilt, from the royal prayer (Keil). There are exactly seven petitions, thus giving the prayer the seal of this significant number; and the last two cannot have been added later, for they contain nothing foreign to the other ones, but on the contrary are very suitable to the former petitions, and in perfect harmony with the immediately preceding one (comp. Bertheau on 2 Chronicles 6:39). 1 Kings 8:51-54. For they be thy people, &c. 1 Kings 8:51-52 form the conclusion of the prayer, as 1 Kings 8:23-26, the beginning, to which this conclusion points back. He confidently gives his reason for hoping for the acceptance of the whole prayer; which reason is the election of Israel out of all nations, to be a peculiar and covenant people. With 1 Kings 8:51 comp. Deuteronomy 4:20. The iron furnace is not = a furnace of iron, but the furnace in which the iron is melted, which requires the greatest heat, therefore = glowing furnace. The deliverance from Egypt is here also looked on as a pledge for deliverance from every future distress, how great soever. The beginning of the prayer, 1 Kings 8:28-29, is taken up again in 1 Kings 8:52; its close connection with 1 Kings 8:51 through μִ ?δְ ?ιεֹ ?ϊ has this sense; that it follows from their election to be a peculiar people, that Jehovah would also listen, in future, to their prayers. 1 Kings 8:53 (comp. Leviticus 20:24; Leviticus 20:26) is no mere repetition of 1 Kings 8:51 (Thenius), but rests upon a broader ground, derived from the destiny of the nation itself. The peculiar people is that which was set apart for Jehovah’s service from among all nations (Numbers 8:14; Numbers 16:9), the holy people, the royal priesthood (Exodus 19:5-6). The prayer has quite a different ending in 2 Chronicles 6:41-42; this, Thenius thinks the original one, which was not discovered by our author. That ending, however, must not be preferred to that in our books, and put in place of the latter; because it agrees word for word with Psalms 132:8-10, referring to a period after the captivity, and is evidently taken from that psalm, not the latter from Chronicles, or from some source common to both. Peculiarities of the language also point to a relatively late period of composition (see Bertheau on the place). This ending in Chron. appears to have been chosen to form a connecting link with what is related immediately afterwards (2 Chronicles 7:1-3), but which is not in our text. 1 Kings 8:54-61. And it was so, that when Solomon had made an end of praying all this prayer, &c. As the dedication-prayer was preceded by an address of greeting to the people (1 Kings 8:14-21), so also it was followed by a concluding speech and blessing, which Solomon gave, again standing (εַ ?ιַּ ?ςֲ ?ξֹ ?γ). He next praises God for having given rest to His people Israel (1 Kings 8:56); for the consecrated temple, that had been filled with the glory of the Lord (1 Kings 8:10-11), was a firm, immovable habitation, and therefore the practical evidence that the people had now fully come into their promised rest (Deuteronomy 12:9-10), (see above, on 1 Kings 6:1); Solomon, the builder of the temple, was for this reason named the “man of rest” (1 Chronicles 22:9). The good word is that which promises blessing (Jeremiah 33:14), as pronounced in Lev. 36:3 sq., and Deuteronomy 28:1 sq. The expression there hath not failed as = fulfilled, often occurs (Joshua 21:45; Joshua 23:14; 2 Kings 10:10). The praise of Jehovah, 1 Kings 8:56, forms the introduction to 1 Kings 8:57-61, which are also blessings and exhortations. In 1 Kings 8:58, Solomon wishes for the people, that God might, as heretofore, continue to be with them; in 1 Kings 8:59, that He would, in answer to the prayer just spoken, grant them continued help against their enemies. The object of the first wish is stated in 1 Kings 8:58, that of the second in 1 Kings 8:60. Nigh, meaning that He should always remember these words, and fulfil them. Day and night, i. e., as each day should require, Exodus 5:13; Exodus 16:4. With 1 Kings 8:60 comp. 1 Kings 8:43. The ωָׁ ?μֵ ?ν, 1 Kings 8:61, does not mean: in friendship with God (Gesenius), nor submissive (de Wette), nor uprightly (Luther), but: entirely, undividedly (comp. 1 Kings 11:4; 1 Kings 11:6). The entire concluding discourse (1 Kings 8:54-61) is missing in Chronicles, as we remarked; and this concluding portion being an integral part of the dedication-solemnity, the fact is by no means satisfactorily accounted for by saying: that “it is only a recapitulation of the preceding lengthy prayer” (Keil). On the other hand, Chron. informs us that immediately after the prayer was ended, fire fell from heaven, which consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices, and that the glory of the Lord filled the house (2 Chronicles 7:1 sq.). There is no apparent reason why our author, who is otherwise so minute in his account, should quite pass over this remarkable and wonderful occurrence, if it had been related in his original. Chronicles contradicts itself, inasmuch as it makes the filling of the house with the glory of the Lord follow upon the prayer, while 1 Kings 5:14, as in our account, 1 Kings 8:10 sq., makes it precede the prayer, which indeed the entire contents of the prayer presuppose. No one will believe that the glory of the Lord left the house during the prayer, and afterwards filled it again. If therefore the chronicler has in any place borrowed from later tradition founded on Leviticus 9:24, it must have been here. 1 Kings 8:62-66. And the king, and all Israel with him, offered sacrifice, &c. In accordance with the design of the festival, by far the greater number of sacrifices were thanksgiving, or peace-offerings, of which the fat only was burnt, and the rest used for food (Leviticus 7:11 sq.;Deuteronomy 12:7). The number of animals, in which the Chron. and all the old translations agree, was very large, so that some have tried to prove that it was exaggerated. Thenius reckons that “as it took seven days to offer these sacrifices (allowing twelve complete hours to the sacrificial day), about five oxen and twenty-four sheep must have been slaughtered and offered every minute.” This calculation, plausible as it seems, is disproved when we consider what the exact circumstances were here; as Keil on the place has thoroughly done. It was not the king alone who sacrificed, but “all Israel with him;” there were sacrificial feasts, during fourteen days, for the great assemblage of all the people from Hamoth (the northern boundary of Palestine, Numbers 13:21; Numbers 34:8) to the river of Egypt (the present el Arisch on the southern frontier, Joshua 15:4), and whom we may compute at 100,000 men. Certainly the priests could not possibly have killed so many animals for sacrifice in the time stated, but according to the law it was the business of those offering the sacrifices themselves; the priests only had to sprinkle the blood on the altar. This they could easily do, for their number then amounted to at least some thousands, as we can judge from the number of levites (1 Chronicles 23:3). With regard to the great number of the sacrifices, it is also expressly remarked in 1 Kings 8:64, that as they could not all be offered on the brazen altar, Solomon (for this purpose) hallowed the middle of the court, i.e., consecrated it as a place of sacrifice by erecting subsidiary altars. How extraordinarily great the number of sacrifices at that kind of festival was, even in later times, we learn from an account of Josephus (Bell. Jud.vi. 9, 3), namely, that at a passover-feast at Jerusalem, in Nero’s time, the priests counted no less than 256,000 sacrifices that were slaughtered and consumed. We are to understand besides the thank-offerings, by the burnt-offerings and meat-offerings (1 Kings 8:64), the daily morning and evening sacrifices of the law (Numbers 28:3). The time and length of the festivity given in 1 Kings 8:65-66 are more plainly expressed in the parallel passage in 2 Chronicles 7:8-10 : “Solomon kept the feast (ΰֶ ?ϊΞδֶ ?ηָ ?β, i.e., the feast of the tabernacles, see on 1 Kings 8:2) at the same time as temple-dedication, seven days,… and on the eighth day they made ςֲ ?φֶ ?ψֶ ?ϊ (as the law commanded, Leviticus 23:36); for they kept the dedication of the altar (in which that of the temple was included) seven days, and the feast (of tabernacles) seven days. And on the three and twentieth day of the seventh month he sent the people away.” This places the feast of the tabernacles, which according to the law began on the 15th of the seventh month, after the dedication; and when our text says therefore seven days and seven days, even fourteen days (1 Kings 8:65), it can only mean that the dedication and the feast lasted altogether fourteen days; consequently the first immediately preceded the latter, and did not occupy from the 1st to the 7th day (Thenius), but from the eighth to the fourteenth. That the dedication lasted “fourteen days” is still more out of the question (v. Gerlach). The two narratives do not, however, perfectly agree, for 1 Kings 8:66 says that Solomon sent the people away on the eighth day (of the feast), i.e., on the 22d of the month, while 2 Chronicles 7:10 makes it the 23d. Yet this is no real contradiction, but only a vague form of speech about a known thing. Solomon sent the people away on the 8th day, i.e., in the afternoon or evening, of the Azereth of the feast of tabernacles; so that they began their journey home on the following morning, i.e., on the 23d of the month (Keil). Whether the feast of atonement (Leviticus 23:27), which fell on the 10th of the seventh month, was kept, and how, remains uncertain. Old commentators say that the dedication rendered it unusually solemn; others that, as it was a fast day, its observance was for that time omitted. Tents (1 Kings 8:66) is here like 2 Samuel 20:1; Judges 7:8 used for home, and David is named instead of Solomon (which the chronicler adds), because he was the originator of the temple-building, and through him Solomon was enabled to undertake it. Historical and Ethical1. The dedication of the temple is one of the most important of the facts of the Old Testament history, inasmuch as with it and through it, the “house” which Solomon built, first became what it was destined for—the dwelling-place of Jehovah, and all that the idea of dwelling comprises in it (see above, on chap. 6). The theocratic kingdom, and that of Solomon in particular, then reached its highest glory. For this reason the feast did not last only one day, but, like the great feasts that were devoted to the remembrance of the equally important facts in the theocratic history (the passover and tabernacles), continued seven days. This is why both narratives give such minute accounts of it, and show, by their agreement, that the common source from which they drew had treated the subject with the same minuteness. V. Gerlach justly remarks that: “the solemn event recounted here crowned the work of the establishment of God’s kingdom in Israel, which was begun by Samuel and continued by David.” 2. In respect of the act of dedication, it next strikes us that the king stands at the head of the whole ceremony, though it was an essentially religious one. He ordains a special festival, calls all the people to it, and conducts the whole solemnity. He is the author of everything from beginning to end—speech, prayer, and blessing. The priests and levites indeed are also busied in it, but they only perform their usual services, and the high-priest is not even named, still less mentioned as the chief actor on the occasion, performing the dedication. It has been said in explanation, that Solomon stood at this moment, like Moses, Samuel, and David, as a direct and divine ambassador, as king, priest, and prophet (von Gerlach), or that he had taken on himself, as an absolute temporal ruler, the functions of a priest and prophet (Ewald, Eisenlohr, Menzel, and others). Both suppositions are, to say the least, unnecessary. The position Solomon took here is thoroughly justified by the nature of the theocratic kingdom, which was not designed to remove or displace the divine rule, but rather to exalt and execute it. The theocratic king did not take the place of the God-king, Jehovah, but was his “servant,” and as such, Solomon repeatedly designates himself here (1 Kings 8:25; 1 Kings 8:28-29; 1 Kings 8:52; 1 Kings 8:59). What the whole people were to Jehovah, by virtue of the covenant (Exodus 19:6), was summed up in their king, and true of him as an individual. The priesthood was not at the head of the kingdom, which was not an hierarchy, but a theocracy; theirs was a separate institution, which it was the duty of the king to maintain, as well as all other institutions of the law (covenant). He would therefore have acted contrary to Jehovah’s law, and have sinned (comp. 2 Chronicles 26:16 sq.), had he taken on himself the offices which belonged by law to the priests. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ F.—Various matters connected with the accounts of Solomon’s architectural works(1 Kings 9:1-28.)1And it came to pass, when Solomon had finished the building of the house of the Lord [Jehovah], and the king’s house, and all Solomon’s desire which he was pleased to do, 2that the Lord [Jehovah] appeared to Solomon the second timeras he had appeared unto him at Gibeon. 3And the Lord [Jehovah] said unto him, I have heard, thy prayer and thy supplication, that thou hast made before me: I have hallowed this house, which thou hast built, to put my name there forever;and mine eyes and mine heart shall be there perpetually. 4And if thou wilt walk before me, as David thy father walked, in integrity of heart, and in uprightness, to do according to all that I have commanded thee, and wilt keep my statutesand my judgments; 5then I will establish the throne of thy kingdom upon Israel forever, as I promised [spake] to David thy father, saying, There shall not fail6thee a man upon the throne of Israel. But if ye shall at all [altogether] turn from following me, ye or your children, and will not keep my commandments and my statues which I have set before you, but go and serve other gods, andworship them; 7then will I cut off Israel out of the land which I have given them; and this house, which I have hallowed for my name, will I cast out of my8sight; and Israel shall be a proverb and a byword among all people: and at this house, which is high, every one that passeth by it shall be astonished, and shall hiss; and they shall say, Why hath the Lord done thus unto this land, andto this house? 9And they shall answer, Because they forsook the Lord [Jehovah] their God, who brought forth their fathers out of the land of Egypt, and have taken hold upon other gods, and have worshipped them, and served them: therefore hath the Lord [Jehovah] brought upon them all this evil.10And it came to pass at the end of twenty years, when Solomon had built the11two houses, the house of the Lord [Jehovah], and the king’s house, (Now Hiram the king of Tyre had furnished Solomon with cedar-trees and fir-trees, and with gold, according to all his desire,) that then king Solomon gave Hiram twentycities in the land of Galilee. 12And Hiram came out from Tyre to see the citieswhich Solomon had given him; and they pleased him not. 13And he said, What cities are these which thou hast given me, my brother? And he called them theland of Cabul unto this day. 14And Hiram sent to the king six-score talents of gold. 15And this is the reason of the levy which king Solomon raised; for to build the house of the Lord [Jehovah], and his own house, and Millo, and the wall of16Jerusalem, and Hazor, and Megiddo, and Gezer. For Pharaoh king of Egypt had gone up, and taken Gezer, and burnt it with fire, and slain the Canaanites17that dwelt in the city, and given it for a present unto his daughter, Solomon’swife. And Solomon built Gezer, and Beth-horon the nether, 18and Baalath, andTadmor in the wilderness, in the land, 19and all the cities of store that Solomon had, and cities for his chariots, and cities for his horsemen, and that which Solomon desired to build in Jerusalem, and in Lebanon, and in all the land of his20dominion. And all the people that were left of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites Hivites, and Jebusites, which were not of the children of Israel, 21their children that were left after them in the land, whom the children of Israel also were not able utterly to destroy, upon those did Solomon levy a tribute of bond-serviceunto this day. 22But of the children of Israel did Solomon make no bondmen: but they were men of war, and his servants, and his princes, and his captains, and23rulers of his chariots, and his horsemen. These were the chief of the officers that were over Solomon’s work, five hundred and fifty, which bare rule over the people that wrought in the work. 24But Pharaoh’s daughter came up out of the city of David unto her house which Solomon had built for her: then did he build Millo. 25And three times in a year did Solomon offer burnt-offerings and peace-offerings upon the altar which he built unto the Lord [Jehovah], and he burnt incense upon the altar that was before the Lord [Jehovah]. So he finished the house. 26And king Solomon made a navy of ships in Ezion-geber, which is besideEloth, on the shore of the Red sea, in the land of Edom. 27And Hiram sent in the navy his servants, shipmen that had knowledge of the sea, with the servantsof Solomon. 28And they came to Ophir, and fetched from thence gold, four hundred and twenty talents, and brought it to king Solomon. Exegetical and Critical1 Kings 9:1-2. And it came to pass when Solomon had finished, &c. Cf. 2 Chronicles 7:11-22. Solomon built, besides the temple and the palace, a number of other buildings, of which mention is made in 1 Kings 9:15; 1 Kings 9:19. Chron. says: all that he desired to build, for All which he was pleased to do;ηֵ ?ωֶׁ ?χ cannot, therefore, mean, as Thenius thinks, “pleasure-buildings,” as distinguished from necessary and useful ones, but rather from the words of 1 Kings 9:19, “in all the lands of his dominions,” must signify public works which he had undertaken for the benefit of the latter, as for instance (according to Ewald), aqueducts, reservoirs, &c. It is very distinctly stated here, that the divine appearance of 1 Kings 9:2 took place after the completion of the temple and palace, as well as several other buildings. But because the divine address. 1 Kings 9:3 sq., refers to the prayer at the temple-dedication, some have concluded, as we have already mentioned in our remarks on 1 Kings 8:1, that the appearance immediately followed the dedication; and that the latter, accordingly, occurred thirteen years after the completion of the temple. But there is no reason whatsoever for such a conclusion. The dedication had been performed in a spirit and manner that could have given no cause for such a sharp warning and severe threatening as are found in 1 Kings 9:6-9; and yet this threatening seems to be the principal thing in the divine discourse. It is very possible that it was occasioned by circumstances of a later date. The meaning in this case would be: I have indeed heard thy prayer at the dedication of the temple, and will do that for which thou hast besought me; but take warning. If ye turn away from me I will destroy Israel, &c. In like manner Seb. Schmidt: quod Deus distulerit hanc apparitionem usque ad tempus, quo Salomonis peccatum appropinquabat, ut non diu antequam fieret eum serio moneret. If this view be rejected we must think, with Keil (in the Commentary of 1846), that the writer wished to say all that he had to remark concerning Solomon’s different buildings, in the same place in our chapter, and “that he made the transition-formula, 1 Kings 9:1, at the same time the heading of the following section, in which not only is the divine appearance mentioned, but an account also is given of Solomon’s undertakings after he had finished all the buildings.” 1 Kings 9:3-9. And the Lord said unto him, &c. We may conclude from the words: “as at Gibeon,” that it took place, as then, in a dream (1 Kings 3:5). I have hallowed this house … my, &c., i. e., I have appointed it by my glory (1 Kings 8:10-11; Exodus 29:43 : αִּ ?λְ ?αֹ ?γִ ?ι) to be the place where I reveal my holiness (cf. Histor. and Ethic. 2, on chap, 6.). The parallel passage in 2 Chronicles 7:12, says: I have chosen this place to myself for a house of sacrifice; which means that, as Jehovah was known and honored as the Holy One, through sacrifice, so sacrifice was also His appointed means of atonement and sanctification for the sacrificer. The house was essentially a place of sanctification. Our author evidently left out what the Chron. adds in 1 Kings 9:13-14, because it is partly contained in 1 Kings 9:3. For 1 Kings 9:4-5 see on 1 Kings 2:4; 1 Kings 8:25. When David is here, as in 1 Kings 3:14, held up to Solomon as a model in keeping Jehovah’s commandments, it is not because David never broke a divine law, or never sinned, but because he kept inviolate the first and chief commandment upon which the existence of Israel depended (Exodus 20:2-5); because in every situation in which he was placed, in prosperity and adversity; amongst his compatriots or in banishment among the heathen, he remained loyal to Jehovah, and never discovered the slightest leaning to idolatry. The threat, 1 Kings 9:6-9, is the same as in Leviticus 26:14; Deuteronomy 8:19; Deuteronomy 28:15; Deuteronomy 28:37; Joshua 23:16, and is therefore not one that was made for the first time after the captivity, as some have said. Thenius rightly remarks that the style and living force of the address are proofs that “we have an ancient utterance before us here.” ξָ ?ωָׁ ?μ, 1 Kings 9:7, is a proverb which every one has in his mouth, a proverb of universal truth; every one will adduce Israel as a terrible example, and will mock them (Isaiah 14:4; Micah 2:4). Thenius and Bertheau, by reference to Micah 3:12; Jeremiah 26:18; Psalms 79:1, read instead of ςμιεο, in 1 Kings 9:8, ςιιν, i.e., ruins, and this certainly facilitates the translation of the word very much. But no MS. nor old translation reads it thus; and Chron. says expressly: “this house which is high” (2 Chronicles 7:21); we must, therefore, adhere to the text-reading. It cannot, however, be translated: and “this house, exalted as it may be, whosoever passes by the same, shall,” &c. (De Wette, von Meyer, and others), but only as Keil has it: “this house shall stand high, i.e. stand high in its destruction, a conspicuous example, a warning to all passers by.” The Vulgate translates, moreover, directly: et domus h�c erit in exemplum; but the Sept., more in the sense of the Chronicles: καὶ ὁ οἶκοςοὖτοςὁ ὑψηλός, πᾶςὁ διαπορευόμενοςἐκστήσεται. But we must supply what is understood, namely, that the house is destroyed. Keil thinks there is an allusion to Deuteronomy 24:19; Deuteronomy 28:1, in ςֶ ?μְ ?ιεֹ ?ο. 1 Kings 9:8-9 mean that what was threatened in the law in Deuteronomy 29:23-26, shall be fulfilled, ωָׁ ?ψַ ?χ does not denote a scornful hissing, but, as the connection with ιִ ?ωֹּׁ ?ν requires, a hissing of terror. Cf. Jeremiah 19:8; Jeremiah 49:17. 1 Kings 9:10. And it came to pass at the end of twenty years. In 1 Kings 9:2-9 the author has given an account which concerns the temple, the most important of all Solomon’s buildings. From 1 Kings 9:10 on, he gives further information respecting them; how Solomon was enabled to undertake his many and, in part, expensive buildings; that is to say, through his treaty with Hiram, 1 Kings 9:11-14; and also by the levy which he raised, 1 Kings 9:15-25; and finally by the voyage to Ophir, which brought him gold, 1 Kings 9:26-28 (Keil).—The seven years of the temple-building (1 Kings 6:38), and the thirteen years of the palace-building (1 Kings 7:1), are included in the twenty years of 1 Kings 9:10. There is no historical connection between the section 1 Kings 9:10-14, and that in 1 Kings 9:1-9. The heading in 1 Kings 9:1 is therefore repeated on account of the following collective remarks on the different buildings. 1 Kings 9:11-14. Now Hiram the king of Tyre, &c. The section in 1 Kings 9:11-14 is easily seen to be an excerpt, which has gaps not to be filled with perfect certainty. According to 1 Kings 5:1-6, Solomon had made a compact with Hiram, by the terms of which he was to indemnify him by the delivery of certain natural productions; no allusion is made here to any further recompense in the way of territory, nor to any payment of gold which Solomon had obtained from Hiram. It is plain, therefore, that the twenty cities were an equivalent for the 120 talents of gold mentioned in 1 Kings 9:14. Probably Hiram had at first agreed to the proposition; but upon a closer inspection he was not pleased with these towns, though he had to abide by his agreement. This is the only explanation of the fact that no answer from Solomon to the question in 1 Kings 9:13 is recorded. As we may conclude, from the account of their joint enterprise in 1 Kings 9:26 sq., that the friendly relations of the two kings continued, it is probable that Solomon satisfied him in some other way. The land δַ ?βָּ ?μִ ?ιμ is not the later province of Galilee in its whole extent, but only the northern part of it, originally belonging to Naphthali; it was called βְ ?μִ ?ιμδַ ?βֹּ ?ψִ ?ιν, district or country of the heathen (Isaiah 8:23; 1Ma 5:15). Solomon fixed upon it as an equivalent because it bordered on the territory of Tyre, and, as its name shows, was not so much inhabited by Israelites as by heathens (cf. 2 Samuel 24:7).—The ΰָ ?ηִ ?ι is not, as in 1 Kings 20:32, an expression of intimacy, but is a prince’s title (1Ma 10:18; 1Ma 11:30). The designation λָּ ?αεּ ?μ, which Hiram gave the land of the twenty cities, is also given to a place or district in the tribe of Asher (Joshua 19:17), and is derived from λָּ ?αַ ?μ, vincire, to chain, to close; thus describing the district as closed (but not pawned, as some allege), by virtue of its geographical position. This is much more natural than the explanation, according to which λָּ ?αεּ ?μ is from λְּ ?δַ ?αεּ ?μ, i.e, sicut id, quod evanuit tanquam nihil (Maurer, Gesenius), or formed by λָּ and αַּ ?μ = αεּ ?μ (Thenius), and meaning “As nothing.” How could Hiram give the district a permanent name, which contained rather a mockery of himself than of the land? The assertion of Josephus (Antiq. 8, 5, 3), that Χαλαβών means οὐκἀρέσκον in Ph�nician, is utterly without foundation. We have no need to seek the reason of the name in Hiram’s exclamation: “What cities are these,” &c.; the second sentence of 1 Kings 9:13 is quite independent of the first. In order to reconcile the conflicting assertion in 2 Chronicles 8:2 (that Hiram gave cities to Solomon, who peopled them with Israelites), with the passage under consideration, it is generally supposed that Solomon had, in the first place, given up twenty cities to Hiram, but as they did not please Hiram, took them back again (Keil). But πϊο cannot, in itself, mean to give back, and our passage also, which is the fullest, would in this case be quite silent about what it intends to state, namely, that Hiram had received an equivalent. Our passage cannot, at any rate, be disproved by the short, abrupt assertion of Chron. The question may be asked, too, if these cities were the same as in Kings. Perhaps later tradition, which Chron. follows, changed the circumstances so, because people could not believe that Solomon should have given up Israelitish land to Tyre, contrary to the law, Leviticus 25:23 (cf. Bertheau on 2 Chronicles 8:1). 1 Kings 9:15-19. And this is the reason of the levy, which, &c. It was chiefly through Hiram’s aid that Solomon was enabled to undertake his buildings, but it was also a great assistance to him that he could use the Canaanites that were left in the land to perform this tribute labor. It seems from Judges 9:6 and 2 Kings 12:21, that δַ ?ξִּ ?μεֹ ?ΰ does not mean merely a wall of earth (filling up), but a building (αֵּ ?ιϊ) or a collection of buildings that serve to fortify a place, i.e., fortifications, rampart, citadel. David had made such for Zion (2 Samuel 5:9), and Solomon renewed it, cf. 1 Kings 11:27; 2 Chronicles 32:5. “It can only have been where Zion rises highest, and consequently most needs fortification” (Thenius). The walls of Jerusalem do not here mean the walls of Zion, the upper city, but those of the lower city (see on 1 Kings 3:1), so that the temple mountain was included. Hazoc, a town in the tribe of Naphthali, formerly a Canaanitish royal city, was not far from the northern frontier of Palestine, and was therefore “built,” i.e., fortified by Solomon, Joshua 19:36; 2 Kings 15:29. Megiddo (cf. on 1 Kings 4:12) lay in an important military position, for it formed an entrance to the plain of Jezreel and the Jordan (meadows) valley, thus being the way from the sea-coast to central and north Palestine. Gezer, also once a Canaanitish royal city, between Beth-horon and the Mediterranean sea; it lay in the southerly portion of the tribe of Ephraim (Joshua 16:3). What Hazor was to the north and Megiddo to the central part of Palestine, Gezer and the lower Beth-horon were to the south; an army could much more easily penetrate to the capital from those places, than from the mountains of Judah (cf. Thenius on the place). 1 Kings 9:16 is a parenthesis, and tells how Gezer came into Solomon’s possession. Probably, it was the capital of a district that extended to the coast, into which Pharaoh entered from the sea. The great importance of the situation of this place made its possession very valuable to Solomon. Whether the town was built again immediately after it was destroyed, or not until Solomon’s time, is uncertain; at any rate, he fortified it. Baalath is a town in the tribe of Dan (Joshua 19:44), according to Josephus (Antiq.viii. 6, 1), not far from Beth-horon and Gezer; it has been wrongly asserted to be identical with Baal-gad at Hermon (Joshua 11:17), because the directly following ϊָּ ?ξָ ?ψ is = to ϊַּ ?γְ ?ξֹ ?ψ according to 2 Chronicles 8:4, and the later denotes the large and rich city of Palmyra, situated between Damascus and the Euphrates (Keil). But the connection of ϊξψ with Baalath, Gezer, and Beth-horon indisputably denotes a southern city, especially as the more northern fortresses, Hazor and Megiddo, were named before. ϊָּ ?ξָ ?ψ is also named as a southern place in Ezekiel 47:19; Ezekiel 48:28. The addition “in the wilderness, in the land,” can only mean, in the wilderness that lay in Palestine, which is the wilderness of Judah; it is therefore unwarrantable to add ΰֲ ?ψָ ?ν, i.e., Syria, after αָּ ?ΰָ ?ψֶ ?υ as some have done. Thus Thamar was the most southern fortress, and “commanded the passes which led to the most frequented routes from Edom to Jerusalem” (Thenius). A fortified city was very necessary and important in this very place, and it is inexplicable that Solomon should have left the south without any fortress, and yet have fortified the distant city of Palmyra, beyond the confines of Palestine. As in all doubtful cases, so here the statement of the books of the Kings merits the preference over that of the Chron., which has given occasion to the k’ri. Besides, ϊַּ ?γְ ?ξֹ ?ψ occurs nowhere else, and it is much more probable that ϊָּ ?ξָ ?ψ has been changed into the famous ϊַּ ?γְ ?ξֹ ?ψ than the reverse. The account of the fortresses that protected the land is followed (1 Kings 9:19) by an account of the buildings required for storage of victuals and materials of war. The cities of store were not dιpτts of merchandise (Ewald), but magazines of produce of the soil reserved for times of need (2 Chronicles 17:12; 2 Chronicles 32:28). For the cities for chariots and horsemen see 1 Kings 10:26. 1 Kings 9:20-23. And all the people that were left, &c. 1 Kings 9:20 refers back to 1 Kings 9:15, and after it has been stated for what purpose Solomon, raised the levy, it now informs us whom it included. Upon ξַ ?ρΞςֹ ?αֵ ?γ, i.e., slave-service, see 1 Kings 5:13. ςֲ ?αָ ?γָ ?ιε, 1 Kings 9:22, means chiefly, officials of the war-department; ωָׂ ?ψָ ?ιε chief officers of the army; and ωָׁ ?μִ ?ωָׁ ?ιεroyal adjutants and life-guardsmen. Gesenius, De Wette, and others translate the latter: chariot warriors, or chariot-driver, because there were always three of them standing in one chariot; this, however, does not admit of proof, and τριστάτης, as the Sept. usually renders it, does not mean chariot warriors. In every place where the word occurs in our books (2 Kings 7:2; 2 Kings 17:19; 2 Kings 15:25; 2 Kings 9:25) it denotes the royal staff; in 2 Kings 10:25, the ψָ ?φִ ?ιν and ωָׁ ?μִ ?ωִׁ ?ιν are the king’s body-guard; and in 2 Samuel 23:8 (1 Chronicles 10:11) still less is there reference to chariot warriors. The old glossaries explain τριστάτας, τοὺςπαρὰ χεῖρατοῦ βασιλέως. The reason of the name cannot be given with certitude. For the 550 superintendents of the work see above on 1 Kings 5:16. 1 Kings 9:24. But Pharaoh’s daughter came up. The two facts recorded in 1 Kings 9:24-25 are by no means irrelevant and disconnected, as they appear; but plainly refer back to 1 Kings 3:1-4. They mean that the wants which were felt in the beginning of Solomon’s reign ceased with the completion of all the buildings (1 Kings 9:1; 1 Kings 9:10); the king’s consort took possession of the part of the royal palace that was for her use; and Solomon no longer sacrificed on the heights, but always in the temple he had built.ΰַ ?κְ, 1 Kings 9:24, is here the same as in Genesis 27:30; Judges 7:19. It does not follow, because Solomon built Millo immediately after his consort repaired to her dwelling, that the former was to be a “protection to the harem” (Thenius), for there is no proof that the “house of Pharaoh’s daughter” was the harem, and Millo was evidently intended to protect the upper city. 1 Kings 9:25. And three times in a year did Solomon offer, that is, on the three chief festivals, when the whole people assembled at the sanctuary (Exodus 23:17; Exodus 34:23). These were not ordinary sacrifices, but were especially solemn official ones, which the king, as head of the theocracy, offered. The words εְ ?δַ ?χְ ?θֵ ?ιψΰִ ?ϊּ ?εֹ ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψμִ ?τְ ?πֵ ?ιιְ ?δεָֹ ?δ have been very differently understood. Stier translates like 5. Meyer, “and he burnt of it what was fitting,” which is wrong, because “that was before Jehovah” never means, what was fitting. Maurer’s interpretation is very far-fetched: et adolebat apud eum (sc. Jova) id, quod coram Jova erat (sc. suffimentum). Ewald renders it: “he burnt incense alone there, where one stands before Jahve, i.e., in the holy place.” But what does burning incense alone mean? Thenius asserts ΰωψ to be a false “insertion,” and translates: he brought with him (i.e., himself) offerings of incense before the Lord (i. e., upon the altar of incense in the sanctuary). ΰϊε is supposed to mean: “he, without the mediation of another,” so that “we have here an evidence that Solomon, at least, exercised in person the functions of the high-priest.” But we cannot so easily throw ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ out of the text; and ΰִ ?ϊּ ?εֹ never means: he himself in his own person; so that the supposed “evidence” falls to the ground. Finally, Keil translates, because δַ ?χְ ?θֵ ?ιψ is not pr�ter. but infinabsol.: “and, indeed, setting fire to (the sacrifice) at the (altar), which was before the Lord;” but δַ ?χְ ?θִ ?ιψ always means “to burn incense” when it stands as here, without an object; besides, the sentence evidently means more than the immediately preceding one, which speaks of burnt-offerings, in the case of which burning is of course implied. It is certainly true that ΰֵ ?ϊ here, as well as immediately after in 1 Kings 9:26, and so often elsewhere, means “with, by,” and the suffix εֹ must be referred to the preceding ξִ ?ζְ ?αֵ ?ηַ; but it is incorrect to make the clause “which was before Jehovah,” mean the altar of incense which was so described in Leviticus 16:12; Leviticus 16:18, and thus to conclude that Solomon burnt incense “in the sanctuary.” As 2 Chronicles 26:16 shows, the priests alone might do this, even in later times; the kings were strictly prohibited. If an exception had been made in the case of Solomon, it could not have been noticed only casually and vaguely. That clause by no means exclusively indicates the altar of incense, but, as 1 Kings 8:64 shows, the “brazen altar,” too, and this it is which is meant here. According to Numbers 15:1-12 a meat-offering was offered with every burnt and peace offering; and for the former incense was essential, according to Leviticus 2:1-2, which was wholly burnt (1 Kings 9:16). “Incense,” therefore, was not only “offered” on the altar of incense in the sanctuary, but also on the altar of burnt-offering, and χְ ?θֹ ?ψֶ ?ϊ in Psalms 141:2 is synonymous with ξִ ?πְ ?ηָ ?δ. This passage, then, says nothing remarkable respecting Solomon, but only that he presented his meat-offering three times a year, as well as his burnt and peace offering. The parallel passage of Chron. therefore does not mention the latter expressly, and only says: “Then Solomon offered burnt-offerings unto the Lord on the altar of the Lord, which he had built before the porch … three times in the year” (2 Chronicles 8:12-13). The concluding sentence εְ ?ωִׁ ?μַּ ?νΰֶ ?ϊΞδַ ?αָּ ?ιִ ?ϊ does not mean: “thus the house was finished” (Luther), for this was not done by sacrifice and incense, neither does ωִׁ ?μַּ ?ν mean finished, but, to make perfect, whole. The house Solomon had built only became all it was designed to be, i.e.,μְ ?αֵ ?ιϊζְ ?αַ ?η, a house of sacrifice (2 Chronicles 7:12), a central sanctuary, in that he presented now all the offerings on the festivals which were appointed to be celebrated by the whole people (Leviticus 23:14; Deuteronomy 26:16); cf. 2 Chronicles 8:16. Bφttcher: he brought the temple, as God’s house and place of prayer, to its full meaning. 1 Kings 9:26-28. And king Solomon made a navy of ships. This is told here because Solomon received through these ships the large amount of gold which he required, partly for his splendid buildings, and partly to carry on his expensive works. Ezion-geber, a sea-port of Edom, situated on the Elanitic arm of the Arabian gulf, Numbers 33:35; Deuteronomy 2:8. Elath is the modern Akabah on the eastern bay of the same gulf, and was incorporated with the Israelitish kingdom by David, 2 Samuel 8:14. Both cities were of the highest importance in a commercial view (cf. Winer, R.-W.-B. I., s. 313, 361). The Ph�nician sailors were accounted the most skilful, and were known even in distant lands (Winer II., s. 406). Upon the fleet which sailed from Ezion-geber Chron. gives (1 Kings 8:18): “and Hiram sent him by the hands of his servants, ships;” and as there was no way of conveyance by land, nor means of shipping from Africa, this must only mean (as Keil remarks) “that Hiram gave the ships for this voyage (to Ophir), i.e., he ordered his people at Ezion-geber to build them, and sent all the requisite material not forthcoming at that place.” For the situation of Ophir see on 1 Kings 10:22. Instead of 420 talents of gold, Chron. gives 450; this is, no doubt, only a change of the ciphers λ (20) and π (50). Historical and Ethical1. This section now before us closes the account of Solomon’s buildings, which account embraces the largest portion of the history of this reign. Never would the narrative have dwelt so long upon them, had all these building-undertakings stood outside of all relation to the theocratic kingdom. None of all the kings of Israel “built” so much as Solomon, who is described for that reason, in the history of Israel, as the king of peace, the peace-prince. His buildings were no pleasure and luxury structures, but were designed to further the greatness, power, and splendor of the kingdom, while at the same time they gave evidence thereof. First he built the house of Jehovah, which formed the heart and centre of the whole theocracy; then the palace, i.e., the house, “which was to shed glory on the second power in Israel, the kingdom which was then reaching its highest summit” (Ewald); then he fortified the house by Millo, and surrounded Jerusalem, the capital, with walls; furthermore he made fortresses and store-cities throughout the whole country, in north, middle, and south Palestine; and, finally, he himself began ship-building, so as to bring his kingdom into communication with rich and distant countries. All this, however, he conducted so as to cause no injury to his own kingdom, but rather so as to bring it to a height of prosperity that it never before or afterwards attained. The time of the ωָׁ ?μεֹ ?ν and with that of the “building” in its widest sense, came on ωְׁ ?μֹ ?ξֹ ?δ; his building enterprises were the natural result of the stage of development at which the kingdom was; he built to build up the kingdom, thus fulfilling his mission in the history of the theocracy. 2. The appearance with which Solomon was favored after the completion of his many grand edifices, as the text clearly and positively says (see Exegetical upon 1 Kings 9:1 sq.), is expressly placed in relation to and contrasted with that which he had in the beginning of his reign, at Gibeon (1 Kings 3:5). The Lord had given him not only what he had asked for, but also riches, dignity, and fame. He had succeeded in all that he had undertaken; not only did he himself stand at the summit of fortune, but his people had never before reached such a great and prosperous state, being blessed with peace and quiet without, and with prosperity and comfort within (1 Kings 4:20; 1 Kings 5:4 sq.; 1 Kings 8:66). Then came the second appearing, which contained with the remembrance of the prayer answered at the dedication of the temple, and the promise of blessing in the future, a threatening and warning very wholesome, and even necessary now for Solomon himself, who, though hitherto loyal and faithful to the Lord, was open to the temptation to fall away, as the after-history shows, and whose heart the searcher of hearts knew better than he did himself (cf. 1 Kings 8:39). But it was also needed (the discourse ceases to concern Solomon alone after 1 Kings 9:6) by that everrestless, fickle people which in the enjoyment of the greatest happiness were in danger of forgetting their Lord and God, and of relapsing into the idolatrous worship which was more agreeable to the flesh. Hence it appears, too, that the words in 1 Kings 9:6-9 are the chief part of the divine discourse, and not an addition invented by the author of these books, after the destruction of the temple, as Ewald and Eisenlohr assert. 3. The divine threatening was literally fulfilled. No people in the world ever became such a “proverb.” Singular as it stands in the world-history in its election, it is equally so in its rejection and ruin. It has remained, to the present day, the living witness of the saving love and grace of God on the one hand, and, on the other, of holiness, truth, and retributive justice. By its story it preaches to all nations the eternal truth which the prophet Azariah proclaimed to king Asa: “If ye forsake him, He will forsake you” (2 Chronicles 15:2). When, in consequence of their complete departure from God, the temple built by Solomon was destroyed, Israel ceased to be an independent kingdom, and the people were banished; and when, after the second temple was built, they rejected David’s great Son, their promised, true, and eternal king, in Whom all nations of the earth were to be blessed, this temple was destroyed never to be rebuilt, and the people were scattered through all the world, ceasing forever to be an independent kingdom and nation, everywhere despised, reviled, and persecuted. 4. The various building-enterprises of Solomon, as well as the arrangements more or less connected with them, were practical evidence that the Lord had given him in unusual measure the wisdom for ruling and skill in affairs which he had implored in the beginning of his reign (1 Kings 3:7-9). He knew how to procure the material, in part costly, which was requisite for his buildings, as well also the requisite architects and builders, by a compact (favorable to himself) with his Tyrian neighbor; and repaid him for the quantity of gold he supplied him with without heaping oppressive debts on his people, but by surrendering a district of little value near the Tyrian frontier, and almost altogether inhabited by strangers to Israel. He made use of the descendants of the subjugated Canaanites who were left in the land, to execute those public works which were designed to protect the country and further its material prosperity; thus sparing his own people, who, like every other free people, had no slavish work, but performed only military service. He built a separate palace for his consort, Pharaoh’s daughter, and by this means secured the favor of his powerful neighbors, the Egyptians. That the temple he had built might become and remain the central place of worship, and thus a bond of unity and communion for the entire people, he himself, as head and representative of the theocracy, offered solemn sacrifices on the three great yearly festivals, when all the tribes met. In order not only to meet the expenses of his many and costly buildings, but also to teach commerce to his people, who had hitherto almost entirely lived by agriculture, he managed to engage the sea-faring and skilled Ph�nicians to build a common fleet, which opened the way to other seas and lands for them, and was the source of great riches to his own kingdom. Homiletical and Practical1 Kings 9:1-9. The second appearance of Jehovah to Solomon: (a) the point of time at which it occurred, 1 Kings 9:1-2 (see Histor. and Ethic); (b) the object which it had, 1 Kings 9:3-9 (Promise and warning).—In the divine address to Solomon the goodness and the severity of God are shown (Romans 11:22): his goodness in the establishment of His promises (1 Kings 9:3-5), his severity in the chastisement of backsliding (1 Kings 9:6-9). 1 Kings 9:3, Wόrt. Summ.: A most powerful thing is a devout, humble, and believing prayer, for thereby man beseeches God to grant him his desire (John 16:23).—To every house where the name of God is truly honored applies the divine saying: Mine eyes and my heart shall dwell there forever. 1 Kings 9:6-9. Because men endure uninterrupted prosperity with much greater difficulty than they do crosses and afflictions, therefore, when they are at the summit of their wishes, and their hearts’ desire, it is most necessary that the grave importance of God and of eternity should be held up before them, so that they may not fall into security, and forget to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling; for what availeth it a man, &c. (Matthew 16:26). He who thinketh he standeth, let him take heed lest he fall (1 Corinthians 10:12).—The more abundantly God displays his mercy and love towards an individual or towards a nation, so much the more fearful will be the righteous sentence if the riches of His mercy are despised.—In happy and prosperous days forget not that the Lord tells us: Watch and pray, lest ye enter into temptation.—How many men, how many families, how many nations blessed in every respect, have come to a fearful and shameful end! Askest thou: Wherefore is this? the only reply is: Because they have forsaken the Lord their God; for what a man sows that shall he also reap.—Let him who will not recognize a divine justice turn to the twice-destroyed temple of Jerusalem, and to the world-scattered people who have become a by-word amongst all nations. 1 Kings 9:10-14. The demeanor of Solomon and Hiram towards each other (a) Friends and neighbors should be of one mind, and mutually ready to help each other. (b) Let not him who has kindly aided thee with his substance be long awaiting the proofs of thy gratitude, and render to him more rather than less even if he need it not. (c) Regard not so much the gift which thou receivest as the disposition of the giver, remembering always: it is more blessed to give than to receive.—From the heathen Hiram many Christians may learn, even where real cause for dissatisfaction and just claims exist, to state the disproportion between gifts and recompenses with friendly words, and in a kindly manner.—Friends, who through long years have aided each other, must not be estranged, even when one thinks himself injured by the other, but must strive to come to a thorough understanding and agreement. 1 Kings 9:15-23. The plans and arrangements of Solomon for the benefit and protection of the land (a) First he built the house of the Lord, forth from which would come all salvation for Israel; then he built the store-houses for times of need and famine, and as protection against the enemies of the kingdom. A wise prince cares alike for the religious and spiritual, and for the material and temporal well-being of his people, and in times of peace does his utmost to provide against every danger which may assail the land, either from without or within. For this a nation can never be grateful enough, and should uphold him with readiness and might, instead of murmuring and complaining, as is often the case, (b) Solomon’s plan was, in his undertakings to spare his nation all servile labor, as far as possible. Therefore, for all compulsory service he employed the conquered enemy, who, as such, were slaves. A wise prince will never impose burdensome taxes or heavy labor upon his people, and reigns much more willingly over freemen than over slaves; but a good and loyal people does not make freedom a pretext for villany, and ever follows the king’s call for arms when the defence of “Father-land” is concerned. For Israel can no more say with truth—The Lord is my rock, my fortress, and my deliverer (Psalms 18:3), if all the nation does not aid in its defences and fortifications.—In the kingdom of the true and eternal prince of peace bondage will cease, and all men shall obtain the freedom of the children of God. 1 Kings 9:25. Solomon sets a good example before all the people; he not only builds the temple, but also frequents it regularly. It is as much the duty of the highest as of the lowest to hear the word of God, to pray, and to celebrate the Sacrament. 1 Kings 9:26 sq. A wise government seeks not only to preserve existing prosperity, but also to discover new sources thereof.—Many there are who travel over land and sea to seek gold, and to become rich, and forget that the Lord hath said: I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich (Revelation 3:18). Expeditions into far countries must serve not only to obtain gold and treasure, but also to carry thither the treasure which neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal (Matthew 6:19 sq.)—Commerce may become a rich blessing for a nation, but a greedy thirst for gold often leads to extreme luxury and neglect of God, as is many times exemplified in the history of Israel. Footnotes: 1 Kings 9:3.—[The Sept. here insert, “I have done to thee according to all thy prayer.” 1 Kings 9:5.—[Many MSS. replace the preposition ςַ ?μ by ΰֶ ?μ, and certainly, if the former is the true reading, it is used in the sense of the latter, as is frequently the case, cf. Gesenius, s. v. A. 4. 1 Kings 9:6.—[The Heb. is here in the usual intensive form ωׁ ?εֹ ?αϊְּ ?ωֻׁ ?αεּ ?ο, which is preserved in all the versions, while the English expression implies the slightest dereliction instead of complete apostasy. 1 Kings 9:6.—[The Sept. put Moses instead of the personal pronoun as the nominative. 1 Kings 9:8.—[The words at and which are not in the Heb. The latter is given in the Heb. of 2 Chronicles 7:21, and supplied here by the Chald. All the other versions give house in the nom. and omit the relative. The Syr., followed by the Arab., has “this house shall be destroyed.” Vulg. “shall be for an example.” 1 Kings 9:9.— [According to the Sept. the time of this vision is determined as after the completion of the palace by the addition to this verse, “Then Solomon brought up the daughter of Pharaoh out of the city of David into his house which he had built for himself in these days.” 1 Kings 9:13.—[The Sept. say he called them ὅριον—coast, boundary, omitting the name Cabul altogether. They doubtless read βְּ ?αεּ ?μ= border for λָּ ?αεּ ?μ. 1 Kings 9:15.—[1 Kings 9:15-25 are transposed by the Vat. Sept. from their place here and inserted after 1 Kings 10:22. 1 Kings 9:18.—The k’thib ϊָּ ?ξָ ?ψ is decidedly to be preferred to the k’ri ϊַּ ?γְ ?ξֹ ?ψ. [In connection with this and with the author’s remarks on this name in the Exeg. Com. the following facts are to be borne in mind: the reading of the k’ri ϊַּ ?γְ ?ξֹ ?ψ is found in many MSS. instead of the present k’thib ϊξψ and in our printed editions a space is left in the text for the missing γ while the vowel points are those of Tadmor. All the versions, except the Sept., give either Tadmor or its equivalent Palmyra; the Sept. gives according to the Alex. Θερμάθ, which shows that the γ was before them, or according to the Vat. in 1 Kings 10:22 ’Ιεθερμάθ. Keil, who adopts this rendering, explains the words “in the land” (which the author considers an insuperable difficulty) by the remark of Tremellius in regno Salomonis et intra fines a Deo designates, connecting the word with “built” in 1 Kings 9:17. The expression in 2 Chronicles 8:4, is simply “Tadmor in the wilderness;” but the previous verse has recorded his successful attack upon Hamath-zobah, and it is thus implied that Tadmor was in that region. 1 Kings 9:19.—[Many MSS., followed by the Chald. and Vulg., insert “all.” 1 Kings 9:21.—[Until all the buildings were finished. 1 Kings 9:26.—[The Sept., Chald., and Arab., both here and in 1 Kings 9:27, have ship in the singular. 1 Kings 9:28.—[The Vat, (not Alex.) Sept. reads a hundred and twenty, while 2 Chronicles 8:18 has four hundred and fifty.—F. G.] FOURTH SECTION The Fame And The Magnificence Of Solomon1 Kings 10A.—The Visit of the Queen of Sheba1 Kings 10:1-131 And when the queen of Sheba heard of the fame of Solomon concerning thename of the Lord [Jehovah], she came to prove him with hard questions. 2And she came to Jerusalem with a very great train, with camels that bare spices, and very much gold, and precious stones: and when she was come to Solomon, shecommuned with him of all that was in her heart. 3And Solomon told her all her questions: there was not any thing [a question] hid from the king, whichhe told her not. 4And when the queen of Sheba had seen all Solomon’s wisdom,and the house that he had built, 5and the meat of his table, and the sitting of his servants, and the attendance of his ministers, and their apparel, and his cupbearers, and his ascent by which he went up unto the house of the Lord6[Jehovah]; there was no more spirit in her. And she said to the king, It was a true report that I heard in mine own land of thy Acts 7 and of thy Wisdom 7 Howbeit I believed not the words,7 until I came, and mine eyes had seen it; and behold, the half was not told me: thy wisdom and prosperity exceedeth8the fame which I heard. Happy are thy men, happy are these thy servants,which stand continually before thee, and that hear thy Wisdom 9 Blessed be the Lord [Jehovah] thy God, which delighted in thee, to set thee on the throne of Israel: because the Lord [Jehovah] loved Israel forever, therefore made he theeking, to do judgment and justice. 10And she gave the king an hundred and twenty talents of gold, and of spices very great store, and precious stones: there came no more such abundance of spices as these which the queen of Sheba gaveto king Solomon; 11And the navy also of Hiram, that brought gold from Ophir, brought in from Ophir great plenty of almug trees, and precious stones.12And the king made of the almug trees pillars for the house of the Lord [Jehovah], and for the king’s house, harps also and psalteries for singers: therecame no such almug trees, nor were seen unto this day. 13And king Solomon gave unto the queen of Sheba all her desire, whatsoever she asked, besides that which Solomon gave her of his royal bounty. So she turned and went to her own country, she and her servants. Exegetical and Critical1 Kings 10:1-3. And when the queen of Sheba.Cf. 2 Chronicles 9:1-12. The name of Solomon became famous far and near, through the trading ships that were mentioned in 1 Kings 9:26 sq. A proof is here given. ωְׁ ?αָ ?ΰ, Sheba, is a country in Arabia Felix (not to be confounded with ρְ ?αָ ?ΰ, i. e., Meroλ in Ethiopia, as Josephus has it), on the Red Sea, rich in spices, frankincense, gold, and precious stones (Jeremiah 6:20; Ezekiel 27:22; Isaiah 60:6; Psalms 72:15). “The Sabζans, whose capital city was Sheba, had become, through their extensive commerce, the richest nation among the Arabians” (Winer, R.-W.-B. II. s. 405; Duncker, Gesch. des Alterth. I. s. 140 sq.). The Queen of this country, who visited Solomon, was certainly the reigning one; according to Claudian in Eutrop. i. 132, the Sabζans were generally governed by queens, but this has no historical foundation. Whether she were widowed or unmarried is, like her name, uncertain. Her fame spread with and through that of Solomon, who was the beau-ideal of a king throughout the East, for even the Koran mentions her visit to Solomon (Sur. 27), and there are many legends about it among the Arabians and Abyssinians. The former name her Balkis, and the latter Maqueda, and even say that she had a son by Solomon, named Menihelek (or Melimelek), who was the ancestor of the Abyssinian kings (comp. Winer). These fables of after-times need no refutation. The words μְ ?ωֵׁ ?νιְ ?δεָֹ ?δ, which are wanting in Chron., are by no means unsuitable or superfluous (Movers); they exist in all the old translations, but have been very differently understood. Propter nomen Jeh. (Le Clerc) is least like it; neither is De Wette right: to Jehovah’s honor; nor this, “the fame of what Solomon had become by Jehovah’s favor” (Gesenius); nor, the fame “that Solomon had acquired through the glory of his God” (Ewald); nor yet, “which he had attained, by Jehovah glorifying himself so in him” (Weil). The expression involuntarily reminds us of the μְ ?ωֵׁ ?νιְ ?δεָֹ ?δ 3:2; 5:17, 19; 8:17, 18, 19, 20, 44, 48; 2 Samuel 7:13. The house built to Jehovah’s name was the first and principal reason of Solomon’s fame; and was what the Queen had chiefly heard of, in which she had seen, like Hiram, an evidence of wisdom. This she desired to prove for herself. To prove him with hard questions. To clothe wisdom in the form of proverbs, which were often dark and enigmatical on account of their brevity, is a primitive custom of the East, especially among the Arabians, who are very rich in proverbs; the collection of the Meidani, for instance, which contains 6,000 proverbs, and the Makami of the Hariri show this. 1 Kings 4:32 says that 3,000 are by Solomon; and those in his name, that are now extant, include many that are enigmatical. We do not mean enigmas in the sense of those that used to be propounded at meals or otherwise (cf. Rosenmόller A. u. N. Morgenland with Judges 14:12); the Queen did not want any trial of skill in enigmas with Solomon, but wished to propound important and difficult questions to him. Solomon did not fail in a single answer (δִ ?βִּ ?ιψ 1 Kings 10:3 is solving riddles in Judges 14:19, and interpreting dreams in Genesis 41:24; Daniel 5:12). 1 Kings 10:4-8. And when the Queen had seen all Solomon’s wisdom. Solomon’s wisdom was shown, not only in his answers and discourses (1 Kings 10:3), but in all his arrangements, in the whole constitution of the court, and manner of his government; whithersoever the Queen looked, she beheld evidence of his wonderful gifts and powers of thought. The “house” is not the Temple, but the royal palace, as the following words concerning the court-appointments show. “The meat of his table” is the royal table, the splendor of which is especially described. The sitting of his servants, and the attendance of his ministers, means “the civil officers who sat at the royal table, and the servants, among whom were the “cup-bearers,” in attendance upon them (Bertheau). These three descriptions have nothing to do with localities, with the ministers’ seats, the place where the servants stood, nor the preparations for the cup-bearing (Weil); nor the order of the offices, and the rooms of the lower servants (Thenius); for the parallel passage in 2 Chronicles 9:4 shows that ξַ ?ωְׁ ?χָ ?ιε are persons. It is more doubtful how we are to understand the following words εְ ?ςֹ ?μָ ?ϊεֹ, &c.; Chron. has ςֲ ?μִ ?ιָּ ?ϊεֹ instead. All the translations give for both passages: “and the burnt-offerings, which he offered in Jehovah’s house;” this would mean the solemn and magnificent rites of the Temple worship. But it would not agree with the description just preceding, of the royal table and court appointments, the servants and cup-bearers; and above all, the splendid Temple building would have deserved mention; it would be necessary, too, to alter the text in both places; and εְ ?ςֹ ?μֹ ?ϊָ ?ε should be read, yet we have no grounds for doing this. If this were the right reading, the Chronicler, who was so partial to the details concerning the worship, would not have taken ςֲ ?μִ ?ιָּ ?ϊεֹ instead. Most modern translators (Keil, Winer, Ewald), therefore, give ascent for ςֹ ?μָ ?ϊεֹ; meaning the particular ascent of steps that led from the palace to the Temple ; and ςֹ ?μָ ?δEzekiel 40:26 has the same signification. This ascent of steps belonged to the palace, and very likely struck the eye, as it is here expressly mentioned; it also appears from 2 Kings 16:18 that the king had a peculiar entrance of that kind to the Temple. The concluding words of 1 Kings 10:5 are literally, and there was no more breath in her; as the breath goes in terror (Joshua 2:11; Joshua 5:1), so it also goes in cases of extreme astonishment. 1 Kings 10:9-10. Blessed be the Lord thy God. We cannot conclude from these words that the Queen had formally confessed the One God of Israel, but rather that it meant what we have already remarked of a similar expression of Hiram, 1 Kings 5:7. What she saw and heard excited her wonder to such a degree, that it seemed to her directly imparted by the God Solomon adored, and for whom she became filled with reverence. The presents which the Queen, according to custom, made, consisted of those articles in which her land most abounded, and for which it was most famous. The spices were principally the famous Arabian balm, which was largely exported; according to Josephus (Ant.8, 6, 6) the balm-shrub was introduced into Palestine by the Queen of Sheba (Winer, R.-W.-B. I. s. 132). 1 Kings 10:11-13. And the navy also of Hiram, &c. The mention of the costly presents leads the author to the remark, 1 Kings 10:11-12, which may be regarded as a parenthesis, that such articles of luxury were introduced in abundance into Jerusalem by commerce; and the (fragrant) spices reminded him of the equally great quantities of sandal-wood that Solomon received through Hiram’s ships. This wood, which is indigenous to India, “was highly prized throughout the East for its fragrance, and partly was carved into images, partly used for fine utensils, and partly used for incense-burning” (Winer, II. s. 379). ξִ ?ρְ ?ςָ ?γ (1 Kings 10:12) only occurs here, and its meaning is not quite certain. The root ρָ ?ςַ ?γ means, to support, make sure. Thenius calls it “supports of the resting,” i.e., seats made by Solomon on the walls of a palace or Temple room; but we do not find the slightest mention of such a Temple room anywhere. As Chron. has ξְ ?ρִ ?μּ ?εֹ ?ϊ (from ρָ ?μַ ?μ, to prepare the way, Psalms 68; Psalms 5) instead of our word, Bertheau thinks that ρςγ like φςγ is to advance, so that both expressions really denote the same thing; i.e., the “way of entrance, ascent.” Jarchi gives ξρςγ by ψφτδi.e., wainscoting on the floor (tessellated pavements); and this seems the best. The translation, steps with banisters (Keil), has no authority. λִּ ?πּ ?εֹ ?ψ and πֶ ?αֶ ?μ must be stringed instruments with sounding-boards; they are mentioned together in Psalms 71:22; Psalms 108:3; Psalms 150:3; we know nothing certain of their natures. Which Solomon gave her of his royal bounty (1 Kings 10:13), i.e., besides the things he presented her with according to the custom of kings, he gave her everything else she desired. We can scarcely think this included, as the other translators think, any literary productions. It is very doubtful whether the Ethiopian Christians “concluded rightly from these words that their Queen had a son by Solomon” (Bertheau). Historical and Ethical1. The section before us does not, by any means, contain a story accidentally and arbitrarily inserted here, which, however beautiful it may be, might be left out without doing harm, because it does not bear upon the history of the Israelite kings. How high the significance which has always been attached to the event recorded is, is shown by the fact that the remembrance of it has been preserved outside of Palestine for thousands of years, and that two ancient peoples, the Arabians and Abyssinians, revered the Queen of Sheba as the mother of their line of kings; the Abyssinian tradition making the son she bore to Solomon the founder of the ancient Ethiopian kingdom. And when the Lord, from out the treasure of the Old Testament history, chooses this narrative, and presents it for the shaming of his contemporaries, this presupposes that it was known to and specially esteemed by all other nations. It is, therefore, something more than an ordinary visit of royal etiquette. Sabζa was reckoned to be the richest, most highly favored and glorious land in the ancient world, and therefore was given the unique name of “The Happy.” Agatharchides names the Sabζans γένοςπαντοίαςκύριονεὐδαιμονίας. Now when the Queen came with a splendid retinue to visit this distant land, and from no political design, but merely to see and hear the famous king; and when she, the sovereign of the most fortunate country in the world, declared that what she had seen and heard exceeded all her expectations; this surely was the greatest homage Solomon could have met, homage that no king had ever yet received; and the result was that Solomon was regarded as the ideal of a wise, great, and happy king, throughout the Eastern world. The visit of the Queen of Sheba marks, then, the splendor and climax of the Old Testament Kingdom, and marks an essential moment in the history of the covenant as well as of Solomon. This story is therefore in its right place, following, as it does, the account of the great and glorious works Solomon made for his country and which acquired for him so much fame. 2. The context explains the kind of “wisdom” that the Queen sought and found in Solomon. It was not much learning; neither were the “riddles” that Solomon solved metaphysical problems, nor mere conversation and play of wit. Besides the answers he gave to her questions, his works, appointments, and arrangements convinced the Queen of his great wisdom, in which she recognized the working of a peculiar power and grace imparted by God. It was also a practical or life-wisdom, such as Solomon himself describes, “a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her, length of days is in her right hand, and in her left hand riches and honor. The merchandise of it is better than the merchandise of silver, and the gain thereof than fine gold. She is more precious than rubies, and all the things thou canst desire are not to be compared unto her,” Proverbs 3:14-18. But this wisdom rests upon the foundation of the knowledge and fear of God (comp. 1 Kings 10:1 and Proverbs 2:4-6), and the whole reign of Solomon is the result of the same (see Historical and Ethical on 1 Kings 4:29). “O! happy time, when mighty princes visited each other in the midst of their lands, made tranquil by a holy fear of God, so to vie with each other in wisdom and what is still better, the search after wisdom” (Ewald). 3. When the Lord says in Matthew 12:42 and Luke 11:31 : “The Queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation and shall condemn it; for she came from the uttermost part of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold a greater than Solomon is here,” he recognizes the prophetical and typical meaning of our narrative, as is the case generally with the kingdom of Solomon. It is said in the prophetical descriptions of the peaceful kingdom of Messiah, “the Kings of Sheba and Seba (Meroλ) shall offer gifts; yea, all kings shall fall down before him; all nations shall serve him” (Psalms 72:10-11); and “all they from Sheba shall come; they shall bring gold and incense, and they shall show forth the praises of the Lord” (Isaiah 60:6). The Queen of Sheba, who came from far, out of the happiest, country of the world, to Solomon, brought him presents, and received all she wished from him, is a type of the kings who with their people shall come from far and near to the everlasting Prince of peace, the King of kings, and shall do him homage. Her visit is an historical prophecy of the true and eternal kingdom of peace. It is just this prophetical and typical character of the story that gives such emphasis to our Lord’s reproof of the hardened Israelites of His time. Homiletical and Practical1 Kings 10:1-13. The queen of Sheba comes to Solomon. (a) She comes in order to hear the wisdom of Solomon. (b) She finds more than she expected. (c) She worships and praises the Lord for what she has seen and heard, (d) She returns home in peace, with rich gifts.—Solomon receiving the Queen of Sheba a type of Christ (Matthew 22:42). (a) He did not reject her who sought him, but raised her up (John 6:37). (b) He solved her questions, and showed her his glory (John 1:9; John 1:14; 22:46; 6:68). (c) He accepted her gifts, and gave her much more in return, even all that she desired and requested. (John 10:11; John 10:28; John 16:24; John 4:13 sq.). 1 Kings 10:1-3. The Queen of Sheba had everything that pertains to temporal prosperity and good fortune, high rank, power and honor, health and wealth; but all these satisfied not her soul; she sought the solution of the enigma of life, and when she heard of Solomon, and of the name of the Lord, she spared no expense or trouble, neither regarded the scorn and contempt of the world, in order to satisfy the longing of her soul for the word of life. She said not: I am rich, and have an abundance, and need nothing; but she felt that she still needed the highest and the best. How superior is this heathen woman to so many Christians, who hunger and thirst after all possible things, but never after a knowledge of truth and wisdom, after the word of life. We do not need to journey to Jerusalem, to find him who is greater than Solomon, for he has promised: “I am with you forever, until the end of the world,” and can be found everywhere, if men seek him earnestly.—God is not without a witness in the midst of the heathen, whereby they may feel and recognize Him, for He wills that all men shall be aided to come to a knowledge of the truth. The same God who gave Solomon the wise heart for which he prayed, revealed to the inquiring spirit of the heathen queen what she most desired. 1 Kings 10:3. One receives with readiness and alacrity the soul which longs after the truth of God; such souls faithfully apply the same, they do not weary—and the counsel of God unto salvation is not withheld from them (Acts 20:27, and James 5:19-20). 1 Kings 10:4-9. The acknowledgment of the Queen of Sheba, when she beheld the works of Solomon. (a) It is true … I would not believe it until I, &c., 1 Kings 10:6-7 (John 10:35; John 10:38; John 14:11). (b) Thy wisdom has exceeded, &c., 1 Kings 10:7 (John 6:68 sq.). (c) Happy are thy men, &c., 1 Kings 10:8 (Luke 10:23). (d) Praised be the Lord, &c., 1 Kings 10:9 (Ephesians 1:3). 1 Kings 10:4. Words must be followed by works; the beholding with her own eyes, and her very own experience, must be added to the rumors she has heard. Nathaniel, when he heard of Jesus, the Messiah, spoke doubtingly at first: Can any good thing come out of Nazareth? But when he came and saw he joyfully exclaimed: Thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel (John 1:45-49). 1 Kings 10:5. Great palaces, brilliant arrangements, &c., are objects worthy of real admiration if they are not evidently mere works to gratify the lust of the eye and the pride of life, but rather proofs of wisdom, of spiritual elevation, and of love of art. 1 Kings 10:7. As in order to form a just conception of visible things we must see them with our own eyes—so also with invisible and divine things: rightly to recognize them as such, we must feel and taste their strength in our own hearts, and not merely hear of them from others (1 Peter 2:3; Psalms 34:9). 1 Kings 10:8. Not because of their fine clothes, of their high position, of their splendid possessions, did the Queen regard the people and the servants of Solomon as blessed and happy, but because they could always listen to his wisdom. How much the more are those to be esteemed blessed, who, sitting at His feet, who Himself contains all the treasures of wisdom and of knowledge, can hear the word of everlasting life from His mouth (Luke 10:23 sq). 1 Kings 10:9. It is proof of a good and noble heart, when a man gives thanks to God for the gifts which he bestows upon other men. Cramer: Upon the land which God will bless He bestows good and wise rulers; but if He will to punish a country, he does the opposite (Isaiah 3:4; Ecclesiastes 10:16-17). If the Queen, in God’s gift of a Solomon to Israel, recognized a singular proof of God’s love to this nation, and exclaimed: Blessed be, &c., how can we thank and praise God enough for the love which sent his only begotten Son into the world, to save us from utter darkness, and to place us in the kingdom of His dear Son (Cor. 1:13; Ephesians 1:3).—Osiander: Rulers are given their high position by God, not simply to enjoy the pleasures of life, and to see good days, but to administer justice to their subjects, and care for their temporal and eternal welfare. 1 Kings 10:10-13. The interchange of gifts between the Queen and Solomon, (a) The Queen is not content with words of praise and thanks; she testifies her gratitude by means of great and royal gifts. Of what avail is all mere verbal thanks and praise, if the life be devoid of lovely deeds, and of cheerful gifts, for the acknowledgment of God’s kingdom? (b) Solomon needed not the gifts; he had more than she could give him (1 Kings 10:11-12); he gave her all that heart could desire. What are all our gifts in comparison with those which we receive from the Lord,—those which are immeasurably beyond what we ask and seek (Ephesians 3:20), and where it is more blessed to give than to receive (Acts 20:35)? 1 Kings 10:11-12. As God bestows various gifts upon individual men, so He also blesses different countries with varied products, not that nations should covet and contest the same, but that they should serve and mutually benefit each other. 1 Kings 10:13. With a treasure incomparable in value to gold and jewels, the Queen joyfully went her way, like the Eunuch of Ethiopia. How many are there who return from far journeys into distant lands, rich in gold and substance, but poor in faith and knowledge of the truth. They have lost more than they have won; the Queen gained more than she lost.—The generation of the present day in comparison with the Queen of Sheba; its satiety and indifference, its unbelief and its guilt (Matthew 12:42). Footnotes: 1 Kings 10:1. [The Sept. and Syr. render this very difficult expression, ΰֵ ?ϊΞωֵׁ ?ξַ ?ςωְׁ ?μֹ ?ξֹ ?δμְ ?ωֵׁ ?νιְ ?δεָֹ ?δ (See Exeg.Com.), “heard the name of Solomon and the name of the Lord,” and the Arab. the same except in retaining fame in the first clause. 1 Kings 10:2. [Many MSS. editions, and the Vulg. and Syr., insert king before Solomon. 1 Kings 10:3. [There seems no sufficient reason for varying the translation of γָ ?αָ ?ψ occurring twice in such close proximity. The same variation is observed in the Chald. and Syr., but the Sept. have λόγος in both cases. 1 Kings 10:4. [Several MSS. followed by the Arab. omit “all.” 1 Kings 10:5. [The Sept., quite without authority, put the pronoun in the singular as referring to Solomon’s apparel. 1 Kings 10:5. [All the ancient versions render “the burnt-offerings which he offered” (see Exeg. Com.) and must therefore have read ςμεϊε instead of ςμϊε, but without reason. See Exeg. Com. 1 Kings 10:6-7. [The Heb. for report and acts, 1 Kings 10:6, and words, 1 Kings 10:7, is the same γְ ?αָ ?ψִ ?ιν ,γָ ?αָ ?ψ and this sameness is preserved in the Sept., although hardly possible in English. 1 Kings 10:8. [The Sept. curiously enough render “happy are the women.” 1 Kings 10:11. [Almug is not a translation, but only a putting into English letters of the Heb. ΰַ ?μְ ?ξֻ ?βִּ ?ιν. The versions render:—Vulg. thyina; Sept. πελεκητά (Alex. ἀπελέκητα); Arab. colored wood, i.e. that kind of wood naturally painted with various colors. The sense as now generally understood is sandal-wood. See Exeg. Com. 1 Kings 10:13. [Lit. gave her as from the hand of king Solomon.—F. G.] See the graceful account of the legends, in Stanley’s Jewish church, Second Series, p. 259–262.—E. H. B.—The Wealth, Splendor, and Power of Solomon’s Kingdom1 Kings 10:14-29 (2 Chronicles 9:13-28)14Now the weight of gold that came to Solomon in one year was six hundred 15threescore and six talents of gold, Besides that he had of the merchantmen, and of the traffick of the spice [omit spice] merchants, and of all the kings of Arabia, and of the governors of the country. 16And king Solomon made two hundred targets [i.e. large shields] of beaten 17gold; six hundred shekels of gold went to one target. And he made three hundred shields of beaten gold; three pounds [manehs] of gold went to one shield: and the king put them in the house of the forest of Lebanon. 18Moreover, the king made a great throne of ivory, and overlaid it with the best gold. 19The throne had six steps, and the top of the throne was round behind: and there were stays [arms] on either side on the place of the seat, and two lions stood beside the stays [arms]. 20And twelve lions stood there on the one side and on the other upon the six steps: there was not the like made in any kingdom. 21And all king Solomon’s drinking vessels were of gold, and all the vessels of the house of the forest of Lebanon were of pure gold; none were of silver: it was nothing accounted of in the days of Solomon. 22For the king had at sea a navy of Tharshish with the navy of Hiram: once in three years came the navy of Tharshish, bringing gold, and silver, ivory, and apes, and peacocks. 23So king Solomon exceeded all the kings of the earth for riches and for wisdom. 24And all the earth sought to Solomon, to hear his wisdom, which God had put in his heart. 25And they brought every man his present, vessels of silver, and vessels of gold, and garments, and armor, and spices, horses, and mules, a rate year by year. 26And Solomon gathered together chariots and horsemen: and he had a thousand and four hundred chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen, whom he bestowed in the cities for chariots, and with the king at Jerusalem. 27And the king made silver to be in Jerusalem as stones, and cedars made he to be as the sycamore [mulberry] trees that are in the vale, for abundance. 28And Solomon had horses brought out of Egypt, and linen yarn [a troop]: the king’s merchants received the linen yarn [troop] at a price. 29And a chariot came up and went out of Egypt for six hundred shekels of silver, and an horse for an hundred and fifty: and so for all the kings of the Hittites, and for the kings of Syria, did they bring them out by their means. Exegetical and Critical1 Kings 10:14-15. Now the weight of gold, &c. The 666 talents have been very differently computed. According to Exodus 38:25 there are 3,000 shekels in one talent, but Thenius reckons the shekel at 10 Thalers, so that the whole sum would amount to “nearly 20 millions of Thalers in gold.” Keil, who had formerly reckoned it at 1,900,875 Marks, calculates it now at “over 17 millions of Thalers,” which plainly is too high. According to this, the golden crown which David took from the head of the Ammonite king, and which weighed a talent, not reckoning the precious stones in it (2 Samuel 12:30), must have weighed 83½ Dresden pounds, and a talent was about 30,000 Thalers, which is simply impossible. We prefer to reckon the talent at 2,618 Thalers at present, as Winer (R.-W.-B. II. s. 562) and Bunsen (Bibelwerk I. Einl. s. 377) think; this makes 666 talents equal to 1,743,588 Thalers, a still considerable sum. We cannot see why the number 666 should be an “invented” one, in which tradition betrays itself (Thenius). There is, in any event, no allusion in Revelation 13:18 to this passage, and this number has no particular signification anywhere else. It only expresses the simple sum of the various receipts. In one year, i.e., per annos singulos (Vulgate); this suits our calculation very well, but not the 20,000,000 Thalers [or $15,000,000]. Keil, without any reason, doubts the correctness of this translation, in which all old translators have agreed; for if, as he supposes, the freight of the Ophir fleet, which returned only once in three years, brought the 666 talents, it must mean in every third year. The 666 talents were the regular yearly income; but we must not necessarily suppose, with Thenius, that they were “the income of taxes laid on the Israelites themselves;” for there is no mention anywhere made of a yearly income tax. 1 Kings 10:15 tells of other less defined additions to the regular revenue. The Sept. renders the difficult expression ΰַ ?πְ ?ωֵׁ ?ιδַ ?ϊָּ ?ψִ ?ιν by (χωρὶς) τῶνφόρωντῶνὑποτεταγμένων; it appears also to have read differently. Thenius therefore conjectures it to be ξֵ ?ςָ ?πְ ?ωֵ ?ιδָ ?ψְ ?γεּ ?ιִ ?ν, and translates: “from the contributions of the subjugated;” but in opposition to this, Bertheau remarks rightly, “δψγειν occurs nowhere else, and ςπω (ζημία) can scarcely mean a tribute laid on the conquered lands in David’s time, and as such raised by Solomon.” The expression is generally understood to mean travelling tradespeople, and as ψֹ ?λְ ?μִ ?ιν, i.e., merchants, follows, the latter “merchants” must mean “the pedlers or inferior shop-keepers” (Keil). But this distinction is destitute of proof. The word ϊεּ ?ψ is never used for trading; δַ ?ϊָּ ?ψִ ?ιν in Numbers 14:6 (13:16, 17) means the men that Moses sent out to view and report upon the land. The Vulgate translates the parallel passage in 2 Chronicles 9:14; legati diversarum gentium. So also Bertheau, “the ambassadors” by whom the presents of other kings were brought. It is impossible to ascertain the exact income Solomon received from the traffic of the merchants; but there could scarcely have been a regular commercial tax (Thenius), and custom duties are still less to be supposed. The kingsδָ ?ςֶ ?ψֶ ?α are not “kings of the mixed tribes” (Keil), but could only have been Arabian tributary kings, who were subject to Solomon; probably they belonged to the desert Arabia, or at least to a part of it, which joined the Israelitish territory (Thenius). Cf. Jeremiah 25:20; Ezekiel 30:5. The governors are no doubt the same as those mentioned in 1 Kings 4:7-19. The revenue-sources named in 1 Kings 10:15 were plainly not gold, but in various kinds of produce. 1 Kings 10:16-17. And king Solomon made two hundred targets, &c. φִ ?πָּ ?δ is the large square shield, rounded down upon its length, covering the whole body. It was usually made of wood covered with leather, but these were overlaid with gold. ξָ ?βֵ ?ο is a smaller shield, either quite round or oval, also of wood or leather covered with gold. The latter was ωָׁ ?ηεּ ?θ, i.e., not: mixed with another metal, nor pure; but: stretched, hammered broad. The word shekel is left out in giving the weight, as often happens (Genesis 10:16; Genesis 24:22; Genesis 37:28). The 600 shekels for each large shield should come to 523 3/5 Thalers [$392–3]. If a talent is reckoned at 3,000 shekels, and the talent be equal to 2,618 Thalers [see note above], the 3 pounds for each smaller shield would be 261½ Thalers, as 3 pounds are=300 shekels, according to 2 Chronicles 9:16. This calculation appears far more probable than that 17½ pounds of gold, worth 6,000 Thalers, were used for each shield (Thenius); or that the gold-plating of a large shield did not weigh quite 9 pounds, and that of a small one nearly 4½ pounds (Keil). These shields were borne, as 1 Kings 14:27 tells us, by the body-guard; but were used probably only on special occasions, for they were more for show than for ordinary use, and served also to adorn the house of the forest of Lebanon (for which see above in 1 Kings 7:2). Golden shields are also mentioned in 1Ma 6:39, and were used also by the Carthaginians (Plin. Hist. Nat., xxxv. 4). 1 Kings 10:18-20. Moreover, the king made a great throne, &c. The throne was not entirely made of ivory, any more than the palaces mentioned in 1 Kings 22:39; Psalms 45:9; Amos 3:15, but was only inlaid with it, decorated. The wood of which it was made was overlaid with gold, and between, ivory was inserted. 2 Chronicles 9:17 gives θָ ?δεֹ ?ψ, pure, for ξεּ ?τָ ?ο, i.e., purified. Round behind can scarcely be that “it had an arched or rounded back” (Keil); or, “it terminated in a round crown” (Ewald), but means rather that “it had a round covering attached to the back” (Thenius). Most probably the lions as well as the throne itself to which they belonged were made of wood overlaid with gold, as images of gods were made (Jeremiah 10:3 sq.). There was not a “lion on each of the arms” of the throne (Ewald), but on each side of it (ΰֵ ?φֶ ?μ); the twelve others stood on the six steps leading to the throne, each one facing another. The remark, there was not the like made, &c., has reference to the artistic merit of the work as well as its costliness; the statues were at least as large as life. “On the ancient Assyrian monuments there are representations of high chairs with arms and backs, also such, the backs of which were supported by figures of animals (cf. Layard, Nineveh, s. 344 sq.), but none of these chairs are like that of Solomon. Later ages only can produce more splendid thrones. Cf. Rosenmόller, Altes und Neues Morgenland, III. s. 176 sq.” (Keil). 1 Kings 10:21. And all king Solomon’s drinking vessels, &c. The account of the great quantity of gold and silver in Solomon’s time does not appear in the least exaggerated when we compare those of other ancient writers about the amount of precious metal in the ancient East. Sardanapalus, for instance, had, when Nineveh was besieged, 150 golden bedsteads, 150 golden tables, a million talents of gold, ten times as much silver, and 3,000 talents had been previously divided by him among his sons (Ktesias by Athenζus, xii. p. 529). No less than 7,170 talents of gold were used for the statues and vessels of the Temple of Bel in Babylon (Mόnter, Rel. der Babyl., s. 51, where the passages of the ancients that refer to it are given). Alexander’s pillage of Ecbatana was valued at 120,000 talents of gold (Diodor. Sicul. Bibl. 17). Cyrus’ pillage was 34,000 pounds of gold and 500,000 pounds of silver, besides an immense number of golden vessels (Pliny, Hist. Nat. xxvii. 3; cf. Symbol. des Mos. Kult. I. s. 259 sq.). 1 Kings 10:22. For the king had at sea a navy of Tharshish, &c. ϊַּ ?ψְ ?ωִׁ ?ιωׁ, the ancient Ph�nician emporium, Tartessus, on the far side of the pillars of Hercules in south-western Spain; it is described as lying in a district which was rich in silver. Its situation has been much disputed, but the above may be taken as the correct account (see the opinions in Winer, R.-W.-B. II. s. 603). (Cf. Ezekiel 38:13; Jeremiah 10:9; Isaiah 23:10.) That, however, ΰֳ ?πִ ?ιϊַּ ?ψְ ?ωִׁ ?ιωׁ does not here denote ships going to Tharshish, is evident from the passage, 1 Kings 22:48, “Jehoshaphat made ships of Tharshish to go to Ophir for gold (i.e., to fetch gold); but they went not, for the ships were broken at Ezion-geber (i.e., on the Arabian gulf).” Wheresoever we may look for Ophir, it was certainly not in Spain, as every one knows, but in the East, that is, in the opposite direction. The ships that Solomon and Hiram had built (1 Kings 9:28) in Ezion-geber were also destined to go to Ophir, therefore could not possibly have been intended for a voyage to Spain (which was reached by the Mediterranean sea), because the way around South Africa was then unknown. The productions, too, which 1 Kings 10:22 tells us the Tharshish ships brought, show beyond dispute that the voyage was not to Tharshish, for though there was plenty of silver in Tharshish, in Spain, there was no gold, and very few apes or peacocks, and but little ivory. Keil now admits this, though he once held the far-fetched idea that Jehoshaphat brought the ships built at Ezion-geber across the isthmus of Suez, transported also over land, to sail thence to Spain. The ships with which the Ph�nicians used to go to the distant Tharshish were very large and strong, perhaps the largest trading vessels; and as large ships now that go far are named after the lands they sail to, for instance East-Indiamen, Greenlanders, so in Solomon’s time or that of our author, the Ph�nicians called large trading vessels Tharshish ships; it had become a regular name, as the following passages show: Isaiah 2:16; Psalms 48:8. Taking everything into the account then, we can regard the formula: ships went to Tarshish (2 Chronicles 9:21) as only a mistaken interpretation of the expression: Tharshish fleet—a mistake that is easily accounted for, as at the time Chronicles was written the voyages of Tyrians as well as of Israelites to Ophir and Tharshish had long ceased, and the geographical position of both places was forgotten by the Jews (Keil). Though the passage under consideration does not say expressly whither the Tharshish fleet was going, 1 Kings 9:28; 1 Kings 22:49 show that Ophir must have been its destination. But much has been written about the situation of Ophir which has been greatly, and is still, disputed (cf. Winer, R.-W.-B. II. s. 183 sq.; Herzog, Real-Encykl. on the word). This much, however, has been settled by recent researches, that we are to look for it either in India or in South Arabia. In support of India the products named in 1 Kings 10:22, and which are indigenous thereto, have been urged, and appeal has been made to the fact that the ships returned only every three years, which suggests a greater distance than Southern Arabia. But the chief import, gold, which must have been plentiful in Ophir, is not found on the Indian coast, but is met with, first, north of Cashmere. South Arabia, on the contrary, was famed for its abundance of gold, and Asia Minor imported its gold chiefly thence. The ϊֻ ?λִּ ?ιִּ ?ιν, rendered peacocks by all the old translations, seem even more than the χֹ ?τִ ?ιν, i.e., apes, to point to India, for they originally came from there (Oken, Naturgesch. der Vφgel, s. 625); the ivory too, which is in other places simply expressed by ωֵׁ ?ο reminds us of India. But as Ophir certainly cannot mean India, we decide, with Ewald and Keil, for South Arabia. The former supposes that Ophir, situated on the south-eastern coast of Arabia, since people made voyages thence to India, included, in common parlance, this latter land, just as the name Havilah, Genesis 10:7; Genesis 10:29, denoted lands that lay still farther east. Probably Solomon’s and Hiram’s ships first went to the original Ophir itself (1 Kings 9:27), but later larger ships went farther, and besides the gold of Ophir brought apes, peacocks, and ivory, i.e., Indian products and articles of luxury. We may also suppose that there was even then some commerce between India and South Arabia, and that Indian products reached Ophir, whence the Ophir voyagers brought them to Palestine. This is much more probable than Keil’s supposition, which is that the products in question were African, being brought over to Ophir in the trading which took place between Arabia and the opposite coast of Ethiopia. Though there was a “species of tailed ape” in Ethiopia, there were no peacocks and no sandal-wood. Thenius very unnecessarily supposes that the same writer who wrote 1 Kings 9:27 sq. could not have written this passage, because each passage speaks of the voyage to Ophir in a different manner; whence again the compilatory character of our books must follow. The first account is of the first voyage, and the second account of the later and more extended one. 1 Kings 10:23-27. So king Solomon exceeded, &c. From 1 Kings 10:23-29, by way of conclusion, everything that was to be said of the glory of Solomon is summed up, and at the same time some things not yet mentioned are added. For 1 Kings 10:23-24 cf. 1 Kings 4:29-34. According to the universal custom in the East all, who came to see and hear Solomon brought him presents, and this was repeated “year by year,” so highly had he risen everywhere in consideration. For 1 Kings 10:26 cf. 1 Kings 4:26, and 1 Kings 9:19. In 1 Kings 10:27 silver only is mentioned and not gold (which the Sept. unjustifiably adds here from 2 Chronicles 1:15), because enough had been said already about gold. The great quantity of silver does not necessarily show that there was a silver trade with Tharshish which was rich in that metal, for there was a great deal of silver in Asia: Sardanapalus in Nineveh (see above on 1 Kings 10:21), rich as he was in gold, had ten times as much silver, which he certainly did not get from Spain. The cedar-wood which came from Lebanon was as plentiful there in Jerusalem as common building timber, which was taken from sycamores (Isaiah 9:10), which did not grow on high mountains but very often in the lowlands of Palestine (Winer, R.-W.-B. II. s. 62 sq.), and were therefore cheap and easy to be had. The mode of expression is hyperbolical and Oriental, and cannot be taken literally any more than 1 Kings 4:20. 1 Kings 10:28-29. And Solomon had horses brought, &c. Verses 28 and 29 contain supplementary remarks to the account given in 1 Kings 10:26 of Solomon’s war-forces, explaining how he acquired the latter, namely, by sending special merchants to trade with Egypt, which was famous for its breed of horses, and was the country of “horses and chariots” (Exodus 14:6 sq.;15:1; 2 Kings 18:24; Isaiah 31:1; Jeremiah 46:2; Jeremiah 46:4; Deuteronomy 17:16). ξִ ?χְ ?εֶ ?δ, which occurs twice in 1 Kings 10:28, is difficult; but it can only mean collection, collexio, multitude (Genesis 1:9-10; Exodus 7:19; Jeremiah 3:17). If we adhere to the masoretic punctuation we must render it as Gesenius does: “And a number of royal merchants fetched a number of the same (horses) for money;” the passage would thus contain “a kind of play on the word,” which would be here without design or meaning. The Sept. and the Vulgate regard ξχεδ as denoting locality, and connect it with θξφψιν; the departure of horses from Egypt and from Coa (ἐκΘεκουὲ ?de Coa); but neither the Bible nor any ancient translator mentions a country or town named Coa or Cawe, and yet as a place of trade it could not have been insignificant or unknown. Thenius arbitrarily and incorrectly changes the first ξχεδ into ξִ ?ϊְּ ?χεֹ ?ςַ; Thekoa, some miles from Jerusalem, was not a trading town but a small place situated on a height and inhabited by shepherds (Winer, s. 606). The translation “remainder” (or surplusage) (Ewald) is no better than that given by some Rabbins, woven texture. The second ξχεδ can have no other meaning than that of the first; it means “collection” each time, i. e., collection of horses, and the passage becomes quite clear, if, leaving the masoretic punctuation, we join the first ξχεδ to the preceding words, making one sentence of them: “Concerning the bringing of horses out of Egypt, and their collection, the merchants of the king made a collection of them for a certain price.” This shows that the horses were not brought up one by one, but in droves each time. When 600 shekels were given for a chariot and 150 for a horse, the first price of course included that of the harness for two horses belonging to the chariot, and also that of a reserved horse (see above on 1 Kings 4:26). The single horses at 150 shekels must have been riding-horses. We cannot tell the exact amount of this price in our money, as the value of the shekel is not fixed. If, like Winer and others, we compute it at 26 silver groschen, 150 shekels would be equal to 130 Thlr. [$97.50]; Keil agrees with this, but formerly thought, with others, that it only amounted to 65 or 66 Thlr.; Thenius gives it at 100 Thlr. The traders were called “king’s merchants,” not because they had to give an account of their dealings to the king (Bertheau) but “because they traded for the king” (Keil); as such they were respected, and distant kings employed them in procuring horses. The Hittites are not the same as those named in 1 Kings 9:20, but were an independent tribe, probably in the neighborhood of Syria, as 2 Kings 7:6 mentions them as in alliance with the Syrians. Historical and Ethical1. In the section before us the delineation of Solomon’s glory reaches its climax. No other king’s reign is treated at such length in our books as that of Solomon, which alone occupies 11 chapters. But this whole historical representation has the same end in view that this section, referring to the promise, 1 Kings 3:13, expresses in the words: “King Solomon exceeded all the kings of the earth for riches and for wisdom,” i.e., all conceivable greatness, might, riches, dignity, fame, and splendor were united to such a degree in Solomon (which never happened to any king before or after), that he was looked on as the very ideal of a king throughout the East; and his “glory” became proverbial (Matthew 6:29; Luke 12:26). The reason that this glory, which here reaches its highest point, is depicted just before the account of his deep fall (chap. 11), is to be found in the theocratic view of the historian, and is, in an historicoredemptive relation, of high significance. In the divine economy the Old-Testament kingdom was destined to reach its culminating point in David’s son; but as the old covenant moved generally in the form and covering of bodiliness, visibility, and outwardness, described as σάρξ by the New Testament; so the glory of the Old-Testament kingdom was a visible and external one; its highest point was determined by riches, power, fame, dignity, and splendor. Corresponding with the kingdom of Israel κατὰ σάρκα, it can be but a glory κατὰ σάρκα, i.e., a visible, external, and therefore temporal and perishable, which, like the old covenant, pointed beyond itself, to an invisible, spiritual, and therefore imperishable, eternal glory. The same Old Testament king, under whom the kingdom reached its greatest degree of glory, prepared the way for its gradual decline, and no one preached more powerfully the vanity and nothingness of all temporal splendor than he when proclaiming, it is all vanity (Ecclesiastes 1:2)! In complete contrast with the Old-Testament glory of Solomon we see the New-Testament glory of the son of David, in the most eminent sense, the true Prince of peace, who had not where to lay his head, and was crowned with praise and honor, not through riches, power, dignity, or splendor, but by the suffering of death; who became perfect through self-abnegation and obedience unto the death on the cross, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of Majesty; Whose Kingdom is everlasting and his glory imperishable (Hebrews 2:9; Hebrews 5:9; Hebrews 8:1; Hebrews 12:2; Luke 1:33). 2. Among the things related to show the splendor of Solomon’s reign, special mention is made of the throne as the symbol of royal majesty, and at the same time the centre or seat of this glory; and it is expressly added that there was not the like in any kingdom, which no doubt refers principally to the lions. The number of these lions, twelve, has reference, indisputably, to the number of the tribes of Israel above which the king was elevated and over which he reigned, and for that reason the lions stood below him on the steps of the throne. Ewald gives the following as the reason for this symbol, “indisputably because the lion was the standard of Judah.” This, however, does not appear to be so from Genesis 49:9, nor from Isaiah 29:1 and Ezekiel 19:2; and besides, all the twelve tribes could not be ranged under the particular banner of the tribe of Judah. Thenius thinks that the two lions next the throne were “rather the guardians of it,” and the twelve others on the steps represented “the power of the twelve tribes united in one throne.” But the lion is never mentioned as “keeping watch,” and moreover, the signification of those beside the throne could not differ from that of those before and below it. All nations have, from time immemorial, regarded the lion as the king of beasts (cf. the numerous passages of the ancients on this subject, in Bochart, Hieroz. I. ii. 1), and is therefore a fitting symbol of monarchy, which consists in “reigning and ruling” (see above on 1 Kings 3:9). The lion “is the strongest among beasts” (Proverbs 30:30-31), and his roaring announces the coming of judgment (Amos 3:8; Amos 1:2; Revelation 10:3). The two lions at the right and left of the king as he sat on the throne, denote his twofold office of governing and judging. If, then, the entire people are symbolized by the twelve lions, the meaning must be that Israel was the royal people among nations; just as the twelve oxen that bare up the molten sea signified that Israel was the nation of priests (see above in 1 Kings 7:25). The people chosen by God from among all people are a nation of kings and priests (Exodus 19:6; Revelation 1:6; Revelation 5:10); just as it culminates, as a priestly nation, in the high-priest, so it does also, as a royal one, in its king. Here we think involuntarily of the throne of Him who is both lamb and lion (Revelation 5:5-6), who is the Prince of earthly kings, and has made us kings and priests to His Father, God (Revelation 1:6; Revelation 5:6; Revelation 7:10; Revelation 7:17). His people number twelve times twelve thousand (= 144,000), and these are represented by the twice twelve of the elders who stand before his throne (Revelation 4:4; Revelation 4:10; Revelation 7:4; Revelation 14:1). Homiletical and Practical1 Kings 10:14. (a) The glory of Solomon. Wherein it lay (Power, dominion, pomp, splendor, glory, and honor, everything that men wish or desire in this world—all these we see before us in the life of this one man. But the glory of man is as the grass of the field, which fades and withers; truly, the lilies of the field exceed it in glory, for even, &c.—and Solomon himself confessed: All is vanity; I have seen all the works, &c., Ecclesiastes 1:2; Ecclesiastes 2:11; Psalms 49:17-18. The world passes away, &c.). (b) Its significance for us (that we should seek after that other and imperishable glory, prepared for us by him who is greater than Solomon, John 17:24. Scarcely one of many thousands can attain to the glory of Solomon, but to the glory of God we are all called, 1 Thessalonians 2:12; if our life be hidden with Christ in God, then “shall we when Christ,” &c., Colossians 3:3-4. Therefore shall we rejoice in the hope of future glory, and not only so, but in tribulations also (Romans 5:2-3) for our “light affliction, which is but for a moment,” &c., 2 Corinthians 4:17-18).—Power and dominion. (a) The responsibility involved therein (“to whom much is given, of him shall much be required, and to whom men,” &c., Luke 12:48; singular endowments bring with them singular requirements—authority is power given for the use and benefit of inferiors—wealth is bestowed upon the rich that they may relieve necessity according to their means). (b) The perils connected with it (pride and haughtiness, forgetfulness of God, and unbelief), Psalms 62:11; Psalms 52:9; 1 Timothy 6:9; Matthew 16:26. Therefore envy not the rich and powerful, for they are exposed to many temptations. But godliness with contentment, &c., 1 Timothy 6:6. Wόrt. Summ.: Devout Christians may have and hold gold and silver, lands and possessions, cattle, in short everything, and with a good conscience, if only they do not misuse them by idle pomp or for the oppression of their fellow-creatures; for they are gifts and favors of God, which he lends them. The silver and the gold is mine, saith the Lord of hosts (Haggai 2:8; Psalms 50:10). The throne of Solomon, stately and magnificent as it was, is long since crumbled to dust, but His Throne, before whose judgment-seat we must all appear, endures to all eternity.—The man to whom God has given great wealth and high position in the world may indeed dwell in splendor; but every man sins whose expenses exceed his income, or are greater than his position in the world requires. Golden vessels are not necessaries of life, nor do they conduce to greater happiness or content than do earthen and wooden ones. It is the duty and right of a prince to bring an armed force to the defence of the country against her enemies, but prince and people must ever remember what the mighty Solomon himself says: The horse is prepared against the day of battle, but safety is of the Lord (Proverbs 21:31; cf. Psalms 33:16-19; Isaiah 31:1). Footnotes: 1 Kings 10:15. [ξֵ ?ΰַ ?πְ ?ωֵׁ ?ιδַ ?ϊָּ ?ψִ ?ιν, on the meaning of this difficult expression, see Exeg. Com. The versions render as follows: Vulg., the men who were over the tribute; Sept., the tribute of those subject; Chald., the wages of the artisans; Syr., simply from the artisans; and so the Arab.] 1 Kings 10:15. [The ancient versions generally sustain this rendering. The Chald. alone has ξַ ?μְ ?λֵ ?ιρεּ ?ξְ ?λְ ?εָ ?ϊָ ?ΰ “kings of auxiliary or allied nations,” which must be wrong. The Heb. word ςֶ ?ψֶ ?α is used Exodus 12:38, Nehemiah 13:3, generally of “a mixed multitude” of aliens attaching themselves to the Israelites; and Jeremiah 25:24, specifically of the mixed races of Arabia Deserta. Hence in the parallel place 2 Chronicles 9:14 we have ςֲ ?ψָ ?α.] 1 Kings 10:17. [The Maneh = 100 shekels.] 1 Kings 10:19. [The Heb. ιָ ?γεֹ ?ϊ undoubtedly means arms, and is so rendered by the Syr. The Chald. and Arab. give the sense of the A. V., while the Vulg. and Sept. render literally, hands.] 1 Kings 10:21. [The ancient version gives without doubt the true sense; so the Vulg., Chald., and Syr. The word ρָ ?βεּ ?ψ is the part. pass. from ρָ ?βַ ?ψ to shut, close, and hence the Sept. version χρυσίῳ συγκεκλεισμένα.] 1 Kings 10:22. [The Sept. and Chald. adopt the single instead of the collective meaning of ΰֳ ?πִ ?ι and render “a ship.”] 1 Kings 10:22. [The other ancient versions (except that the Syr. and Arab. has elephants instead of ivory) concur in the sense of these words given in the ancient version; but the Vat. Sept. has instead λίθωντορευτῶνκαὶ πελεκητῶν, stones cut and graved. The Vat. Sept. also here inserts the passage omitted in Chap. 9. Ver, 25. [The Sept. render πֵ ?ωֶׁ ?χ (=armour) by στἀκτήν, oil of myrrh.] 1 Kings 10:26. [The Vat. Sept. omits the first clause of 1 Kings 10:26, and both recensions add to the verse the first part of 4:21. Also instead of 1,400 chariots they read 4,000 (Alex. 40,000) mares.] 1 Kings 10:27. [ωִׁ ?χְ ?ξִ ?ιν = συκόμορος, συκάμινος, the mulberry-tree, now rare, but anciently very common in the low-lands of Palestine.] 1 Kings 10:28. [On the meaning of ξִ ?χְ ?εֶ ?δ, here translated “linen yarn,” see Exeg. Com. The Sept. and Vulg. have taken it as a proper name.—F. G.] If we reckon the Thaler at 75 cents, 10 Thalers, of course, are $7.50, and 20 millions of Thalers, are $15,000,000. And taking the author’s estimate of values, i.e., supposing the talent to be equal to 2,618 Thalers, the 666 talents in the text would be equal to $1,306,691.—E. H. FIFTH SECTION Solomon’s Fall And EndChap. 11A.—The unfaithfulness towards the Lord and its punishment1 Kings 11:1-131 But king Solomon loved many strange [i.e. foreign] women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites; 2of the nations concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love. 3And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines; and his wives turned away his heart. 4For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the Lord [Jehovah] his God, as was the heart of David his father. 5For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. 6And Solomon did evil in the sight of the Lord [Jehovah], and went not fully after the Lord [Jehovah], as did David his father. 7Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Amnion. 8And likewise did he for all his strange [i.e. foreign] wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods. 9And the Lord [Jehovah] was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the Lord [Jehovah] God of Israel, which had appeared unto him twice, 10and had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods: but he kept not that which the Lord [Jehovah] commanded. 11Wherefore the Lord [Jehovah] said unto Solomon, Forasmuch as this is done of thee, and thou hast not kept my covenant and my statutes, which I have commanded thee, I will surely rend the kingdom from thee, and will give it to 12thy servant. Notwithstanding, in thy days I will not do it for David thy father’s 13sake: but I will rend it out of the hand of thy son. Howbeit, I will not rend away all the kingdom; but will give one tribe to thy son, for David my servant’s sake, and for Jerusalem’s sake which I have chosen. Exegetical and Critical1 Kings 11:1-2. But king Solomon loved, &c. With these words a new and very essential part of the history of Solomon begins; they do not break the thread of the story abruptly, but stand in a connection with the preceding, to be well considered. Our writer evidently had in his mind the command given to kings in Deuteronomy 17 in which, 1 Kings 11:16-17, it is said: “but he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses. … neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away; neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.” The great riches in silver and gold were mentioned in the preceding section, 1 Kings 10:14-29, and also, finally, the number of horses brought out of Egypt; and mention of the many strange wives immediately follows. If there were danger of turning away from the strict and serious religion of Jehovah connected with the enormous riches, the luxury and splendor of the court, this was much more the case with the large harem. Solomon did not withstand this last danger; what was foreseen in the laws for the kings happened: “his heart was turned away.” What we learn from the connection of these two sections is very important: namely, that it was not vulgar, coarse sensuality that gave rise to such a large harem, but the reason was rather, that as Solomon grew in riches, esteem, and power, excelling all other kings in these (1 Kings 10:23), he wished also to surpass them in what, according to Eastern ideas, even in the present day, especially belonged to the court and splendor of a great monarch; that is, the largest possible harem. But this was the occasion of his fall. It is therefore very arbitrary of the Sept. to describe ΰָ ?δַ ?α 1 Kings 11:1 by ἦνφιλογύναιοςκαὶ ἔλαβεγυναῖκαςἀλλοτρίας, and quite wide of the mark in Thenius, who, explaining this for the original reading, says that Solomon was an “enervated slave to his senses.” Were this the case, traces of it would have been apparent earlier; but we do not hear, respecting Solomon, the slightest intimation of any previous sexual irregularity; he did not succumb to the influence of his many wives until he had become advanced in years (1 Kings 11:4), and had reached the summit of his prosperity and power. For his marriage with the Egyptian, see above on 1 Kings 3:1; she did not rank among the other strange women, i.e., those whom it was forbidden in the law to marry, as 1 Kings 11:2 expressly remarks (cf. Exodus 34:16; Deuteronomy 7:3-4; Joshua 23:12). It was only through them that strange worship, the Asiatic, was introduced into the land; but there is not the slightest trace of Egyptian worship. The Moabites dwelt east of the Dead Sea, the Ammonites were north of them, and the Edomites south; but the Zidonians and Hittites lived north of Palestine, where Ph�nician worship prevailed. Cf. Deuteronomy 23:4; Ezra 9:12; Nehemiah 13:23. 1 Kings 11:3. And he had seven hundred wives, &c. 1 Kings 11:3. ωָ ?ψεֹ ?ϊ means princesses, women of the first rank; not those who received rank by entrance into the harem, but those who were of noble families. The great number of these women, with all of whom it was not possible for Solomon (now elderly) to hold sexual intercourse, but especially their high rank, shows the reason they were maintained; seven hundred from the noblest princely houses of foreign nations served to add the greatest splendor to the court. Many think it probable that the majority of these wives, although they all were in subjection to him, served rather as singers and dancers to amuse the old and feeble king (Stollberg, Lisco). The opinion is entirely wrong, that (according to Ecclesiastes 4:8) Solomon was “guided by a theological idea, and intended to furnish a symbolical representation of the kingdom of Christ, and his dominion over all nations” (Evgl. Kirch.-Zeitg. 1862, s. 691). The Numbers 700 and 300 may be only “round, i.e., approximate” ones (Keil), but are not therefore necessarily exaggerated or false. Ecclesiastes 6:8 has been quoted in opposition to them: “sixty are the queens, and eighty are the concubines, and innumerable are the virgins,” and in order to reconcile the two passages, the supposition is thrown out, that 60 and 80 were the number in the court at one time, and 700 and 300 the number of all the women at the court during Solomon’s reign (Ewald, Keil). This Thenius, with some reason, declares to be a “subterfuge;” but when he asserts that the statement in the Canticles is “historically founded,” and on the other hand, regards our own statement “as an evidence of the legendary character of the entire section,” we answer that Canticles is not historical but is poetic, and cannot be adduced as testimony against our historical books. Finally, the supposition to which Keil inclines, that there may be errors in the numeral-letters (ω = 300 instead of τ = 80), rests evidently in the consideration that the Numbers 700 and 300 appear too large. But this difficulty ceases when we compare our own with other accounts of the harems of Eastern rulers. Curtius relates (III. 1 Kings 3:24) that Darius Codomanus, on his expedition against Alexander, carried 300 pellices with him. Public accounts state that the harem of the present Turkish Sultan contains 1,300 women. The Augsb. Allg. Zeitung of 1862, No. 181, says “that the mother of the Taiping, emperor in Nankin, is the head of her son’s harem, a great establishment containing 3,000 women,” whom the same “lady” has to keep in order. Magelhδus gives the same number, and adds that the emperor had never seen some of them in his life. “The travellers of the seventeenth century reported the number of the wives of the Great Mogul to have been 1,000” (Philippson). In Malcom’s history of Persia it is stated that king Kosros had 5,000 horses, 1,200 elephants, and 12,000 wives; this may be greatly exaggerated, but shows the notions that were entertained about the state which a great ruler should maintain. Cf. also other instances in Rosenmόller, Altes und Neues Morgenland, III. s. 181. The evident intention of the narrator is, not to picture these rulers as brutal sensualists, but, on the contrary, to add to their fame. An immense harem is held in the East to be as requisite to a splendid court as a large stud. 1 Kings 11:4. For it came to pass when Solomon was old, …… after other gods, &c. By old age is not meant the time “when the flesh obtained mastery over the spirit” (Keil)—sensuality never first begins with old age—but the time when, in consequence of luxury and indulgence, the energy of spirit and heart deserted him, and a relaxing took possession of him more and more. Then first it happened that the many foreign, well-conditioned women succeeded in turning away Solomon’s heart, i.e., in reducing his tone, making him indifferent towards the strict and exclusive religion of Jehovah, and milder and more indulgent towards the worship of their gods, yea, so to insnare him that he favored the latter by the building of altars to idols. When the text adds, and his heart was not (any longer) perfect (ωָׁ ?μֵ ?ν = complete) with the Lord his God, it says thereby as clearly, as positively, that he did not completely fall away from Jehovah’s service, but that he permitted the idolatrous worship of his wives besides. The formula, he did evil in the sight of the Lord, is used in speaking of every one who broke the commandment in Exodus 20:3-4, because this is the first and supremest will of God. To avoid any misunderstanding, 1 Kings 11:6 repeats, he went not fully (ξִ ?μֵּ ?ΰsc.μָ ?μֶ ?λֶ ?ϊ, as in Numbers 14:24; Numbers 32:11-12; Deuteronomy 1:36) after the Lord (Jehovah). It is therefore difficult to conceive why it is so often asserted that Solomon formally departed from Jehovah, and became an idolater (Thenius, Duncker, Menzel, and others). All the kings of Judah or of Israel who were idolatrous are said to have served (ςָ ?αַ ?γ) strange gods (cf. 16:31; 22:54; 2 Kings 16:3; 2 Kings 21:2-6; 2 Kings 21:20-22), but this expression is never applied to Solomon either here or elsewhere. Chronicles is never silent in respect of the kings in Judah, when any one of them served idols (2 Chronicles 28:2-3; 2 Chronicles 32:2 sq.; 2 Chronicles 33:22; 2 Chronicles 36:8), yet it says nothing of Solomon in this respect; but this is inconceivable, were it true that he had wholly forsaken Jehovah, and turned to idolatry. Jesus Sirach complains indeed (Sir 47:12-23) that the great Solomon succumbed to the influence of his wives, but does not say a word of his idolatry. All the Jewish traditions, the Talmud, and the Rabbins (Ghemara Schabb. lvi. 2) know nothing of the idolatry of Solomon. Had he himself, as well as his wives, formally worshipped idols, he would have fallen far deeper than Jeroboam, who only made images to represent Jehovah; and his sin would have been far greater than “the sin of Jeroboam,” which is so often alluded to in these books, while there is no mention of the idolatry Solomon is accused of. The statement of the unreliable Josephus (Antiq.viii. 7, 5) about Solomon’s idol-worship is just as much to be credited as his statement that he was ninety-four years of age, and that he broke the law of Moses in placing twelve oxen around the molten sea, and the twelve lions near the throne. We cannot even admit that Solomon held idolatrous worship along with Jehovah’s worship (Winer), nor that his fall “consisted in a syncretistic mixture of Jehovah-worship and idol-worship” (Keil), for in so doing he would have placed Jehovah on a level with idols, whereas the very nature of Jehovah’s service is the sole and exclusive worship of Him. The μΰ … ωָׁ ?μֵ ?ν and μֹ ?ΰξִ ?μֵּ ?ΰ 1 Kings 11:4; 1 Kings 11:6 does not say: he served Jehovah and the idols both, but: he was no longer wholly and completely with Jehovah; and this is made clear in that he allowed his strange wives to observe idolatrous service in the city which the Lord had chosen to put His name there, and even went so far as to favor it by the building of “high-places” (1 Kings 11:36; 1 Kings 8:16; 1 Kings 14:21; 2 Chronicles 6:6). So Hess (Gesch. Salomo’s, s. 436), and recently Vilmar (Pastoral-theol. Blόtter, 1861, s. 179); Ewald also (Gesch. Isr. III. s. 378 sq.) says: “there is no evidence from ancient documents that Solomon ever left the religion of Jahve, even in his extreme old age, or sacrificed with his own hands to heathen deities; but, on the contrary, all historical evidences of his times are against the idea. Besides, we find it is expressly mentioned that he sacrificed upon the altar of Jahve, built by him, three times a year (according to the order of the three great festivals) with the greatest solemnity, as befitted a king such as he was” (1 Kings 9:25). Cf. below on 1 Kings 11:9 sq.1 Kings 11:5-8. Solomon went after Ashtoreth, &c. The εַ ?ιֵּ ?μֶ ?κְ, &c., 1 Kings 11:5, means that he served these gods, personally, no more than ιִ ?αְ ?πֶ ?δ in 1 Kings 11:7 which follows, means that he built, with his own hands, high-places for the heathen gods; but he allowed it, permitted it to be done. 1 Kings 11:8 adds expressly, “and likewise did he (i.e., he built high-places, 1 Kings 11:7) for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods.” This plainly shows that he did not build the heights for himself and his people, and that he did not burn incense, nor sacrifice on them, but that his strange wives did. He allowed public worship to all, whatsoever divinities they might adore, but did not himself renounce Jehovah-worship. Diestel (in Herzog’s Real-Encyklop. XIII. s. 337) grants that Solomon did not wholly go over into idolatry, but thinks that there is as little question that there was more than mere tolerance. The religious consciousness of the Israelite could not (he thinks) get rid of the idea that certain peculiar powers ruled other nations, dependent indeed upon Jehovah, and a limited service devoted to these foreign inferior gods did not consequently annul the service of the all-ruling Jehovah. This artificial view, in which Niemeyer joins, is contradicted decisively by the fact that the so-called “inferior gods” are mentioned as ωִׁ ?χֻּ ?υ, abomination (1 Kings 11:5; 1 Kings 11:7), ϊּ ?εֹ ?ςַ ?αָ ?δ abomination (2 Kings 23:13), δֲ ?αָ ?μִ ?ιν vanity (Jeremiah 2:5) and βִּ ?μּ ?εּ ?μִ ?ιν stercora (Deuteronomy 29:17), which would not have been possible had “the greatest sympathies” existed “in Israel” for these gods as really “superior beings.” We need not stop to refute the frivolous assertion of Menzel (Staat- und Rel.-Geschichte der Kφnigreiche Israel und Juda, s. 142), that our author, who was devoted to Jehovah’s service, preferred to place the king in an unfavorable light rather than to let it be known how long the strange worship had existed among the people, and in which they took part. For the divinities named in 1 Kings 11:5; 1 Kings 11:7, cf. Movers, Relig. der Phφnizier, s. 560–584, 602–608; Keil, bibl. Archδologie I. s. 442 sq.; Winer, R.- W.-B. under the appropriate names. Ashtoreth is the highest of the Phoenician (Sidonian) and Syrian female deities, and a personification of the feminine principle in nature. Her form is differently represented, sometimes with a bull’s or woman’s head with horns (crescents), sometimes as a fish (symbol of the watery element). She was specially adored by women; her worship, which is not exactly known, was most probably associated with indecency. Cf. especially Cassel, in the Bibelwerk, on Judges 2:13. Milcom is said to be the chief god of the Ammonites, in 1 Kings 11:33, and 2 Kings 23:13; 2 Samuel 12:30; Jeremiah 49:1; Jeremiah 49:3; there is no accurate description of his nature or worship. As Moloch is immediately after (1 Kings 11:7) said to be the god of the Ammonites, and the two names (ξμαν and ξμκ) are closely related to each other, it is very reasonable to suppose they were different names for the same divinity. The translations also confuse them; the Sept., 1 Kings 11:5; 1 Kings 11:7, gives Μελχὼμ, the Vulg. gives Moloch twice; but in 2 Kings 23:13 the former renders Milchom by Μόλοχ, and the latter by Melchom. Thenius therefore reads εξμλν in 1 Kings 11:7 instead of εξμκ, but there is no reason for doing so. Keil and Ewald agree with Movers in holding Milchom and Moloch to be different deities, partly because of the different names, and partly because 2 Kings 23:10; 2 Kings 23:13 mention that they had different places of sacrifice, and that Moloch was always named in connection with sacrifices of children. Winer, however, justly remarks that each, though not essentially different, had different attributes, and had therefore various altar-places in one and the same town. As for the rest, Molech or Moloch was the divinity which was known and adored throughout Anterior Asia, whose image, according to the Rabbins, was made of brass, with the head of an ox and human arms, in which the children offered were laid. Movers thinks he was the same in part as Saturn or Chronos, and in part the same as Baal the sun-god (cf. s. 322 sq.). There were certainly no child-sacrifices at Jerusalem in Solomon’s time; they were first offered under Ahaz (2 Kings 16:3). Chemosh or Chamosh was the war-and-fire-god, according to Movers; Numbers 21:9, Jeremiah 48:46 call the Moabites the people of Chemosh. That this was the divinity to whom the Moabite king offered his son, 2 Kings 3:27, is only a matter of conjecture. At any rate, the character of the latter deity seems very similar to that of Milchom or Molech of the Ammonites, as it (the former) appears, in Judges 11:24, to be the god of the Ammonites; cf. Cassel on this passage. We have no exact accounts of them. For the “heights,” see above on 1 Kings 3:4; for the places where they were built, see on 2 Kings 23:13. 1 Kings 11:9-13. And the Lord was angry. Solomon, by his conduct, excited the extremest divine displeasure, and deserved punishment the more, as he had been so richly blessed in every respect by Jehovah, and had even been earnestly and emphatically warned in a peculiar vision against leaning towards other gods (1 Kings 3:5 sq.;1 Kings 9:1 sq.). The announcement of the subsequent chastisement did not follow in another direct revelation, but was no doubt conveyed by a prophet, who, as Nathan was no longer living, must have been Ahijah the Shilonite (1 Kings 11:29). It is well worthy of notice that, in this announcement, the oppression of the people by compulsory labor, and taxes, or despotism, is not given as the reason of the dividing of the kingdom by Jehovah, and of limiting Solomon’s dynasty to dominion over one tribe; but only the sin against Jehovah, the “going after other gods.” It was just the same in Ahijah’s address to Jeroboam, 1 Kings 11:29-39. For one tribe (1 Kings 11:13) see on 1 Kings 11:31-32. For David’s sake,i.e., on account of the promise given, for his unchanging fidelity to Jehovah (2 Samuel 17:12 sq.). Cf. that on 1 Kings 8:15 sq. We are not told what impression the prophecy made on Solomon, but we may just for this reason conclude that it was not such as Nathan’s discourse made on David (2 Samuel 12:13). Historical and Ethical1. The turn which, with the events described in the section before us, the reign of Solomon takes, is of the weightiest moment, because it exercised the most wide-spread and lasting influence upon the whole history of Israel: for its immediate result was the rending of the kingdom, which was the beginning of the end. “The happiness to be the most favored people on the earth under a wise king—this happiness which Israel could, as it were, be shown from afar for a brief space, was itself the source of its wretchedness. Wisdom as well as wealth and power were intrusted to a sinful man, who could not keep himself erect upon this dizzy height. Hence this kingdom of peace and of prosperity should be, even in its fall, both a warning example and also a type of the kingdom which, through another, was to bring the blessings of salvation to men which Solomon’s reign signified in earthly symbols” (Von Gerlach). “Just in the period of the highest perfection of the worldly kingdom, the insufficiency thereof to satisfy the higher expectations and hopes, the complete faultiness cleaving to it, and the incapacity to meet the deepest needs of the spirit by sensuous splendor and earthly exhibition of power, must, for the first time, have dawned upon the consciousness” (Eisenlohr, das Volk Isr. II. s. 119). 2. The change which overtook Solomon in his extreme old age would be an insoluble psychological riddle if it consisted in his abandonment of the service of Jehovah, and his yielding to the idolworship practised by his wives. It is impossible that a man who had been brought up in the fear of Jehovah, and had declared this to be the beginning of all wisdom, who up to the fulness of his age had an unclouded and undisturbed knowledge of the one living God, as is shown in the discourse and prayer at the dedication of the temple (chap. 8), that a man who shone forth upon all sides as light amid the darkness, and throughout the whole Orient was regarded as a living symbol of wisdom (1 Kings 4:30; 1 Kings 9:24), should in his still riper age have fallen into a most gross superstition, and abandoned himself to the crudest, most senseless, and immoral of all forms of worship, namely, that of the Canaanites and the peoples of anterior Asia. We look in vain through all Scripture for an example in the remotest degree like it. Recognizing this, those critics of late, who think that idolatry is actually charged upon Solomon in our text, have adopted the notion, either that the accounts respecting his wisdom and his knowledge of God are false, that in fact he had always before this been given over to idolatry (Gramberg, Vatke, and others)—a view striking all history in the face, and hence needing no refutation—or inversely, that our account about Solomon’s idolatry is inaccurate, and rests first upon the later “deuteronomistic elaborators of the history” who misunderstood and represented the facts falsely (Ewald, Eisenlohr, and others), an assumption which is violent and arbitrary, but which, to be sure, is the most convenient way of solving the problem. By the correct interpretation of the text, according to which Solomon did not himself practise idolatry, but allowed his wives the exercise of public idol-worship, indeed favored it, the difficulty disappears. It is not indeed an unusual psychological phenomenon that a man highly gifted, standing upon a lofty eminence of knowledge and wisdom, decided in his moral and religious principles, should lose, in his old age, in consequence of various influences and relations, and of some especial fortunes of his life, the energy of his spirit and will, or, without abandoning precisely his past convictions, should resign them in respect of decisiveness and exclusiveness, so that towards what he had once regarded as error and had zealously combated it as such, he becomes tolerant and, as it were, indifferent, especially when he hopes thereby to attain ends otherwise pursued by him, as this was the case with Solomon, as we shall see, who therefore furnishes a warning and instructive example in history. 3. The formal allowance and patronage of different idolatries, especially in the place where the central Jehovah-sanctuary of the whole people stood, was, upon the part of the king, an actual equalization of the same with the Jehovah-worship; an official declaration of the equal authorization of idol-worship with the service of the one, true, living God who is the God of Israel. But thereby the first and supreme command of the Israelitish law, i.e., of the Covenant (Exodus 20:2), was directly transgressed, and indeed set aside. The people Israel were chosen by God to be the upholders of the knowledge of the one God, and thereby to act for the healing of all nations. To this end it was necessary that as a people they should “be separated” from all peoples (Leviticus 20:24; 1 Kings 8:53): participation in the election and in the covenant was made continual through obedience upon the part of the people, and also through race-derivation. Jehovah’s kingdom and the people’s hence coincide, the religion with the nation, and they stand and fall together. Permission, reception, and introduction of any heathen religion or of different idolatrous worships was not merely an assault upon the religious conviction of individuals, but was also an undermining of the national being inseparably connected therewith. The exclusiveness of the Jehovah-cultus was for the people, in their peculiar life, an absolute necessity. To set aside or remove it was to threaten the existence of this peculiar estate, and to deny its world-historical distinction. If Solomon himself neither offered incense nor sacrificed unto idols, he did yet nothing less than attack the foundations of the kingdom; he brought into the unity of the Israelitish public life the germ of dissolution, and threatened to destroy the covenant and God’s plan of salvation. To this extent his conduct and undertaking must be characterized as a real falling away. 4. The text gives only, as the immediate occasion of this falling away of Solomon, his love for his many foreign wives. We have already remarked, in respect of these high-bred dames from all the neighboring countries, that reference was had to the splendor of the court rather than to the gratification of a common, ungovernable lust. From their youth accustomed to their sensuous, more or less unchaste worship, they were more reluctant to abandon it as the earnest and severe Jehovah-cultus could not please them. What was more natural than the effort to induce the king, advancing in years, that he would permit them to observe their own native religious rites, and would make the regulations necessary therefor, by means of which his kingdom might become a sort of assembly-place for all religions, and acquire additional splendor and glory? This indeed they succeeded in, but not in the way of gross sensuality.—Niemeyer remarks with great pertinence (Charakteristik der Bib. IV. s. 487): “We do not find that Solomon gave the strength of his youth to women, and went the way which destroys kings (Proverbs 31:3). But even because he did not indulge so much in sensual enjoyment, the more refined voluptuousness became for him the more dangerous: that adhesion of the spirit, that secret enravishment of heart which, unobserved, breaks up the entire independence of the man, and, before he is aware of it, makes him the helpless slave of the woman. It begins far more innocently than that which we call crime, properly speaking, but it leaves behind it usually more melancholy ruins in the soul than the other. In like manner also, Vilmar observes (s. 180), it is not so much coarse sensuality as rather ‘psychical bondage to the female sex’ which wrought the fall of Solomon.” Psychical polygamy dissipates, pulls to pieces, and wastes irresistibly the core of the human soul. … At a certain stage of “culture,” in the intercourse between a man and woman, coarse sensuality by no means prevails, but the psychical pleasure in the woman, and the psychical abandonment to the woman, the desire of the eye, and the desire of the eye for the sex as such, and not for an individual woman.” The surroundings or relations were singularly fitted to awaken that kind of spiritual condition and to impart nourishment to it. The long peace, broken neither by war nor other calamity, the great wealth, the extensive trade, the abundance, by these means, of all objects of luxury possible, the voluptuous court-life in consequence, everything conspired to bring about a relaxation; and this was the soil upon which the numerous strange women could carry out their nature without hindrance. It is very probable that Solomon allowed himself to be governed by the political considerations “to give to the strangers flocking to Jerusalem an opportunity for the exercise of their own worship, and make his residence the desirable centre for the commercial peoples of Anterior Asia” (Bertheau, Zur Gesch. der Israel., s. 323). Like the crowded, brilliant harem itself, so the secured freedom of worship must needs increase the authority and glory of the great king. But always his polygamy is and must remain the first and chief cause of his downfall; this, as Ewald remarks (Gesch. Isr. III. s. 215) strikingly, concerning David’s adultery, is the “inexhaustible source of evils without number. … Here is concealed an inextricable coil of the direst evils, of which scarcely is one put out of the way, when two, three others start up, and each is enough to destroy the peace of an entire kingdom.” So long as this evil, “which the whole ancient world did not sufficiently regard as an evil,” remained, “the kingdom in Israel was therewith exposed to the same convulsions to which all polygamous kingdoms are to this day exposed: and consequently, in his earliest bloom we see arise in Israel the germ of its destruction, which sooner or later can combine with other causes of dissolution. The evils in the house of David introduced by Amnon, Absalom, and Adonijah … all hang together with the fundamental evil once brought out; many evils also amongst his successors are fastened to the same thread.” Although Mosaism even in the history of creation represents Monogamy as the original relation ordained by God Himself, nevertheless polygamy was so deeply rooted in the habits of all peoples, that the strict law-giver was not able to uproot it, but sought, by various limitations, to make it difficult (Deuteronomy 21:15 sq.; Exodus 21:9 sq. Cf. Winer, R.- W.-B. II. s. 662). It was expressly forbidden to a king to have many wives (Deuteronomy 17:17), because the dangers which inhered in polygamy were doubly great, and could become dangerous for the whole realm, as Solomon’s example conspicuously shows. The temptation was especially great with kings, because a large harem, according to the custom then prevalent, belonged to a royal state. It is, nevertheless, and remains a shadow resting upon the Old Covenant, and under it the sanctity of marriage was not properly understood and secured. Christendom was the first to make holy the band of matrimony. Without taking away the subordination of the woman, which is grounded in nature (Leviticus 3:16), it has given to her her rightful place (Galatians 3:28), and thereby, in that it represents the relation of Christ to His Church as the examplar of marriage, it sets forth, as a principle, monogamy as the only form and order of the sexual relation (Ephesians 5:22-33). 5. What now, in recent times, has been set forth as the proximate and co-operating cause or as the chief cause of the fall of Solomon, appears, upon closer examination, untenable. They who are of the opinion that Solomon indeed did not abandon the worship of Jehovah, but worshipped, besides Jehovah, heathen deities also, suppose that he reached this syncretism in the way of comparative reflection. Thus Niemeyer remarks (s. 493): “He knew well enough that these wooden and brazen images are nothing, but in them he paid honor to the spirits to whom the Highest, the Unattainable, the Unknowable had intrusted the rulership of the world. The more assuredly that this idea is derived from an oriental source, the more probable is it that Solomon believed that he could find therein the solution of his doubt whether the Creator of the world occupied Himself with what was insignificant, and with the destiny of each particular people.” The love for his foreign wives brought him to the pass of “denying his convictions, which had been becoming enfeebled.” Von Gerlach expresses himself to the same effect: “It is worthy of note that in respect of Solomon’s wisdom, his knowledge of nature is expressly celebrated, and that this wisdom is compared with and placed above that of the Orient and of Egypt (1 Kings 4:30 sq.). … It is easy to perceive that he made an attempt to blend the traditional world-knowledge of the East with the knowledge of the revealed God; that he allowed a certain independence to the powers of creation which he had represented in the figures of the Cherubim in the temple standing far below Jehovah, as His servants, and first tolerated the worship of them, and then in a certain degree himself took part therein.” This whole conception rests upon the erroneous presupposition that Solomon had actually burnt incense and had sacrificed to idols (besides to Jehovah), and it disappears with it. The historical text knows nothing at all of Solomon’s being misled to idolatry by his own reflection and by the blending of his wisdom with that of the East: it knows no other reason for his toleration of idolatry than that his strange wives “turned away his heart.” Lastly, neither in the historical books nor in the writings attributed to Solomon is there the slightest trace of the thought that idols were real living creative-powers, and subordinate deities serving Jehovah. It is a question whether such a view of the relation of Jehovah to gods of the heathen ever obtained in Israel. Certainly this was not the case in Solomon’s time, and the later prophets had no occasion to resist this opinion.—Ewald has set forth another view (as above, s. xiii. 368, 379 sq.). He finds the reason in the direction begun in Solomon’s kingdom, and so full of results to the whole history of Israel in the “violence” which cleaved to the kingdom naturally, by virtue of which he sought to make everything depend upon himself, and to extend his power to every phase of life—in fact, in political absolutism. The kingdom of Israel, under Solomon, felt the strongest tendency to become a thorough kingdom of the world; but in such a kingdom the toleration of different religions is inevitable. But as this toleration was as yet strange, “so the sheer royal authority introduced the innovation,” which to many of strict sentiments was abhorrent. This view has less even in its favor than the preceding. It rests upon an entirely false modern political view of monarchy in general, and of the Israelitish in particular. That which the only historical source in our possession gives as the chief occasion of Solomon’s turning is set wholly aside, and in its place something is advanced, of which not a word is said. Neither the announcement of the punishment (1 Kings 11:9-12), nor the prophecy of Ahijah to Jeroboam (1 Kings 11:31 sq.), gives in the remotest degree, as the ground of the division of the kingdom, “violence,” i.e., excess of the royal authority, but only Solomon’s want of fidelity to Jehovah occasioned through his wives. A world-kingdom, to convert Israel into which, Solomon is supposed to have had the tendency, is established only by means of military conquests, as the history of the world shows. Thus the great Roman power began, yet it ceased with the freedom of all (kinds of) worship. Solomon was “a man of rest” and of peace (1 Chronicles 22:9), who did not extend the limits of the kingdom, but sought to keep and hold those only as they were under David. He meditated no world-power, and least of all to bring it to pass by the toleration of all religions. 6. The announcement of the divine punishment gives, what is well to notice, as the ground there of, not any sinful passion or any immoral act, not even the possession of many wives or unbridled lust, but only that Solomon had permitted and favored idolatrous worship, and in this had not observed the covenant and the commands of Jehovah. David sinned grievously in the matter of Bathsheba, but his procedure was still simply the immoral act of an individual in relation with an individual. Solomon’s deed, on the other hand, concerned the foundations of the theocracy. It was the setting aside and the destruction of the divine law upon which the whole kingdom, the existence of Israel as a people distinct from all heathen peoples, its world-historical destiny, rested. For a king of Israel, whose calling consisted, especially in this, to be a servant of Jehovah, the true king of Israel, and as such before all things to maintain thoroughly the Covenant, there could be no heavier announcement. In the case of Solomon, moreover, Jehovah had vouchsafed to him special revelations, had answered all his prayers, and had made him the most favored, the richest, and most fortunate king of that time. From the theocratic point of view, the punishment itself, the division of the kingdom and the limitation of the dynasty of Solomon to the tribes Judah and Benjamin, appears even-merciful, for in reality Solomon had rendered himself completely unworthy of the theocratic kingdom. For the rest, the punishment corresponded with the offence in so far as it brought to fruit and maturity the germ of the destruction of the kingdom which Solomon by his conduct had planted and tended. And it is true here also that what a man soweth that shall he reap. Solomon, befooled by his wives, believed that he could become still greater by transgression of the Covenant, and that he would make his kingdom more conspicuous and glorious; but this same transgression laid the foundation of irreparable breach and final ruin. From the modern liberalistic point of view Solomon’s act has been judged differently. So Ewald says (s. 380): “In that he allowed his wives to sacrifice to their deities was the best evidence of a general toleration of religion in his kingdom that he could furnish. In fact the act, a legal toleration of different religions in that early age of the wise Solomon was attempted—a toleration which the true religion must allow as soon as it recognizes its own being, and against which in our land to-day, this side the Niemen, the Jesuits alone are condemned to work. Certainly at that time the religion of Jahve was something too weak to stand alone by itself without any outward protection.… If only Solomon’s rule had not become gradually distasteful to the popular feeling for other causes, who knows what might have been established in this age for the continuance of the new wisdom!” After his usual fashion, Eisenlohr has adopted this view (s. 115). With Solomon, says he, “we see in place of the purely hostile posture towards heathenism a friendly approximation, in many respects even a formal blending, and indeed this took shape in a very natural way. In a great kingdom consisting of diverse nationalities, room must be allowed for the most diverse forms of religion.… Every genuine, sound type of religion (religiositδt), in so far as its element is freedom, the right of individual contemplation and elevation above stiff outward forms in the region of the spirit, carries within itself the germ for the scattering of every exclusive kind.” That this way of viewing the subject is in direct contradiction with the biblical, scarcely needs mention. Were general religious toleration a work of wisdom, and the furtherance of true religion as soon as it recognizes its own being, Solomon, by his tolerance of the wild, immodest, and shameful Astarte-and-Moloch cultus, instead of the “wrath” of Jehovah and the punishment of the limitation of his kingdom to one tribe only, would have merited praise only, and the broader extension of his kingdom; and all the great prophets, an Elijah, Elisha, Jeremiah, Hosea, &c., who opposed the toleration of every idolatrous cultus, and were zealous for the exclusiveness of the Jehovah-cultus, should be considered as the “Jesuits” of the old world, who did not know the nature of true religion. Solomon would have then erred only in investing the religion of Israel with too much power, and in his zeal for progress, in anticipating general religious freedom. With incomparably more right, Vilmar has rendered an opposite judgment (s. 179 sq.). “We have here before us a type of the authorization of all forms of religion within a definite, limited divine sphere of life.… Solomon’s ideal here is to let each man be saved ΰ sa facon … the beginning of the (unlimited) “authorization of individuality”—this proposition is thoroughly subversive, belonging, in this form, to the last decades, in virtue of which church-bodies, States, peoples come to an end.” For the rest we need not look for New-Testament views in the Old Testament, nor for Old Testament views in the New. They are distinct economies. Christianity is not like the Mosaic, conditioned by bodily descent and bound up in a given race, and does not impose the obligation forcibly to suppress any other religion within its jurisdiction. It knows no other instrument of its continuance and of its spread than that of the Word, and of the conviction thereby wrought. But if no people can be without religion, and if this have the most decisive, profound influence upon the spiritual and moral formation of the people, then the political power cannot be indifferent in respect of all religions, and cannot simply consider them of equal authority in any relation. Of the Solomonic prototype there remains thus much for all times and peoples, that the introduction and authorization of all, even the most diverse religions and forms of worship within a nation, does not make the same strong, but weak, and carries with it the danger of its national and political division and destruction; for religious indifferentism is the death of all true patriotism, and is more destructive of a people than religious fanaticism. Homiletical and Practical1 Kings 11:1-13. Solomon’s fall. The beginning, 1 Kings 11:1-4; the progress, 1 Kings 11:5-8; the end, 1 Kings 11:9-13.—M. Fr. Roos: Here we see plainly how a godly man may gradually fall into sin. He first allows himself too much liberty. He ventures into danger, and then perishes therein.… He who scorns danger, who by marriage and by a wilful intrusion upon certain positions exposes himself to it, or who even ventures in his daily course too much into the world, under the pretext of liberty; he who indulges in the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life instead of enjoying with gratitude and moderation the gifts of God, such an one becomes the slave of sin, and falls under the wrath of God. The heart is first inclined, then wanders upon evil paths, and at last does openly what is displeasing to the Lord. At first we permit in others, through complaisance, sin, which we could and should have checked, and thus we actually assist ourselves to sin. Still we preserve our appearance of wisdom and godliness, and will not have it supposed that we have entirely deserted the Lord. But he whose heart is not wholly with the Lord his God, follows him not at all; he who follows him not wholly, follows him not at all; for “a man cannot serve two Masters.” 1 Kings 11:1-8. The example given by the Bible in the case of Solomon. 1. What it teaches. (a) That for the sinful human heart, a constant outward prosperity is allied to spiritual dangers; for what profiteth, &c., Matthew 16:26. Thus it is that trial and sorrow are often blessings for time and eternity, Hebrews 12:6-12. (b) That the most abundant knowledge, the highest education and wisdom are no protection against moral and religious short-comings. Wine and women make foolish the wise man (Sir 19:2). No wise man commits a little folly, says an old proverb. Therefore, trust in the Lord, &c. (Proverbs 3:5-7). How it warns us. (a) Watch. If a Solomon can fall, a Solomon brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and walking in the ways of God in old age, a Solomon, the wisest man of his time! how necessary is it for us all to watch. Without watching, the greatest wisdom may become foolishness, and the highest spiritual condition may end in the wrath and judgments of God. (b) Pray. In the great prosperity and delight of this life, Solomon forgot prayer, as he had so well practised it in earlier years (chaps. 3. and 8.). His wives did not elevate his heart, they debased it. Prayer alone holds watch, and is therefore most necessary in prosperity and success (Psalms 76:2; Psalms 139:23 sq.).—”Let him who stands take heed,” &c. (1 Corinthians 10:12). (a) Solomon did stand in the living knowledge of God, in faith, and in humility (1 Kings 3:6; 1 Kings 8:23), but (b) he looked not well to himself, he did not observe that the thorns of wealth and the pride of life were choking the good seeds in his heart, therefore he fell, broke his covenant with God, and was under the just judgment of God. 1 Kings 11:1-4. Christian marriage in contradistinction to pre-Christian marriage (see Hist. and Ethic. 4) vs. Denial of the existence of marriage as a divine ordinance (Mark 10:6-9) is the source of the greatest and weightiest evils. Solomon sinned in this wise: That, contrary to the Law, he not only took to himself many wives, but foreign, i. e., heathen wives.—Osiander: Not without danger is it that a man takes a wife who is not of his own religion (1 Corinthians 7:16).—Lust of the eyes and the pride of life drowse the soul and cripple the will, gradually and imperceptibly influence the heart, so that it loses all sense of holy and earnest things, and all pleasure therein, and becomes stupid and indifferent to everything divine and noble.—A prince who allows himself to be advised and led by women in the affairs of his government, instead of guiding himself by the unchangeable law of God, destroys the prosperity of himself and his kingdom. Confidential intercourse and intimacy with those who know nothing of the living God, and of his word, but rather resist Him—those who well know how to flatter—this is a most perilous position for a God-fearing heart (Ecclesiastes 7:27). 1 Kings 11:4. Even as in youth exuberance of life and strength opens the door to temptation, so likewise does the weakness of old age. But an old gray-haired sinner is much more abominable in the sight of the Lord than a youth. Therefore, pray ever: Forsake me not in my old age, &c. (Psalms 71:9; Psalms 71:18).—There is no object worthier of compassion than the man who, having served the Lord, and kept the faith from his youth up, when old age has brought him near to his everlasting rest, turns his back upon it, and thus renders useless all his earlier struggles with sin and the world.—Vilmar: The sole condition under which, amid his natural weakness, an old man can maintain his spiritual strength, and guard his honor, is this: that “his heart is purely fixed upon God;” this condition failing, let a man’s whole life be influenced by the opinions of others; influenced by such opinions without sharing them, yet still without combating them, then complete wantonness will take possession of his old age. 1 Kings 11:5-8. Although Solomon did not himself practise idolatry, he permitted and encouraged it in others; but the receiver is as bad as the thief. That is the curse resting upon sin, that the very means by which men seek to raise themselves in the world’s estimation become the very means for their destruction. By perverted compliance and long toleration, Solomon brought ruin and destruction upon himself and his people for centuries to come. All indulgence which is grounded upon indifference to truth, or founded upon lukewarmness, is not virtue but a heavy sin before God, how much soever it may resemble freedom and enlightenment. In a well-ordered Church and State establishment neither bigotry nor superstition should have equal rights with faith and truth. Where the gate is opened to them, or where they are patronized instead of being resisted, then both people and kingdom are going to meet their ruin (see Ethical 6). 1 Kings 11:9-13. The punishment that fell upon Solomon shows us (a) the holiness and righteousness of God (Psalms 145:17; Psalms 5:5; Jeremiah 17:10; Luke 12:47). (b) His faithfulness and mercy (1 Kings 11:12-13). He knows how to punish, so that His gracious promises remain firm (2 Timothy 2:13; Romans 3:3).—God makes known to us His judgments through His Word, so that we may have time to repent and to turn unto Him (Ezekiel 33:2).—If judgment fell especially upon Solomon, notwithstanding the fact that the Lord appeared to him twice in a dream, and he was honored with distinguished grace, what judgment must we expect, to whom He has appeared tenderly in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, &c. (1 Corinthians 1:30; Hebrews 2:3; Hebrews 10:29).—God knows how, in the proper time, to belittle him who abandons and forsakes the Lord and His cause, in order to become great and distinguished in the eyes of the world (Daniel 4:34). Footnotes: 1 Kings 11:1.—[The Sept. renders here ἦνφιλογύνης, which is not borne out by the character of Solomon, as is pointed out in the Exeg. Com. Immediately after this the Vat. Sept. introduces 1 Kings 11:3, transposed from its place, but omits its last clause altogether. 1 Kings 11:1.—[All the ancient versions class Pharaoh’s daughter among the “strange wives,” which sense our author, as also Keil rejects. See Exeg. Com. 1 Kings 11:4.—[The Vat. Sept. omits the middle clause of 1 Kings 11:4, and mixes together 1 Kings 11:6-8, omitting much of them. 1 Kings 11:5.—[Notwithstanding the arguments in the Exeg. Com. against the personal idolatry of Solomon, it is to be remembered that the phrase δָ ?μַ ?κְ ΰַ ?ηֲ ?ψֵ ?ιΰֱ ?μֹ ?δִ ?ινΰֲ ?ηֵ ?ψִ ?ιν, to go after other gods (1 Kings 11:4-5; 1 Kings 11:10) is one already established as far back as the Pentateuch as an expression of idolatry. 1 Kings 11:13.—[For one tribe the Sept. have σκῆπτρονἕν, which is, however, probably to be understood in the same sense.—F. G.] Solomon’s Adversaries and DeathB.— 1 Kings 11:14-4314 And the Lord [Jehovah] stirred up an adversary unto Solomon, Hadad the Edomite: he was of the king’s seed in Edom. 15For it came to pass, when David was in [with, i. e., at war with] Edam, and Joab the captain of the host was gone up to bury the slain, after he had smitten every male in Edom; 16(for six months did Joab remain there with all Israel [i. e., the host], until he had cut off every male in Edom:) 17that Hadad fled, he and certain Edomites of his father’s servants with him, to go into Egypt: Hadad being yet a little child. 18And they arose out of Midian, and came to Paran: and they took men with them out of Paran, and they came to Egypt, unto Pharaoh king of Egypt; which gave him a house, and appointed him victuals, and gave him land. 19And Hadad found great favor in the sight of Pharaoh, so that he gave him to wife the sister of his own wife, the sister of Tahpenes the queen. 20And the sister of Tahpenes bare him Genubath his son, whom Tahpenes weaned in Pharaoh’s house: and Genubath was in Pharaoh’s household among the sons of Pharaoh. 21And when Hadad heard in Egypt that David slept with his fathers, and that Joab the captain of the host was dead, Hadad said to Pharaoh, Let me depart, that I may go to mine own country. 22Then Pharaoh said unto him, But what hast thou lacked with me, that, behold, thou seekest to go to thine own country? And he answered, Nothing: howbeit, let me go in any wise. 23And God stirred him up another adversary, Rezon the son of Eliadah, which fled from his lord Hadadezer king of Zobah: 24and he gathered men unto him, and became captain over a band, when David slew them of Zobah: and they went to Damascus, and dwelt therein, and reigned in Damascus. 25And he was an adversary to Israel all the days of Solomon, beside the mischief that Hadad did: and he abhorred Israel, and reigned over Syria. 26And Jeroboam the son of Nebat, an Ephrathite of Zereda, Solomon’s servant, whose mother’s name was Zeruah, a widow woman, even he lifted up his hand 27against the king. And this was the cause that he lifted up his hand against the king: Solomon built Millo, and repaired the breaches of the city of David his father. 28And the man Jeroboam was a mighty man of valor: and Solomon seeing the young man that he was industrious, he made him ruler over all the charge of the house of Joseph. 29And it came to pass at that time when Jeroboam went out of Jerusalem, that the prophet Ahijah the Shilonite found him in the way; and he had clad himself with a new garment; and they two were alone in the field: 30and Ahijah caught the new garment that was on him, and rent it in twelve pieces: 31and he said to Jeroboam, Take thee ten pieces: for thus saith the Lord [Jehovah], the God of Israel, Behold, I will rend the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and will give ten tribes to thee: 32(but he shall have one tribe for my servant David’s sake, and for Jerusalem’s sake, the city which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel:) 33because that they have forsaken me, and have worshipped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, Chemosh the god of the Moabites, and Milcom the god of the children of Ammon, and have not walked in my ways, to do that which is right in mine eyes, and to keep my statutes 34and my judgments, as did David his father. Howbeit, I will not take the whole kingdom out of his hand: but I will make him prince all the days of his life for David my servant’s sake, whom I chose, because he kept my commandments and my statutes: 35but I will take the kingdom out of his son’s hand, and will give it unto thee, even ten tribes. 36And unto his son will I give one tribe, that David my servant may have a light alway before me in Jerusalem, the city which I have chosen me to put my name there. 37And I will take thee, and thou shalt reign according to all that thy soul desireth, and shalt be king over Israel. 38And it shall be, if thou wilt hearken unto all that I command thee, and wilt walk in my ways, and do that is right in my sight, to keep my statutes and my commandments, as David my servant did; that I will be with thee, and build 39thee a sure house, as I built for David, and will give Israel unto thee. And I will for this afflict the seed of David, but not fore1 Kings 1 Kings 11:40 Solomon sought therefore to kill Jeroboam. And Jeroboam arose, and fled into Egypt, unto Shi-shak king of Egypt, and was in Egypt until the death of Solomon. 41And the rest of the acts of Solomon, and all that he did, and his wisdom, are they not written in the book of the acts of Solomon? 42And the time that Solomon reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel was forty years. 43And Solomon slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David his father: and Rehoboam his son reigned in his stead. Exegetical and Critical1 Kings 11:14. And the Lord stirred up an adversary unto Solomon, &c. It is clear and beyond dispute that the whole section, from 1 Kings 11:14-40, which treats of the different adversaries that God raised up against Solomon, is intimately connected with the immediately preceding account of his fall, and of the impending and threatened division of the kingdom. The latter was not to occur till after Solomon’s death; but the presages of it were already appearing. The peace of the kingdom hitherto undisturbed was endangered from that time on, both by internal and by external adversaries. The two external ones, Hadad and Rezon, had, indeed, always been foes to Israel and Solomon, but they had never ventured to show their animosity in open deed, inasmuch as the kingdom had become powerful and respected under Solomon. But Solomon, in permitting the idolatrous worship, gave great dissatisfaction to all the faithful servants of Jehovah, and with his own hands he shook the foundations of the kingdom. Other measures also, more or less connected with the former, caused him to lose, more and more, the esteem and confidence of his subjects; and then the long pent-up hatred of his old foes began to show itself more; their courage grew, and though they did not proceed to formal attack or to open rebellion (of which our narrative says nothing) Solomon had occasion to fear them more than ever before; the tranquillity and peace of his kingdom was endangered, and the time of prosperity past. Every one will admit that this is what the author meant to convey. But recent criticism reckons him a “later worker-up of Deuteronomy,” and accuses him of a shifting of the historical facts. According to Ewald (Gesch. Isr. III. s. 274–281), uproar and rebellion did not first break out towards the end of Solomon’s reign, but immediately after the death of David and of his formidable army-chief, Joab, in the beginning of the reign of the young and inexperienced king, both in the south (Edom) and in the north (Syria), as depicted by Solomon himself in the second Psalm With the divine courage and the admonition supported by prophetic assurance, which this Psalm expresses, together with wonderful firmness of spirit, Solomon met the storm of rebellion, and deprived his foes of their chief weapon of attack by his alliance with Egypt. Against the northern insurgents he himself marched, and stormed Hamath. Thus were the ragings of the people stilled, and in a brief space he became master of the situation. This view has been reiterated in several books (cf. for instance Eisenlohr, das Volk Isr. II. s. 47 and 57; Duncker, Gesch. des Alt. I. s. 387), and has been accepted as a matter of course; although there are the strongest reasons for rejecting it. (a) Our historical book says repeatedly how, and that the kingdom of Solomon became established (1 Kings 2:12; 1 Kings 2:46), without making the remotest allusion to rebellion having broken out in the lands David had conquered, and being put down by Solomon; yet this would especially have tended to establish his throne and increase the esteem in which he was held. Even in the chapter we are considering, no mention is made of actual rebellion, but only of adversaries; therefore to say there were certainly such, is not writing history, but making history. (b) The rebellion of whole nations which, like Edom, lived far off, could have been put down only by force of arms, and not by “reproof” or “strength of mind;” but the history says nothing of Solomon’s marching into Edom. He went indeed to Hamath, but not to conquer it, only to “fortify” it (ηζχ cf. 2 Chronicles 11:11-12; 2 Chronicles 26:9), as the short notice stands in 2 Chronicles 8:3, in the middle of the details of the different city-buildings. In fact we do not hear of a single warlike enterprise of Solomon’s; he was, as his name denotes, the king of peace, the “man of rest,” in distinction from David, the man of war (1 Chronicles 22:9); and his reign was distinguished by works of peace (building, commerce, intellectual culture), above that of all other kings. (c) The 2d Psalm does not contain a history, and our narrative cannot be completed, much less contradicted or corrected by it. It is a mere unproven hypothesis that this psalm was composed by Solomon, and that the rebellion alluded to in it took place during his reign, not in the last years of it, but in the first. What is here said of Hadad and Rezon certainly occurred at an earlier period, but is repeated, “because its influence only began to be felt in the latter part of Solomon’s reign, and should have guarded him from over-security from the beginning” (Keil). 1 Kings 11:14-22. Hadad, the Edomite. He is called Ahad [the English version does not distinguish] in 1 Kings 11:17. A Hadad is mentioned among the Edomite kings as early as Genesis 36:35; who evidently belonged to an earlier period. It is quite uncertain whether our Hadad was the grandson of the last king of Edom, whom 1 Chronicles 1:50 wrongly calls Hadad instead of Hadar (Genesis 36:39) (Ewald, Thenius). Details of his former fortunes are no doubt designed to show how firmly he clung to his native land, and therefore how much more he was to be dreaded. For David’s war with the Edomites cf.Sam. 1 Kings 8:13 sq. “The slain, whom Joab came out to bury, cannot be the Israelites who fell in the battle of the valley of salt, but those killed on the invasion of the country by the Edomites, and who lay yet unburied. After performing this act Joab defeated the Edomites in the valley of salt, and dwelt six months in Edom, till he had extirpated all the males (i. e., all those capable of bearing arms that fell into his hands, and especially those of royal blood”) (Keil). Midian, 1 Kings 11:18, cannot certainly be the town Madian mentioned by Arabian geographers, but a district; it is not very well defined, but it must have been between Edom and the desert, south-west of Palestine, Paran (Numbers 13:3; Numbers 13:27; Numbers 10:12); the road from Egypt still leads across the latter, through Aila to Mecca. The people whom the followers of Hadad took from Paran with them, were to lead the way across the desert. The Pharaoh who entertained the fugitives with such friendliness, and not only supported Hadad himself, but gave land to those with him, could scarcely be Solomon’s father-in-law, but his predecessor. His consort is here named δβְּ ?αִ ?ιψָ ?δ, the Queen-mother’s usual appellation (1 Kings 15:13; 2 Chronicles 15:16); but it does not always necessarily mean that; and consequently we are not obliged to accept Hitzig’s and Thenius’ reading of δַ ?βְּ ?γεֹ ?μָ ?δ, i. e., the elder. The weaning of a child (1 Kings 11:20) usually took place the second or third year (2Ma 7:27), and was observed as a family feast (Genesis 21:8). Genubath was thus adopted among the royal children, and brought up with them (Winer, R.-W.-B., I. s. 657). Hadad’s petition (1 Kings 11:21) was not so much because he had now no longer any fear for his life, but because he, as a royal prince, hoped to ascend the throne, and free his land from the Israelitish yoke; this was the only reason why he is named an adversary. Pharaoh’s question, 1 Kings 11:22, contains the counsel to remain where he was, where he was well off, rather than undertake a dangerous and uncertain enterprise. This advice of his near relative was well meant, and did not spring from the policy of seeking to acquire or keep Solomon’s friendship. Hadad, however, remained firm in his resolve; we are not told of his actual departure, but it is to be understood; so that the Sept. addition, καὶ ἀνέστρεφεν ‛ ?Αδερεἰςτὴνγῆναὐτοῦ, considered as original by Thenius, is unnecessary. It appears from 1 Kings 9:26 sq.;1 Kings 10:11, that Hadad was not able to carry out his plans at once, but, the fire smouldered under the ashes, and threatened to break out as soon as Solomon began to be less respected. Ewald continues Hadad’s history further. He says the Egyptian king received him in so friendly a manner, “evidently intending to make use of him in the future against the growing power of Israel.” Genubath must have “acted an important part in Asia, later, or he would otherwise not have been named at all.” When the feeling of the Egyptian court changed towards Israel’s kings, “an evasive answer” was returned to the Idumζan prince; he would “not be detained, however, but fled secretly to his ancestral mountains, was there acknowledged by many of his people as king, and caused Solomon much perplexity, though he was never completely victorious.” Every one who can read may see that there is not a single word of all this in the text, and yet Eisenlohr has blindly followed the writer l. c., s. 58). Cf. also on 1 Kings 22:48. 1 Kings 11:23-25. And God stirred him up.… Rezon … the son of Eliadah, &c. 1 Kings 11:23. 2 Samuel 8:3 sq. mentions that David smote Hadadezer, king of Zobah, in Syria, whereupon Rezon forsook his master, gathered together an army from the remains of the Syrian host, and proceeded later to Damascus, settled there, and usurped the chief power. This may have occurred in David’s time, or in the beginning of Solomon’s reign. It is nowhere said that he rebelled on Solomon’s accession, and was conquered by him, and there is nothing to show “that he was at least twenty or thirty years older than Solomon” (Ewald). It is not impossible that he survived Solomon, for had he died sooner it could not be, as in 1 Kings 11:25, that “he was an adversary to Israel all the days of Solomon.” He did not undertake any enterprise against the powerful king, but is he had always entertained hostile feelings to him, he now became a more dangerous and open enemy, as the power and fame of Solomon were declining. The words εְ ?ΰֶ ?ϊΞδָ ?ψָ ?ςָ ?δΰֲ ?ωֶׂ ?ψδֲ ?γָ ?γ are difficult, but can be translated only as many old translators give them, and among the recent ones, De Wette, Gesenius, Keil, Philippson; and “beside the mischief that Hadad (did).” εְ ?ΰֶ ?ϊ is as in 1 Kings 11:1 and Exodus 1:14. We are not told what the mischief that Hadad did really was; the writer only means that Rezon’s enmity was added to that of Hadad. This view, which suits the context, relieves the following sentence of all difficulty: “and he (Rezon) abhorred Israel, and reigned over Syria.” Whilst Hadad agitated the south, Rezon rebelled from Solomon in the north, and took the supreme power. The Sept. translates as if it read ζֹ ?ΰϊ instead of εΰϊ and ΰֱ ?γֹ ?ν instead of ΰψν: Αὕτηἡκακίαἥνἐποίησεν ’Αὁάρ. καὶ . . . ἐβασίλευσεἑνγῇ ’Εδώμ, i. e., this is the mischief which Hadad did; he abhorred Israel and was king in Edom. Thenius asserts that this was the original text. But in this case the whole sentence could not be here, where the question is about the second adversary, Rezon, but should have followed 1 Kings 11:22. It is incomparably less probable that it was there passed over by the oversight of a copyist (Thenius), and inserted here, than that the Sept. misunderstood the εΰϊ, &c., and translated wrongly as it so often does, and was then obliged to change ΰψν to ΰγν because it did not suit Hadad. The Sept. has arbitrarily mixed the two accounts of the adversaries together (it puts 1 Kings 11:23-24 into 1 Kings 11:14), so that we should be very foolish to follow it in this case. Ewald translates, “as for the mischief which Hadad did, he was hostile to Israel and reigned over Edom;” but then the sentence should be back of 1 Kings 11:22 and not here. It is not right to change ΰψν into ΰγν, because the two foregoing verses absolutely require that Rezon should be considered as subject to εַ ?ιָּ ?χָ ?υ. Cf. Keil on the place. 1 Kings 11:26-27. Jeroboam the son of Nebat. Hadad and Rezon were dangerous “adversaries” to Solomon, but Jeroboam, though a subject and servant of Solomon, lifted up his hand against the king, i. e., he actually rebelled. His personal circumstances are given more at length because of his vastly greater importance. Zereda is not Zarthan, as Keil thinks (1 Kings 7:46); the latter is not in Ephraim; but Zereda is Zerira in the mountains of Ephraim (cf. Thenius on 1 Kings 12:2). The second half of 1 Kings 11:27 says, like 1 Kings 9:15 : “to build Millo and the walls of Jerusalem;” there is, therefore, no question here of stopping “a gap in the city of David” (Luther), but of the closing up of a ravine (Vulgate, vorago) in the city, which was done by walls. By τֶּ ?ψֶ ?υ is meant the once very deep ravine of what was subsequently the Tyrop�on, which separated Zion from Moriah and Ophel. This ravine became part of the interior of the city through these walls, and was made inaccessible to enemies (Thenius). The words, he made him ruler over all the charge of the house of Joseph, are not in contradiction with 1 Kings 9:22; for slave-levy is not spoken of here (ξַ ?ρΞςֹ ?αֵ ?γ), but that of the Israelites (ξַ ?νξִ ?λָּ ?μΞιִ ?ωְׂ ?ψָ ?ΰֵ ?μ) 1 Kings 5:13, who worked alternately. It is not, therefore, necessary to suppose that the “house of Joseph,” i. e., the Ephraimites (Joshua 17:17) were obliged to work at Millo, as a punishment for their rebellion under Sheba (2 Samuel 20). But the Ephraimites, who had an old and irrepressible jealousy of Judah, submitted very reluctantly to labor in the king’s citadel and the royal city of Judah; their compulsory work increased their dislike to hatred, so that it was easy to fan the flame of insurrection among them. 1 Kings 11:29. And it came to pass at that time,i. e., not at the time Jeroboam made the insurrection, but—taken with 1 Kings 11:28—the time when he entered upon the office of superintendent over all the Ephraimite levy; therefore, before he lifted his hand against the king, and proceeded to acts, but still he was brooding over insurrection. The notion that 1 Kings 11:29-39 is a section taken from another source and inserted here (Thenius) is, to say the least, unnecessary; it contains an explanatory and needful account, which is closely connected with 1 Kings 11:28. Jeroboam’s banishment from Jerusalem was probably the occasion for preparations of rebellion. The prophet Ahijah was of the same tribe as Jeroboam, for Shiloh was in the tribe of Ephraim, north of Bethel, south of Lebonah (Judges 21:19), and was the seat of the tabernacle from Joshua to Eli (Joshua 18:1; 1 Samuel 21:3). They no doubt knew each other well. The Sept. adds to the words in the way (for explanation): καὶ ἀπἐστησεναὐτὸνἐκτῆςὁδοῦ. 1 Kings 11:30-39. Ahijah caught the new garment.ωַׂ ?μְ ?ξָ ?δ (for ωִׂ ?ξְ ?μָ ?δ) is “probably similar to the Arabian burnou; a large square piece of cloth, thrown over the shoulders and almost covering the whole person in the daytime, and used at night for a coverlet” (Keil). Hess wrongly imagines it to have been a “new mantle which Jeroboam had on;” and Ewald thinks it was his “new and splendid official uniform.” It was the prophet’s own cloak, as 1 Kings 11:30 plainly says. The prophet himself explains the meaning of this symbolic act. Le Clerc says that the repetition of the word new shows that the prophet did what he did, non temere. Thenius thinks the new garment denoted the young and powerful kingdom; but both these explanations are strained. A new garment is one that is whole and complete, integer, without a rent or hole; the kingdom was hitherto without split or division, but was now to be torn and divided. χָ ?ψַ ?ς is usually applied to tearing the garments in sign of mourning (Genesis 37:29; Genesis 44:13; 2 Samuel 13:21; 2 Kings 18:37), i. e., of inward rending. Now when the prophet tore the cloak into twelve pieces, and gave Jeroboam only ten pieces instead of eleven, we must of course infer that neither Benjamin nor Judah alone was meant here, or in 1 Kings 11:13, by “one tribe,” but both together (cf. 1 Kings 12:20-21; 2 Chron. 11:3; 12:23). Little Benjamin, over against Judah, came scarcely into consideration; and as, besides, the capital of the kingdom (Jerusalem) lay on the borders of both tribes, they might very well be reckoned as one. If, as Keil says, the number ten represents the total sum here, in distinction to the one part (all Israel fell away from the house of David, only a single portion remained to it), the prophet would have torn off only one small piece. For 1 Kings 11:32 see above on 1 Kings 11:12-13; and for 1 Kings 11:33 see on 1 Kings 11:5-8. The plural in 1 Kings 11:33 is remarkable (all translations, except the Chaldee, have the singular, which we expect here); perhaps it only means our vague word “one;” it is plain, however, that Israelites had already abandoned themselves to the licensed heathen worship. In the words in 1 Kings 11:36, that David may have a light always before me, “light” is not a symbol of prosperity (Keil), and πιψ certainly does not mean breaking forth afresh (Hitzig), but it means simply the continuance of his race, as in 1 Kings 15:4; 2 Kings 8:19; 2 Chronicles 21:7. As a house (dwelling) is dark (uninhabitable) without a light, so also is a house (family, race) without posterity; this is why we speak of the dying out of a race, at the present day, as its extinction. The same expression, 1 Kings 11:37 : and thou shalt reign according to all, &c., is used in 2 Samuel 3:21, about David; it does not mean pro lubitu tuo imperabis Israelitis (Dathe), but, thou shalt have the dominion thou now strivest for, &c., &c. 1 Kings 11:38. Jeroboam’s dominion then was connected with the condition upon which all dominion in Israel was based. 1 Kings 11:40-42. Solomon sought therefore to kill Jeroboam. The immediate connection of these words with Ahijah’s address can scarcely mean otherwise than this: that Solomon heard of it, and sought to get Jeroboam out of the way by some means. Jeroboam could but know of this, and he lifted up his hand against the king, i. e., he proceeded to actual rebellion (1 Kings 11:26-27). But not succeeding, he fled to Egypt. The king then reigning was not, of course, Solomon’s father-in-law, nor Sesostris, as older commentators think, but was probably Seconchis or Sesonchusis, the first king of the twenty-second dynasty (cf. Winer, R.-W.-B. s. v. Sishak). The reception he gave Jeroboam shows his feeling towards Solomon. 1 Kings 14:21 sq. speaks of his open hostility to the kingdom of Judah. 1 Kings 11:43. Solomon slept with his fathers, at about sixty years of age, as he very early succeeded to the throne (1 Kings 3:7). Josephus thinks he was eighty or even ninety-four years old, but this is quite wrong, and was caused, probably, by confusion of the ciphers. All copies and translations give forty. Our author gives, in a general way, the “book of the acts of Solomon,” as the original source of his history; but 2 Chronicles 9:29 names, with more exactness, the “book (γִּ ?αְ ?ψֵ ?ι) of Nathan the prophet, the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and the visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam.” But it does not follow that these three writings are only extracts from one historical one (Bertheau), but it certainly does appear that each one wrote down his own experience. When Solomon fell away, and Ahijah appeared, Nathan must have been dead. Cf. the Introduction, § 2. Rehoboam was not a son of the first and real consort of Solomon, the Egyptian princess (1 Kings 3:1; 1 Kings 9:24; 1 Kings 7:8), but the son of the Naamah the Ammonitess (1 Kings 14:21; 1 Kings 14:31). He appears to have been the only living son, as no children, especially sons, of Solomon are named (though he had so many wives), except the two daughters mentioned, 1 Kings 4:11; 1 Kings 4:15; and no brothers disputed the succession of Rehoboam, which was the case with Solomon. For his age at his accession see on 1 Kings 14:21. Historical and Ethical1. The appearance of the various adversaries of Solomon seems to have been a special act of divine retributive justice; God is named as the direct agent. He is said not only to have permitted them, but to have “stirred them up,” called them to it. The word δֵ ?χִ ?ιν means, as here, the stirring up of enemies and rebels, also of deliverers, helpers, prophets (Judges 2:18; Deuteronomy 18:15; Deuteronomy 18:18; 1 Samuel 2:35; Ezekiel 34:23; Jeremiah 29:15), where there is no allusion to mere permission. It is not indeed the absolutely Holy One who excites hatred, enmity, and revenge in one man towards another, for he tempts no man to evil (James 1:13); but the Almighty Ruler of the world can use the hatred that He sees in the hearts of sinful men, to fulfil, without their knowledge or wish, the purposes of His retributive justice and the chastisements of His love; and in so far, the stirring up is no passive permission, but the act of God. Thus Nathan announces to David, after his grievous sin, this word of the Lord, “behold I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house” (2 Samuel 12:11), and David himself says of Shimei who was cursing him, “so let him curse, because the Lord hath said unto him” (2 Samuel 16:10-11). The Assyrian is, without knowing it, the rod of His anger in the hand of Jehovah (Isaiah 10:1; Isaiah 10:5), and Solomon’s adversaries also served for instruments of divine justice. This expression of stirring up shows clearly that the appearance of the adversaries did not take place, as recent commentators say, in the beginning of Solomon’s reign, for up to that time Solomon had given no occasion for any act of retribution or discipline. Though he did not lose his throne through them, during his life-time; yet it was very humiliating to him, whose power and splendor had been a spectacle to the world, and whose wisdom people of all nations had come to hear (1 Kings 4:14; 1 Kings 10:24), to be obliged to fear these men, who were far inferior to him, and whom he had once despised. 2. While Hadad and Rezon did not affect materially the destiny of Israel, the third opponent of Solomon was of vastly greater significance. Jeroboam does not disappear, like them, without leaving a trace in the history of the kingdom. His entrance on the scene was felt profoundly for centuries; the breach and partition of the kingdom take place with and through him; a partition which was no temporary one, but lasted about three hundred years, and ended with the dissolution of the kingdom. In this respect he is one of the most important of the characters in the history of Israel. Witsius, in reference to his whole career says (Decaphylon, p. 307): vir sagax, inquietus et dominandi avidus atque ab ineunte �tate iis eruditus artibus, quibus ingenia ad magn� fortun� cultum incitantur. Here where he is first mentioned the question properly arises, how it came to pass that he lifted up his hand against the King. The text certainly says nothing explicit about it, but gives some distinct clues. It says, first of all, he was an Ephraimite, thus being a member of the largest, most powerful, and warlike tribe, that had always vied with Judah for pre-eminence; and that, even when David had subdued them, never renounced their deeply rooted jealousy and love of independence and dominion over the other tribes (2 Samuel 2:9; 2 Samuel 20:21). After the division of the kingdom, Ephraim stood at the head of the ten tribes, so that the kingdom of the ten was called Ephraim (Hosea 4:17; Hosea 5:9; Hosea 12:1 sq.; Isaiah 7:2). Dislike of the supremacy of Judah was in the very blood of so young and powerful a man as Jeroboam, and it needed not much to excite thoughts of rebellion and independence in him. The fact that Solomon employed the Ephraimites not so much in the matter of levy-works as in building Millo, and in stopping up the ravine which served to fortify the city of David and to secure the supremacy of Judah, was calculated to increase the ancient jealousy and dislike to Judah, and to excite discontent and disgust. Recognizing the distinguished ability of young Jeroboam, Solomon made him overseer of his own people; thus feeding the ambition of this man who was born to rule. He now first became conscious of his powers, and soon acquired the confidence of his already discontented tribe by his prudence and energy, so that he could hope to succeed in placing himself at their head, and lifting his hand against the Judah-King. Perhaps he also perceived that the splendor of Solomon had lost its ground through the influence of his wives, the open introduction of idol-worship side by side with that of Jehovah, and the luxurious court life, and that his rule gave great dissatisfaction to the most worthy of the people. When we consider all this we readily conceive that a man like the Ephraimite, Jeroboam, should, without being especially influenced by any one, think of breaking loose from Solomon’s rule. The later critics have therefore no grounds for asserting that “the prophet Ahijah, who appeared at the head of a (discontented) faction,” induced Jeroboam to rebel against the king (Winer, R.-W.-B. I. s. 544). Thenius is quite right when he says, “Ahijah did not incite Jeroboam, but he knew the thoughts he cherished, and when Ahijah addressed him he was about taking steps to realize these thoughts, as 1 Kings 11:37 says: the prophet then appeared, for he saw that the deed would infallibly follow the resolve in this case, and recognized in Jeroboam a capable man, knowing also the promise of success under condition of continuance in a God-fearing mind. This relation is quite in the spirit of prophecy, and is totally different from an intentional and forcible introduction.” The text says distinctly that Ahijah met Jeroboam when the latter “went out of Jerusalem” (1 Kings 11:29) to lift up his hand against the king. 3. The prophet Ahijah stands in a relation to Solomon and Jeroboam analogous with that of Samuel to Saul and David (1 Samuel 15:16). “As Saul’s sentence of rejection was accompanied by the calling of David, so the prophetical announcement to Solomon was accompanied by the prophecy to Jeroboam” (v. Gerlach). Ahijah opened to him the same divine decision which he had first made known to Solomon (cf. 1 Kings 11:11-13). In doing so he emphasizes two things particularly, and these are worthy of notice; the first is, that Solomon was to remain king of all Israel to the end of his life, and the division of the kingdom was to take place under his son (1 Kings 11:31 sq.); the second, that Jeroboam only received dominion over the ten tribes, on the presupposition and condition that he would walk in all the commandments of Jehovah, as David did, and not sin like Solomon (1 Kings 11:37 sq.). It is added also that David’s seed was to be humbled, but not forever (1 Kings 11:39). We should not overlook the circumstance that the prophet met Jeroboam on the way as he came out of Jerusalem, and was proceeding to carry put his intentions, and that the prophet took him aside (as the Sept. at least has it) so that they “two were alone in the field” (1 Kings 11:29). Ahijah’s communication was, therefore, not intended for the public, but was confidential, thus intimating to Jeroboam that he ought not to proceed to rebellion at once, but keep quiet, and wait till it might please the Lord to bring about circumstances to fulfil the purpose He had announced. The prophet, so far from counselling him to rebellion, warned him rather, and recommended patience as long as Solomon lived. But when Jeroboam, nevertheless, lifted up his hand against the king, he committed an inexcusable, sinful deed on his own responsibility, and anticipated divine providence. His conduct was just the opposite of David’s, who, though anointed to be king, and persecuted by Saul, endured every wrong, never revenged himself on the king, though the latter was often in his power, even mourned his death, and had the Amalekite who killed him executed as a traitor (2 Samuel 1:11-16). He believed that the Lord knew the right hour to fulfil his promise. It cannot, therefore, be accounted a crime in Solomon to strive to kill a man whom he had raised from nothing, and who then rebelled against him. From all this it appears that it is quite erroneous to account for Jeroboam’s appearance by saying that “the ancient prophetical estate wished, by the forcible introduction of a new royal house, to stand directly under the Lord and above the human monarchy;” so that the kingdom of the ten tribes was “the birth of this prophet-power,” and the latter “a retarded error” (Ewald). And it is equally untrue that the rebellion of the ten tribes was “an enterprise which the prophet had encouraged, to bring back the old national constitution, and restore the consideration in which his class was held in Samuel’s time, when he, their founder and representative, deposed a king who disobeyed him, and raised up another in his place” (Menzel, l. c. s. 152). When will men cease to compare the old prophets with modern demagogues and ambitious priests! 4. The symbolic procedure of the rending the garment into twelve pieces preceded the prophecy delivered by the prophet. It could not, therefore, have been intended to make that prophecy clear, but rather inversely, the prophecy explained the transaction. This was the case not only here, but the prophets generally performed a preliminary symbolic action which represented the substance of the meaning of the solemn prophecy which followed; and they performed this act on the impulse of the divine spirit, just as they proclaimed the word following in their divine commission. Cf. Isaiah 20:2 sq.; Jeremiah 13:1 sq.; Jeremiah 29:1 sq.; Jeremiah 35:2 sq.; Jeremiah 43:9 sq.; Ezekiel 4:1 sq.; Ezekiel 5:1 sq.; Ezekiel 12:3 sq.; Ezekiel 24:2 sq.; Ezekiel 37:15 sq.; Ezekiel 13:15 sq. From these passages we see that the performance of such actions was as much a part of the prophetic calling and office as the proclamation of the word. All revelation of God is in the way of act as well as of word: God’s deeds as well as His words are signs that testify of Him. His acts are also, as it were, speech, i. e., a revealing of Himself. The speaking of God is a sign-language, and therefore a symbol-language. The entire cultus has, hence, symbolic form as the real expression of the divine-human relation. When the prophets, therefore, appeared as such, i. e., as “men of God,” as mediators and instruments of divine revelation, they did not communicate it in words only, but in solemn acts, which were signs; and thus they proved themselves the servants of God, speaking in His language. Their prophetic acts, as well as their prophetic words, were announcements and revelations of the divine purpose. When they anticipate their words by an act commanded by God, this act is not to be viewed as a mere image, according to their own pleasure, but it represents the future which they had to reveal as a fact, as it were, a present deed of God, and therefore as something which would assuredly happen. The action, then, was an assurance and pledge of the fulfilment of the prophecy; and it was entirely natural that it should precede the word explaining and interpreting it. Besides, every thought which is embodied in a deed produces a much greater and more lasting impression than if only expressed in words. Of Christ, in whom all that is prophetic culminates, the disciple says (Luke 24:19): “which was a prophet mighty in deed and word,” thus proving that not words only, but actions also belong to the essence of the calling of the prophet. The people concluded from his deeds that “a great prophet is risen up among us” (Luke 7:16). His prophetic deeds were “signs” (John 6:26; John 20:20), not mere evidences of power, but of divine authority; and they spoke of divine things as loudly and, if possible, more loudly than His words. He himself says, “Though ye believe not me, believe the works” (John 10:38); “the works that I do in my Father’s name they bear witness of me” (John 10:25). 5. The rending of the ten tribes appears, in the prophet’s prediction here as in 1 Kings 11:11-13, to be a punishment ordained and determined by Jehovah for Solomon’s falling away, not, therefore, as an event merely permitted by God but designed; and therefore announced beforehand. The question arises, in what relation did this partition, determined on by Jehovah, stand to His plans regarding Israel considered as one people composed of twelve tribes? The whole nation was His inheritance, for He had called them from among all nations to be a divine kingdom (Exodus 19:5-6), i. e., a theocracy. The one God, Jehovah, was, as the true King and Lord of that people, so also the root and principle of their unity—the bond binding together all the tribes into one whole. The human monarchy afterwards established by the desire of the people did not destroy the theocracy but served rather to sustain and preserve it (see above). But it was not now absolutely necessary that all the tribes should have one head; in fact they might each have had a head, had they only acknowledged Jehovah as the one true king of all Israel, and held fast to the covenant, i. e., the law of God. “It was not contrary to the Mosaic constitution for Jehovah to weaken—not destroy—a royal house that had turned to idolatry; to rend away some tribes from it, and to place them under the government of another king. It was rather the fittest thing to be done; for otherwise the principles that lay in the very nature of the constitution—namely, that disaster should follow idolatry, and prosperity the fear of God, would have been violated. One of these two things must (according to these principles) have come upon David’s house after a lapse into idolatry, viz. either expulsion from the throne (which could not be on account of the promise of perpetual succession), or weakening such as was foretold by Jehovah,.… a falling away of some tribes” (Hess, Von dem Reiche Gottes, I. s. 301). As Jehovah had heretofore governed his people by one king (David and Solomon) he could also do it by two without destroying the theocratic principle. The new kingdom is offered to Jeroboam and continuance is promised to his dynasty on the express condition that he should, “like David,” faithfully adhere to the law; with the explanation, nevertheless (1 Kings 11:39), that the humiliation of the house of David would be but temporary. Thus it is indicated that the promise of the everlasting kingdom would not be realized in Jeroboam’s race, “but in that of David” (Oehler). The prediction of Ahijah does not imply a partition of the theocracy or of Israel, but only of the human monarchy under two kings. The double nature of the kingdom was not the cause of the permanence of the division, nor of the commencement of the destruction of the kingdom; these were the results of the continued falling away from the supreme commandment of the theocratic law on the part of the ten tribes. 6. There are no accounts of Solomon’s end, nor of his life and acts from the time of his lapse till his death; all is reduced to the notice that he sought to kill Jeroboam, and that he died and was buried. This is the more remarkable as the life and acts of this king are more minutely narrated than those of any succeeding one, and that the last days and end of David in particular are recorded with such evident care both in our books and in the Chronicles. Had Solomon ended his life like David, who with joyous heart blessed the Lord to the last (1 Chronicles 29:10 sq.), and charged his son and successor most emphatically to remain faithful to Jehovah (1 Kings 2:1 sq.), and been anxious that the prosperity of the kingdom should endure on the basis of the covenant with Jehovah (2 Samuel 23:1 sq.), such a circumstance would not have been passed over. We must therefore conclude, from the entire silence of the history, that Solomon did not die as David died, that he remained in the state of mind into which he had fallen in his later age. The question whether Solomon was finally converted and saved was formerly discussed extensively (Buddeus, Hist. Eccl., II. p. 237 sq.), but we see no occasion to introduce it here. Both Hess and Niemeyer have endeavored to ascertain from Ecclesiastes what Solomon’s state of mind was in his last days; but apart from the mistaken presupposition that this treatise was composed by Solomon, no one could prove his conversion from it; and Niemeyer concludes his character-sketch with these words: “the cheerful peace of his soul was gone. Gloomy was his retrospect of life, and gloomy was his view of the near and of the distant future.” It is worthy of remark, that while Solomon (Suleiman) is held in high honor in the East at the present day, his memory is far less revered among the Jews than that of David, which could not have been the case had his reign ended as gloriously as it began. Bertheau justly remarks that Solomon “did more towards undermining the distinctive peculiarity of his people than any other king.” We are not, however, to seek the cause of this simply in his making a people who were adapted to agriculture, commercial, and in his splendid buildings, his harem, and his court, all hitherto unknown in Israel, but the real specific reason was that by the introduction and the toleration of foreign idolatrous forms of worship he undermined the religion of his people, forth from which religion flowed all the characteristics which distinguished them over against all other peoples; that was the worm at the root of the kingdom and the national life. [7. It is extremely difficult to give a portraiture of Solomon which can harmonize at once both the demand for historic truth and the general estimation which tradition assigns to him. The story is extraordinary. David the father of the wise king founded and consolidated the kingdom. His life was stormy and checkered. His character was romantic and chivalric and generous. He showed himself capable both of great self-sacrifice and of revolting criminality and treachery. He was tender and he was brave. His soul rested upon the covenant-keeping Jehovah, yet he dared to violate all the duties of the decalogue which concern man’s dealings with his brother man. Solomon did not inherit the personal traits of his father. He was not warlike; he was a man of peace. He sought wisdom, and he sought it from Jehovah. He desired to administer his government according to the law and will of God. He had fine talent for observation. He was a naturalist of rare attainments. He knew much of the earth; he knew much of men. He was a man of understanding, expressing his thoughts and observations in proverbs. He was splendid in his tastes. He sought wealth by commerce and by trade with heathen nations. He made Israel a kingdom of this world; at the same time, he built the temple, lavishing upon it untold sums of money, and aiming to make it, according to Eastern conceptions, splendid in all respects. Certainly at its dedication he is one of the most imposing and majestic figures in all history. But by degrees, enervated by luxury, by pleasure, by plenty, he lost the strength of his convictions. He became wise in this world. The law of Jehovah lost its hold upon his conscience. He began to justify idolatry. “He that built a temple to the living God for himself and Israel, in Sion, built a temple to Chemosh in the Mount of Scandal for his mistresses of Moab, in the very face of God’s house. No hill about Jerusalem was free from a chapel of devils: each of his dames had their puppets, their altars, their incense; because Solomon feeds them in their superstition, he draws the sin home to himself, and is branded for what he should have forbidden.”—Bp. Hall. And by degrees the splendor passed away, and darkness and weariness, and hopelessness, and an ignoble old age came on. He forsook the noble path of his youth, and his glory was lost. See Stanley, Jewish Church, second series, Lect. 28., and F. D. Maurice, The Prophets and Kings of the Old Testament, Sermon on the Wise King. The sun of his life rose in all splendor, and shone brilliantly, to go down at last amid the heavy darkness of impending storm and night. The people lost their sense of the exclusive sovereignty of Jehovah; their burdens were heavy—and the brief glory of Israel as a kingdom of this world passed away forever.—E. H.] Homiletical and Practical1 Kings 11:14-40. Solomon’s enemies. 1. They are roused against him by God, so that he may know and confess what heart-suffering it brings to forsake the fear of the Lord his God (Jeremiah 2:19). Cramer: So marvellously does God bring it about, that he who will not fear him, must needs fear his fellow-men. Once the man of rest, and the Prince of Peace (1 Kings 5:4), now he is pressed sore by enemies from the north, from the south, and from his midst; they are the scourges with which the Lord chastises him. When foes and opponents rise against thee, and cause thee care and anguish, then think: The Lord has summoned them on account of thy sins, and unfaithfulness. The hostility of men is a sermon of repentance from thy God to thee. 2. They were in God’s hand, and could do no more than he permits; they rebelled, but they were powerless to take from Solomon the throne and kingdom during his lifetime. The Lord commands our foes: So far shalt thou go, and no further.—J. Heermann: If thou speakest the word, they soon become friends: they must needs lay down arms and defences, and stir no finger.—P. Gerhardt: If I am beloved of God, and have the Head for my friend, what can troops of foes and opposers do to me? For he can humble the proud (Daniel 4:35). Formerly all kings did homage to Solomon, and brought him gifts, and journeyed from all countries to see and to hear him; his power was as great as his kingdom. But now his power and might are abased before those who hitherto ranked far below him, whom he had regarded as the least of his slaves and vassals. Humiliation coming through weak and inferior means is much more bitter than the same humiliation through strong and powerful means; the latter we can ascribe to men, but in the former we must recognize the will and power of God. 1 Kings 11:14-22. The fate of Hadad is recounted to us not so much on his account as on our own, in order that we may learn to regard the ways of God with man, and order our own ways by Him, who is ever mercy and wisdom (Psalms 25:10). If God brought back the heathen Hadad by mysterious ways to his native land, how much more will he lead those who keep his covenant and testimony to the true native land, and to the eternal rest, how dark and inscrutable soever may be the ways by which he leads them. 1 Kings 11:21. Let me go into mine own country. The power of love of country. Not ubi bene, ibi patria, but ubi patria, ibi bene. Yet must we not in the earthly country forget the heavenly “Fatherland.” 1 Kings 11:23-25. Though vanquished and cast down, tyranny and ambition do not forget; they think perpetually of vengeance, and seek to satisfy it, now by rough means now by subtle ones, whenever an opportunity offers. Therefore, warns the apostle so earnestly (Romans 12:19) against those secret and mighty motives in the natural heart of man. 1 Kings 11:26-28. God is wont to chastise the rebellion of princes against his will, by means of the rebellion of their own subjects; as Solomon raised his hand against Jehovah, so did his servant Jeroboam against him. Destruction from above unites with ruin from below. Whatever Solomon undertook after his fall, was deprived of God’s blessing. By the building of Millo he intended still further to strengthen his dominion over all his enemies, and to render impregnable his dwelling-place, but this very building was the cause why his throne began to totter, and why he lost the greater part of his kingdom. Here applies Psalms 127:1. It was by divine decree that Solomon himself, without his own will or knowledge, should raise from the dust to high places the very man appointed by God to abase him, and to dismember his kingdom. Conspiracies and rebellions are chiefly led by those who have to complain least of injustice or oppression, but have been pampered and favored until ambition incites them to suppress every feeling of gratitude (John 13:18). 1 Kings 11:29-39. cf. above 1 Kings 11:9-13. The prediction of the prophet Ahijah announces 1. the division of the kingdom as a consequence of the going astray to the worship of strange gods (1 Kings 11:31-33); 2. the preservation of the kingdom of Judah on account of the promise given to David (1 Kings 11:34; 1 Kings 11:36; 1 Kings 11:39); 3. the choice made of Jeroboam, on condition of inflexible fidelity to Jehovah and to his law (1 Kings 11:37-38). 1 Kings 11:31. All the world must confess, upon beholding the abasement of the house of David and the elevation of Jeroboam, that the Most High has power over the kingdoms of men, and bestows them upon whom he will (Daniel 4:29; 1 Samuel 2:7-8; Luke 1:52). 1 Kings 11:36. Even in the midst of his just anger the Lord is merciful, and the inconstancy of man can never shake His fidelity. The fulfilment of 2 Samuel 7:14-15, is seen in Solomon’s history. The house of David remained a light “forever,” until that Son of David came who is the light of the world, which lighteth all men who come into the world (John 1:9; Romans 15:12). 1 Kings 11:40-43. These three truths are nowhere more powerfully exemplified than in the life of Solomon: What availeth it a man, &c., (Matthew 16:26); Vanity of vanities, &c. (Ecclesiastes 1:2), and The world passeth away, &c. (1 John 2:17; cf. 1 Peter 1:24). 1 Kings 11:40. Roos: Sin obscures the soul. He who turns aside from God departs from wisdom; and let those who, instead of bowing and submitting with resignation to the chastisements of God, haughtily strive against them, contemplate the fate of Jeroboam, who, doubtless, stirred up the plot against Solomon, since he afterwards eagerly abetted the desertion of the ten Tribes. Even as Solomon, when he sought to slay Jeroboam, must have felt that in vain he resisted the divine decrees, and was powerless to hinder them, so likewise Jeroboam, compelled to fly to Egypt, must have become conscious that in vain he strove rashly and insolently to anticipate the execution of the divine decrees. We must even make bitter expiation when we haughtily resist and oppose the Lord, or when we strive to hasten his designs, or to appoint time and place for their fulfilment. The life of Solomon closes with the words: Therefore Solomon sought to kill Jeroboam. Instead of seeking forgiveness from Him who forgiveth much, and himself granting forgiveness, he is thinking of murder and vengeance. How great and noble the contrast between this and the Figure of Him who in the face of death upon the cross cried: Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. Let us strive to become like unto his image, and that our last thought in life may be of love and reconciliation, and not of revenge and hatred. Solomon possessed the fairest and noblest crown that mortal can wear, yet it was perishable, not enduring beyond death and the grave. The Lord promises an immortal crown to those who love and follow Him. Be faithful unto death, then He will give thee the crown of life; blessed is he who endureth unto the end. Footnotes: 1 Kings 11:14.—[This name is variously written in the printed Heb. text δֲ ?γַ ?γ and ΰֲ ?γַ ?γ; in some MSS. and in the Syr. it is uniformly written δγψ. The Sept. has Ἄδερ, and the Vulg. Hadad. The Chald. follows the variations of the Hebrew. After the mention of his name the Vat. Sept. subjoins a summary of 1 Kings 11:23-25, omitted in their place. 1 Kings 11:15.— Instead of αִּ ?δְ ?ιεֹ ?ϊ the Sept ., Syr., and Arab. read αְּ ?δַ ?λּ ?εֹ ?ϊ (when David had slain the Edomites), which Maurer and Thenius consider right. But according to 1 Chronicles 20:5; Genesis 14:9 [add Numbers 20:13], the reading of the text is not to be peremptorily rejected. 1 Kings 11:17.—[The Sept., in curious contradiction to 1 Kings 11:15-16, has here “all the Edomites,” &c. 1 Kings 11:25.—[The Vat. Sept. here resumes the course of the Heb. narrative, but gives quite a different sense: “this is the evil which Hadad did: he abhorred Israel and reigned in Edom.” On the true rendering of the verse see Exeg. Com. In regard to the last word, three MSS., followed by the Sept., Syr., and Arab., have ΰγν for ΰψν: but, as pointed out in the Exeg. Com., the true reading must necessarily be that of the text. Our author in his translation, in opposition to his own exegesis, follows the Sept. 1 Kings 11:29.—[The Sept. renders or replaces the last clause by “and he took him aside from the way.” 1 Kings 11:32.—[The Sept. has δύοσκῆπτρα—two tribes. So also 1 Kings 11:36. 1 Kings 11:33.—[Instead of the peculiar form φִ ?γֹ ?πִ ?ιο many MSS. read φִ ?γεֹ ?πִ ?ιν. 1 Kings 11:33.—[The Sept. has evidently understood in ξִ ?μְ ?λֹּ ?ν the final ν as a pronominal suffix, and so translate “their king, the stumbling-block of the children of Ammon.” Throughout this verse the Sept. puts the verbs in the singular as having Solomon for their nominative. 1 Kings 11:38.—[The Vat. Sept. omits the clause “and will give Israel unto thee.” 1 Kings 11:40.—[εַ ?ιְ ?αַ ?χֵּ ?ωׁ ωְׁ ?μֹ ?ξֹ ?δ = but Solomon sought. The word “therefore” of the ancient version is not necessary, and connects the attempt of Solomon quite too distinctly with the communication of Ahijah, which may have been known to him (see Exeg. Com.) or may not. The true connection of 1 Kings 11:40 is with 1 Kings 11:26, 1 Kings 11:27-39 being parenthetical.—F. G.] SECOND PERIOD. (975 TO 722 B.C.)THE DIVIDED IN JUDAH AND ISRAEL(1 Kings 12:1-17)FIRST EPOCH From The Division Of The Kingdom Until The Reign Of Ahab(1 Kings 12:1 to 1 Kings 16:34)FIRST SECTION The Division Of The Kingdom(1 Kings 12)A.—The renunciation of the house of David by the ten tribes1 Kings 12:1-24 (2 Chronicles 10:1 to 2 Chronicles 11:4.)1And Rehoboam went to Shechem: for all Israel were come to Shechem tomake him king. 2And it came to pass, when Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who was yet in Egypt, heard of it, (for he was fled from the presence of kingSolomon, and Jeroboam dwelt in Egypt;) 3that they sent and called him. And Jeroboam and all the congregation of Israel came, and spake unto Rehoboam,saying, 4Thy father made our yoke grievous: now therefore make thou the grievous service of thy father, and his heavy yoke which he put upon us,lighter, and we will serve thee. 5And he said unto them, Depart yet for three days, then come again to me. And the people departed. 6And king Rehoboam consulted with the old men that stood before Solomon his father while he yet lived, and said, How do ye advise that I may answerthis people? 7And they spake unto him, saying, If thou wilt be a servant unto this people this day, and wilt serve them, and answer them, and speak goodwords to them, then they will be thy servants for e1 Kings 1 Kings 12:8 But he forsook the counsel of the old men, which they had given him, and consulted with theyoung men that were grown up with him, and which stood before him: 9and he said unto them, What counsel give ye that we may answer this people, who have spoken to me, saying, Make the yoke which thy father did put upon us lighter? 10And the young men that were grown up with him spake unto him, saying, Thus shalt thou speak unto this people that spake unto thee, saying, Thy father made our yoke heavy, but make thou it lighter unto us; thus shalt thousay unto them, My little finger shall be thicker than my father’s loins. 11And now whereas my father did lade you with a heavy yoke, I will add to your yoke: my father hath chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions.12So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam the third day, as theking had appointed, saying, Come to me again the third day. 13And the king answered the people roughly, and forsook the old men’s counsel that they gavehim; 14and spake to them after the counsel of the young men, saying, My father made your yoke heavy, and I will add to your yoke: my father also chastisedyou with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions. 15Wherefore the king hearkened not unto the people; for the cause was from the Lord [Jehovah], that he might perform his saying, which the Lord [Jehovah] spake by Ahijah the Shiloniteunto Jeroboam the son of Nebat. 16So when all Israel saw that the king hearkened not unto them, the people answered the king, saying, What portion have we in David? neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse: to your tents, O Israel: now see to thine own house, David. So Israel departed unto their17tents. But as for the children of Israel which dwelt in the cities of Judah,Rehoboam reigned over them. 18Then king Rehoboam sent Adoram, who was over the tribute; and all Israel stoned him with stones, that he died. Therefore king Rehoboam made speed to get him up to his chariot, to flee to Jerusalem.19So Israel rebelled against the house of David unto this day. 20And it came to pass, when all Israel heard that Jeroboam was come again, that they sent and called him unto the congregation, and made him king over all Israel: there was none that followed the house of David, but the tribe of Judahonly. 21And when Rehoboam was come to Jerusalem, he assembled all the house of Judah, with the tribe of Benjamin, a hundred and fourscore thousand chosen men, which were warriors, to fight against the house of Israel, to bring the kingdomagain to Rehoboam the son of Solomon. 22But the word of God cameunto Shemaiah the man of God, saying, 23Speak unto Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, king of Judah, and unto all the house of Judah and Benjamin, and tothe remnant of the people, saying, 24Thus saith the Lord [Jehovah], Ye shall not go up, nor fight against your brethren the children of Israel: return every man to his house; for this thing is from me. They hearkened therefore to the word of the Lord [Jehovah], and returned to depart, according to the word of the Lord [Jehovah].Exegetical and Critical1 Kings 12:1. And Rehoboam went to Shechem. The city of Shechem was about eighteen hours’ distance north of Jerusalem, and lay at the foot of Mount Gerizim, in the mountain range of Ephraim (Judges 9:7). It is often mentioned in the history of the Patriarchs (Genesis 12:6; Genesis 33:18; Genesis 34:2; Genesis 37:12), and Joshua had intended it to be a free Levite city. He likewise gathered all the tribes together there, and held that important diet in which all the people pledged themselves to the observance of Jehovah’s covenant (Joshua 20:7; Joshua 24:1; Joshua 24:25). In the time of the Judges, Abimelech made Shechem the capital of his kingdom (Judges 9.); he destroyed it, indeed, but it was soon rebuilt, and continued to be one of the chief cities of the northern part. 1 Kings 12:1 gives us the reason why Rehoboam left Jerusalem, where he had been made king, and went to Shechem; for all Israel were come to Shechem. By λָּ ?μιִ ?ωְׂ ?ψָ ?ΰֵ ?μ we are not to understand all the twelve tribes (Ewald), but only ten, as 1 Kings 12:12; 1 Kings 12:18; 1 Kings 12:20 clearly show; under David even those tribes had claimed the name of the entire people (2 Samuel 2:9-10; 2 Samuel 2:17; 2 Samuel 2:28). αַּ ?ΰ is not the imperfect but the pluperfect, for the ten tribes did not go to Shechem because the king was there but just the reverse: because (λִּ ?ι) they had gone to Shechem, the king went thither. He therefore did not call them together there, but they, i. e., their elders, judges, and representatives, had assembled in this old Ephraimitic capital, as they had once done in Joshua’s time (Joshua 24:1; cf. 2 Samuel 5:1; 1 Kings 5:3), and this induced the king to journey to Shechem. Their design in meeting was to make him king, i. e., to recognize him as king, as Judah had done, though he had already ascended the throne; to pay him homage, on the condition, however, that he would agree to their wishes and demands. This was why they did not assemble in Jerusalem, as they were in reality bound to do, and as they had done to David when they went to Hebron, the place of David’s residence, to do him homage (2 Samuel 5:1 sq.), but in Shechem. It was a “a significant hint, if Rehoboam had properly understood it” (Ewald). It is very improbable that they summoned him to their assembly, as they did Jeroboam; he seems to have gone unsummoned with his whole retinue (1 Kings 12:6; 1 Kings 12:8). That the 10 tribes had assembled “to assert their ancient right of choice” (Gramberg) is an entire mistake. For there is no mention anywhere of such a right; and the text does not say they went to Shechem to choose a king, but to make him—Rehoboam—king, i. e., to confirm him as such. 1 Kings 12:2-3. And it came to pass, when Jeroboam … heard of it, &c. 1 Kings 12:2. If we retain the reading εַ ?ιֵּ ?ωֶׁ ?αιָ ?ψָ ?αְ ?ςָ ?ναְּ ?ξִ ?φְ ?ψָ ?ιִ ?ν we must, like Maurer, take 1 Kings 12:2 to be properly the antecedent sentence, and begin the conclusion with εַ ?ιּ ?αֹ ?ΰεּ, 1 Kings 12:3, and translate like De Wette: “When Jeroboam heard of it (he was still in Egypt, whither he had fled from Solomon the king, and Jeroboam dwelt in Egypt, and they sent and called him), then Jeroboam and the whole assembly came, and they spake to Rehoboam.” Apart from the crude form of this sentence, the words following “he was still in Egypt,” namely, “and Jeroboam dwelt in Egypt,” appear to be quite superfluous; we must in this case supply, after he had returned from Egypt, before “then Jeroboam came;” and, finally, it would follow that the people assembled at Shechem sent messengers thence to Egypt to bring back Jeroboam, which is not to be supposed, because the journey there and back required several weeks, and “all Israel” would have been compelled to wait during this time, without accomplishing anything, in Shechem, for Jeroboam’s arrival. But all these difficulties fall away if we read, like 2 Chronicles 10:2, εַ ?ιָּ ?ωָׁ ?αιָ ?ψָ ?αְ ?ςָ ?νξִ ?ξִּ ?φְ ?ψָ ?ιִ ?ν, i. e., and Jeroboam returned from Egypt. According to this, the case was simply so: On the news of Solomon’s death Jeroboam returned from Egypt to his tribe-land Ephraim, and, we are to imply, to his native place Zereda (1 Kings 11:26), or, as the Sept. says, Sarira, which could not have been very far distant from Shechem. They sent thither for him; he came, and took the lead in the negotiations which those assembled at Shechem made with Rehoboam. The Vulgate also translates 1 Kings 12:2 : At vero Jeroboam, cum adhuc esset in Ζgypto profugus a facie regis Salomonis, audita morte ejus reversus est de Ζgypto. Miseruntque et vocaverunt eum; venit ergo Jeroboam et, etc. The [Vatican] Sept., which places this verse in 1 Kings 11:43, translates: κατευθύνεικαὶ ἔρχεταιεἰςτὴνπόλιναὐτοῦ εἰςτὴνγῆνΣαριρὰ τὴνἐνὄρει ’ΕΦραΐμ. It is easy to see what thoughts those who composed this Assembly were revolving when, before Rehoboam’s arrival, they called the man who had lifted up his hand against Solomon, and was just returned from Egypt, and made him their leader and speech-maker to Rehoboam. Rehoboam having come to them, instead of they to him at Jerusalem, only made them bolder. From the long sentence which the Sept. places after 1 Kings 12:24 we can glean nothing certain regarding Jeroboam and his conduct after he returned from Egypt; everything is mixed together and the different personages confused; for instance, Jeroboam is confounded with Hadad the Edomite, and the prophet Ahijah with the prophet Semaiah; Jeroboam’s mother is called γυνὴ πόρνη, &c. Keil is right in denying all historical value to this sentence, out of which Thenius strives to complete the story. 1 Kings 12:4-5. Thy father made our yoke grievous, &c. 1 Kings 12:4. The word ςֹ ?μ does not mean every kind of heavy load, but the yoke laid on the neck of beasts designed for labor (Numbers 19:2; Deuteronomy 21:3; 1 Samuel 6:7); it is the yoke of labor, and, as such, the symbol of servile work (Deuteronomy 28:48; Leviticus 26:13; Jeremiah 27:8; Jeremiah 27:11); it is, for this reason, parallel with ςֲ ?αֹ ?γָ ?δ here. The grievance, therefore, is nothing—it is well to notice this—but the levy-work for Solomon’s public buildings, and we see this plainly enough by 1 Kings 12:11; 1 Kings 12:14, where Rehoboam’s answer is recorded. That the complaint was well founded, that Solomon had really exacted too heavy servile work from his people, as the Egyptian king once did in Moses’ time (Ex. 11:1, 23), is generally taken for granted, although the complaint comes from the mouths of a number of people who were excited with thoughts of secession, and who were jealous of Judah. At their head stood a man, too, who had already tried to raise an insurrection, and had not renounced his ambitious plans in exile. Complaint from the mouths of such cannot be taken as testimony, nor can it ever weigh under such circumstances, except joined to other and purely historical evidence. We have none such, however. Solomon was not the first to adopt the measure of a conscription for working at the public buildings as well as for war-service. This was customary throughout the ancient East. Everywhere, from Egypt to Babylon, the immense buildings were raised, not by paid workmen, but by conscriptions. There were, for instance, the 360,000 men who worked twenty years at one pyramid (see above on 1 Kings 5:13). Even David had, among his five chief officers, one who was specially “over the tribute” (2 Samuel 20:24), which was then a standing regulation. We find the tribute brought into system in Solomon’s time, and the people were, as contrasted with conquered foreigners, treated with gentle consideration (chaps. 1 Kings 5:13 sq.;1 Kings 9:20 sq.). Nowhere is the voice of complaint heard about it, and our author is far from representing Solomon’s conduct as hard and blameworthy, but rather relates it to his praise. As the tribute-work was distributed by turns amongst “all Israel,” Ephraim or the ten tribes received no more proportionately than the two remaining tribes, and there is not the most indirect allusion anywhere that Solomon exacted more from the Ephraimites than from the others. For this reason, the complaint of the “yoke” being “grievous,” which they alone make, seems to be only a welcome excuse suggested to them by their former superintendent Jeroboam. The real motive came to light later (1 Kings 12:16). If we cannot admit the complaint of too hard tribute-work to be well founded, still less have we any right to add other things to the complaint of which it makes no mention. The grievous yoke and heavy service are not generally taken to mean, as the plain expressions do, the tribute-work alone, but all burdens laid on the people, i. e., the taxes and produce which they had to pay and deliver; not their powers of labor alone, but their “capacity of paying taxes,” are thought to have been too much tested by Solomon (De Wette, Ewald, Eisenlohr). “Discontent grew with the oppression of the people by ever new burdens and tributes, that were quite contrary to the original freedom of the community” (Diestel); the monarchy had become “a despotism, a sultanate” (Duncker), and the speakers for the people had therefore laid before Rehoboam “the terms of capitulation, which were to lighten the universal oppression under which Israel had sighed since Solomon’s reign began” (Winer, R.-W.-B. II. s. 311). This view, almost universally current, stands in direct contradiction with the historical evidence. As to the taxes and deliveries, they are not once mentioned in the complaint, as we have already said; neither is the poverty or other misery resulting from them once named anywhere. It is difficult to conceive how any one can appeal to such places as 1 Kings 10:25 (De Wette), for there is no mention there of what the people brought, but of the presents which strangers brought the king. Ewald himself admits that there is no evidence that there was an income tax, and it by no means appears, as Winer supposes, from 1 Kings 10:15, that “custom duties” had been introduced. There is still less historical proof of the universal oppression of the people under Solomon. All that our author relates, from chap. 2. to 10., is to show the unwonted prosperity and splendor of Solomon’s kingdom; its immense wealth, its peaceful condition, and its thriving commerce are described in the strongest terms, and just by those passages which have been quoted to prove the heaviness of the taxation and the supposed oppression, is it specially manifest how happy and peaceful the people were under Solomon’s reign (1 Kings 4:20; 1 Kings 4:25; cf. 1 Kings 8:66), so that the prophets took the kingdom of Solomon as a type of the Messiah’s (see above). Even after chap. 11, in which Solomon’s fall is recorded, there is nothing to show that Israel “sighed” under universal oppression; and when the people as well as king became degenerate in the latter part of his reign, it was rather in consequence of too great prosperity and luxury than of great burdens and poverty. Finally, Solomon is threatened, in both addresses of the prophet Ahijah (1 Kings 11:11; 1 Kings 11:31 sq.), with the partition of his kingdom, not because he had oppressed the people with servile labor and heavy taxations, but solely because he had suffered his strange wives to persuade him to introduce idolatrous forms of worship. It would have been a just and well-founded complaint had they alleged that Solomon had broken the supreme command in the fundamental law of Israel by the toleration of idol-worship, and had thus undermined the strength of the kingdom. But the complainants are wholly silent on this, and the sequel shows how little they or their speaker Jeroboam cared for the observance of that fundamental law. 1 Kings 12:6-14. Rehoboam consulted, &c. 1 Kings 12:6. The ζְ ?χֵ ?πִ ?ιν are not old people, but the elders (senators) who constituted the administration-college of Solomon [or council] (1 Kings 4:2-6). Rehoboam had retained them as such, but had not, as Thenius thinks, “placed them on the retired list,” for in that case he would not have taken them with him to Shechem, and he certainly would not have heard their counsel before that of the young men. The expression, that stood before Solomon, shows that they were in immediate attendance on the king. In their advice, 1 Kings 12:7, δַ ?ιּ ?εֹ ?ν stands next to λָּ ?μΞδַ ?ιָּ ?ξִ ?ιν, and ςֶ ?αֶ ?γ at the beginning, over against ςֲ ?αָ ?γִ ?ιν at the conclusion; and as ςֶ ?αֶ ?γ is strengthened by the immediately following εַ ?ςֲ ?αֵ ?γְ ?ϊָּ ?ν, we have no right to weaken it, and to take it in another sense from ςֲ ?αָ ?γִ ?ιν that stands opposite to it at the conclusion; this is generally done, and ςֶ ?αֶ ?γ is translated “complaisant,” but ςֲ ?αָ ?γִ ?ιν, on the contrary, is translated “subject.” The elders not only advised the king to compromise, but that he should “serve” the people at least “this day,” and assured him that the people would then be his “servants” “for ever;” they proposed that he should for the present moment reverse the existing relation: the king was to be “servant” and yield to the will of the people, in the expectation that the people would afterwards be his “servants.” We can easily imagine that such a proposal (which would not perhaps have succeeded) was not very agreeable to the rash and imperious young king, in whose veins Ammonite blood flowed (1 Kings 14:21). The word ιֶ ?μֶ ?γ, 1 Kings 12:8, is used for a child at any age from its birth (Exodus 2:3; Exodus 2:6-7) to youth; ιְ ?μָ ?γִ ?ιν are not, therefore, real counsellors, like the ζְ ?χֵ ?πִ ?ιν, but young people who were in attendance upon the king (“stood before him”). The words, that were grown up with him, show that Rehoboam was himself still ιֶ ?μֶ ?γ (cf. 2 Chronicles 13:7). The proverbial expression 1 Kings 12:10, my little finger, &c., means, I am much mightier than Solomon; his power was as the little finger to the body, compared with mine; if my father had power to compel you, I have still more. From this general way of speaking they proceed in 1 Kings 12:11 to allude to the particular grievance of the forced labor. The yoke and whips belong together, and are the signs of laboring servants (Ecclesiasticus 30:26 or Sir 33:27). The king was to use instead of the whips for servants the thorn-whip used for criminals alone, and which was called scorpio by the Romans (Isidor. Origg. v. 27, 1 Kings 18 : Virga. si est aculeata, scorpio vocatur, quia arcuato vulnere in corpus infigitur). The meaning is, my father used ordinary means to keep you at work, but I will do it with extraordinary and severer means. The answer says as little of taxes as the complaint itself; it only refers to the enforced work, and it does not even admit that Solomon exacted too much, but it is only now proposed to do so. The pleasure with which Rehoboam accepted this advice is very indicative of his disposition. 1 Kings 12:15-17. The cause was from the Lord. 1 Kings 12:15. Inasmuch as the inconceivably foolish and perverse resolve of Rehoboam carried with it the irremediable division of the people and kingdom, the verse asserts it to be a course of things (ρִ ?αָּ ?δ from ραα) from Jehovah; not that Rehoboam was forced unwillingly to speak so, but in the same sense in which it is said of Pharaoh (Exodus 14:4; Romans 9:17) and of Judas (Matthew 26:25). Witsius (Decaphyl. i. 3) says: Ipsa Rehabeami stolida imprudentia consilio Dei inservivit, ut quod accidit etiam merito accidisse videtur. We find here an application of the proverb: Quem Deus vult perdere, prius dementat. Every case of a hardened heart is a righteous judgment of God. 1 Kings 12:16-17. What portion have we, &c. 1 Kings 12:16. This was the old Ephraimite watchword of rebellion, of which Sheba availed himself against the house of David (2 Samuel 20:1). The first member of the sentence means this, What concern have we about David and his house, when the question is who shall be king over us? We have no fellowship with each other (Deuteronomy 10:9). Neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse is not equal to we can hope for and expect nothing from him; but, we do not belong to him, as Judah, by race-derivation. In the “son of Jesse” there is an allusion to David’s humbler descent, just as in the New Testament to one “carpenter’s son” (Matthew 13:55). To your tents, O Israel! is a proverbial call which originated in the time of the march through the wilderness, where the camp was arranged according to the tribes. Let every one return to his tribe and his home, without acknowledging Rehoboam. Now see to thine own house, i.e., see how you can reign over your own tribe in the future; you have no right to us any more. In this whole cry “the deeply rooted dislike to David’s royal house is strongly expressed, and we can perceive a more potent cause for the partition than the alleged oppression of Solomon” (Keil). 1 Kings 12:17 means that only those individuals belonging to the ten tribes remained under Rehoboam who were settled in Judah or had gone to settle there (2 Chronicles 11:3). The verse does not mean, then: “the tribe of Judah chose Rehoboam, who was one of them, to be king” (Ewald); for Judah had already acknowledged him such before he went to Shechem. 1 Kings 12:18-19. Adoram, who was over the tribute, &c. 1 Kings 12:18. No doubt the same who is called Adoniram in the list of Solomon’s chief officers (chap 1 Kings 4:6), as also the Sept., Syr., and Arab. call him in this passage. Thenius thinks he was the son of Adoram, the chief of the tribute officers, who is mentioned in the lists of David’s officials (2 Samuel 20:24). If he was identical with this person he must certainly have been about eighty years of age, since David could not have given the office in question to quite a young man, and Solomon reigned forty years. It is evident that Rehoboam sent him to treat with the rebels, and to appease them, as Josephus expressly says. As the question was about lightening the tribute work, the chief officer over the tribute seems to have been selected by Rehoboam as the fittest person to mediate; probably Adoram was one of the “elders” who gave the advice to yield. But the people were highly incensed at the sight of this officer, and instead of listening to him, in their rage they stoned him. Bertheau has no grounds for his supposition that he came with an armed force (however small) to force the rebels to submission. For: unto this day, see on 1 Kings 8:8; 1 Kings 9:21. 1 Kings 12:20-21. And it came to pass when all Israel heard, &c. 1 Kings 12:20 closes the narrative, 1 Kings 12:1-19, and is also the connecting link with the following 1 Kings 12:21-24. The independence of the ten tribes had been achieved by their representatives in Shechem, who now returned to their different tribe-territories (end of 1 Kings 12:16), and announced to “all Israel” what had happened, especially also the part that Jeroboam, just arrived from Egypt, had acted there. The latter, no doubt, also returned to his native place after the event. But when a king was to be chosen for the rebels he was called back and made king. This exasperated Rehoboam to make war on Israel. We cannot be surprised at the number he brought into the field, as the tribe of Judah alone had 500,000 men of war in the census that David took (2 Samuel 24:9). 1 Kings 12:22-24. But the word of the Lord came, &c. 1 Kings 12:22. The prophet Shemaiah did not belong to the tribe of Ephraim, like Ahijah (1 Kings 11:29), but doubtless to Judah, and from the present passage as well as from 2 Chronicles 12:5, it seems that he must have lived in Jerusalem. As here, so also he had great influence through his preaching, when king Shishak came from Egypt to war against Rehoboam; he also wrote a history of Rehoboam (2 Chronicles 12:5-8; 2 Chronicles 12:15). The thing is from me, 1 Kings 12:24. This prophet of Judah, as well as the Ephraimite prophet, declares the separation of the ten tribes to be a divine dispensation, which, humiliating and painful as it was to the house of David and Judah, might not be opposed by force of arms; for the separated tribes were still “brethren.” Thus he recognizes a higher bond of union in spite of all separation, and wishes that union held intact. The king and army follow his advice; they probably saw that a war with the numerically greater and just now bitterly excited ten tribes would bring them into a worse condition still. Historical and Ethical1. The rebellion of the ten tribes against David’s house, and the consequent partition of the kingdom, was the most important and pregnant event in the history of Israel since it became an independent State. The divisions that took place in the time of the judges were only temporary, but this lasted for hundreds of years, and only terminated with the fall of both the separated kingdoms. An event that formed such an epoch, and had such a marked influence on sacred history, cannot possibly be traced to one fact alone, or to the defiant and thoughtless answer of Rehoboam; it must have been produced by deeper and more general causes, lying in the character of the people and in the mutual relation of the tribes. The tribe of Judah and the double one of Joseph (Ephraim and Manasseh, Joshua 17:17), whose progenitors were especially favored in the blessing (Genesis 49:8-12; Genesis 49:22-25), were from the beginning the most numerous, and therefore the most powerful, of all the twelve tribes. Judah numbered seventy-six thousand and five hundred before the entrance into Canaan; the double tribe of Joseph numbered eighty-five thousand and two hundred men (Numbers 26:22; Numbers 26:28; Numbers 26:34; Numbers 26:37); this tribe claimed the largest territory at the division of the land (Joshua 17:14 sq.; 1 Chronicles 5:1) on account of its number, and because it had inherited Reuben’s birth-right. But the “sceptre” was promised to Judah, and the leaders in the march through the desert as well as in the conquest of Canaan headed that tribe (1 Chronicles 5:2; Numbers 2:3; Numbers 10:14; Judges 1:2; Judges 20:18); both tribes were warlike (Judges 1:4; Judges 1:10; Judges 8:1 sq.; 1 Kings 12:1 sq.; Psalms 78:9). In consequence of these relations, each tribe regarded itself as equal in powers with the other tribes, but also as evenly matched with each other. But added to this there was a difference in the character and pursuits of the tribes; whilst Judah was the leader and head of the theocracy and the covenant, therefore of higher religious life (Genesis 49:10; Psalms 60:9; Psalms 78:67 sq.; Psalms 114:1-2), Ephraim represented the nature-side of the people’s life; and the consciousness of natural, material strength and earthly abundance appears with it in the foreground (Genesis 49:22 sq.; Deuteronomy 33:13; Psalms 78:9 sq.). There was, therefore, in the latter more receptivity for nature-religion, and a tendency to independence of any other tribe, and especially of one not entirely its equal. There was, then, the germ of a dualism very early in the nation, and this germ grew more and more in the distracted times of the Judges, asserting itself sometimes with more, sometimes with less energy. After Saul’s death the two chief tribes formally separated under different kings (2 Samuel 2:4-11); this, however, only lasted seven years and a half, after which the revolted tribes went over to the king of Judah, i.e., David (2 Samuel 5:1 sq.). But the more the power and authority of Judah increased under David and Solomon, so much the more did the old jealousy and love of independence grow in Ephraim; the tribute-labors, and especially the structures which served to strengthen the dominant authority of Judah which Solomon had achieved by Ephraimites, were calculated especially to increase those feelings. Jeroboam’s attempt to raise an insurrection miscarried, but the desire for independence was not extinguished thereby. It broke out again the more violently after Solomon’s death, as there was hope of getting rid of Rebohoam more easily, who did not in the least resemble his father. The great event of the partition of the kingdom had its roots in a primitive characteristic of the tribe, which characteristic had existed over four hundred years, and now broke out at last with violence, creating a double State. Rehoboam’s answer was only the spark which fell into the powder magazine. The recent historical criticism admits the agency of the Ephraimite character in the revolt, but finds the especial and chief cause in the essential nature of the kingdom. Ewald is of this opinion (Gesch. des V. Isr. III. s. 393 sq.). The monarchy had, in its very nature, a tendency to extend its power further and further, and to restrict every other power in the nation more and more, or else to absorb it. It reached a very high stage in Solomon’s time, but it was ever growing, and it made more and more severe exactions upon the people in labor and taxation. A further strengthening and one-sided growth of the monarchy was held by the best men in Israel to be ruinous and dangerous to the ancient freedom of the people. There might have been, indeed, a way of reconciling the claims of the monarchy and of the nation without a revolution, i.e., “having what is now called a constitution drawn up, which, when well devised, is the safe-guard of the best modern Christian nations.” But there was no such remedy at hand; the heads of the tribes only assembled when a new king was to be declared. All the best of the people, and particularly the prophets, had agreed that the government could not continue as it was at the close of Solomon’s life. As the prophets had founded the kingdom, and advanced it so much by the elevation of David’s house over that of Saul, they now expected furtherance by another change of dynasty; impressed by their counsel, it was forthwith achieved in consequence of the voice of the people and the folly of Rehoboam, &c., &c. This whole mode of explanation, already adopted here and there, rests on the utterly unproved supposition that Solomon’s government constantly grew more absolute and despotic, till, at last, it seriously threatened the liberty of the people. We have not the slightest historical proof of this. Where is it said that Soloman oppressed his people, in every way, by taxation and tribute-labor? Where is it said that the prophets believed the liberties of the people to be threatened, and that they announced this publicly? How happens it that Solomon, who advanced his realm to a degree of prosperity it never before and never again enjoyed, is made to be a despot and oppressor? Just when the text has been treating exclusively of the tribute to the splendid court, it says: “Judah and Israel were many, as the sand which is by the sea in multitude, eating and drinking, and making merry,” &c.; “Judah dwelt safely, every man under his vine and under his fig-tree, from Dan to Beer-Sheba, all the days of Solomon” (1 Kings 4:20; 1 Kings 4:25). That he demanded too much of this tribute-labor, which was customary among all ancient nations, and had been exacted before his time, there is no other evidence than the complaint of the angry revolutionary assembly of Ephraimites at Shechem, and this cannot be regarded as impartial and historical testimony. So little did Solomon interfere with the liberty of his people, that there was an unprecedented commerce with all the neighboring nations in his reign; he even allowed freedom of worship—allowed too much rather than too little liberty. This and not despotism was what the prophets apprehended danger from. There is not in the whole history of Solomon a single act that can be called despotic or tyrannical, like those of later kings, for instance, Ahab or Jehu; and yet the former is said to have ruled with such intolerable severity that the prophets and the best among the people were compelled to think of a change of government. Of all kingdoms, that of Israel should be the last to be judged from a modern political point of view. The theocratic constitution was not revoked when the human monarchy began: Jehovah continued to be the true king of Israel, and the human king was the “servant of Jehovah;” as such he had to do Jehovah’s will, not his own. There was, therefore, no such thing as absolutism, which we are told clung to this monarchy by virtue of its nature. But we cannot comprehend how any should think that the best remedy against the supposed despotism of Solomon would have been a representative government, after the pattern of the constitutions of our nineteenth century. 2. The revolt of the ten tribes from the house of David (1 Kings 12:19) is often represented as justifiable. J. D. Michaelis (Mos. Recht I. § 55) saw nothing more in it than a new capitulation of a people still free; De Wette (Beitrδge I. s. 129) went further, and asserted that, “according to 1 Kings 12. these tribes were fully justified in what they did; they demanded fair concessions, and there is only Rehoboam’s folly to be blamed.” Duncker says (Gesch. des Alt. s. 402), “the Israelites remembered their right to choose and anoint the king.” But we find nothing said anywhere of such a national right: the law for kings (Deuteronomy 17:14 sq.) says nothing of it; it recognizes no conditions of election; and the history mentions no king except Jeroboam (1 Kings 12:20), either in Judah or Israel, who was elected by the free choice of the people. The monarchy was hereditary in Judah, and continued in David’s house till the dissolution of the kingdom; in Israel, also, the son succeeded the father, or usurpers arose who gained the throne by force; but the people never once chose the king. In the present instance, Ephraim with its confederates had no right, certainly, to reject a king who was such by birth, and to choose another by themselves alone, without Judah. Ephraim had solemnly acknowledged the brotherhood of all the twelve tribes, and had willingly submitted to David (2 Samuel 5:1 sq.); and all the tribes had acknowledged Solomon to be, in right of being David’s son, the true king of “Judah and Israel” (1 Kings 4:20; 1 Kings 5:5). At the great festival of the dedication they had all gathered around Solomon, who announced to them the divine promise that David’s house should never want a man to sit upon the throne of David (1 Kings 8:1; 1 Kings 8:24-25); they united together in a solemn bond, by a common thanksgiving sacrifice to Jehovah at the temple, which was the central point, as it were, of the kingdom, and this bond joined them all together as well as with David’s house; as the king blessed them, so, also, they blessed him (1 Kings 6:62–68). Solomon’s son was therefore the rightful heir of the throne for all the tribes, and none had a right to revolt from him. Even granted that Solomon had given his subjects cause of complaint, by exacting too much tribute-labor in the latter part of his reign, yet this did not justify any one of the tribes in breaking the bond of national union, and severing themselves from the hereditary dynasty, especially, too, as Rehoboam had not as yet shown in acts what his government would be. The revolt of the ten tribes was not brought about first by his foolish wilful answer, but the latter “only offered them a wished for opportunity to carry out their already purposed, revolt” (Keil). Hence they did not want to treat, but gave free vent to their hatred, and murdered the innocent ambassador of the king. The division can therefore be regarded as nothing else than a revolutionary act, which cannot by any means be excused, much less justified. A right of resistance lies only in cases where the chief ruler arbitrarily violates the fundamental law upon which the material and also the spiritual and moral existence of a people rests. But the rebellion is then the act of the government itself, and not of the subjects. But single grievances, even if real, can never justify revolt from lawful authority (especially when only brought forward by a part of the nation) or form sufficient ground for rebellion and deeds of violence (cf. Rothe, Theol. Ethik III. s. 977 sq.). Solomon had certainly attacked and undermined the fundamental law of Israel, by permitting and favoring idolatry, but the ten tribes made no complaint of this, but solely of the alleged excess of tribute-labor, which Judah and Benjamin shared with them, but which they did not bring forward as a grievance. 3. That Rehoboam returned an answer to the people, with which the storm that had threatened the house of David burst forth, is emphatically said (1 Kings 12:15) to have been from the Lord; and the prophecy of Ahijah (1 Kings 11:11; 1 Kings 11:31) was thereby fulfilled. At the same time the prophet Shemaiah warns them not to make war on the seceders, saying, “this thing is from the Lord.” This does not justify the conduct of the ten tribes any more than that of Rehoboam, but intimates indeed that the partition of the kingdom determined on in the counsels of God happened in such a way as to make it evident that it was the fault of Rehoboam. According to the word of Ahijah the partition appeared to have a double design: to “afflict the seed of David, but not forever” (1 Kings 11:39), to be as such a chastisement (2 Samuel 7:14); and also to afford to the inborn instinct of Ephraim for independence the opportunity of free development, yet on the indispensable condition of unchanging fidelity to the fundamental law that David had held; the express restriction was added, that David’s seed was not to be afflicted forever. We already remarked above (Hist. and Ethic. 5, on 1 Kings 11:14-43) that such a temporary division of the kingdom was not inconsistent with the higher unity of the divine monarchy. But as neither of the kingdoms adhered to that higher unity, Ephraim forsaking the law continually from the beginning, and Judah only sometimes faithful, the division became, through the guilt of both kingdoms, the germ of their destruction (Matthew 12:25). Because the higher unity was forsaken, the history of the divided kingdom is nothing but a slow process of dissolution of the human monarchy in Israel, and with it of the outward, earthly kingdom, limited by natural race and to a given land. That unity was designed, in the divine counsels, to be an eternal heavenly kingdom, an inward kingdom of God, to embrace all nations, a βασιλείατῶνοὐρανῶν in which “Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim” (Isaiah 11:13); in which “they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all,” but shall be “one nation,” and “one king shall be king to them all” (Ezekiel 37:15-22). The fact that the partition of the kingdom, this beginning of its end, immediately followed its culmination of earthly dominion under David and Solomon, shows how frail and perishable it was; the more it approached its dissolution, the more ardent became the longing for an enduring and eternal kingdom, the more definite and significant prophecy became. Well may Witsius exclaim, referring to the above-mentioned sentence in 1 Kings 12:15 : O sapientia et occulti miranda potentia fati! qu� res omnes ita dirigit et flectit, ut tamen ipsi illuc ivisse videamur, et consiliis fatisque nostris gradum nobis struamus ad fatalem illum lapsum sive adscensum. The apostle’s exclamation about the ways and judgments of God, though universally applicable, is so especially here (Romans 11:33). 4. In the conduct of the various important personages concerned in bringing about the partition of the kingdom, all the sins and weaknesses appear which lie at the bottom of all such events; so that we behold, in this history, a reflection of every revolution in its nature and course, and it may serve as a picture of future ones in every age (cf. especially the striking treatise of Vilmar, Die Theilung des Davidsreichs. Pastoral-theol. Blδtter, 1861, s. 177 bis 193), which we cited above on 1 Kings 11:4. A complete lack of religious feeling and manner is first observable in these two opposite parties; both move upon a purely outward, secular, and political-worldly soil, though in Israel the national and religious consciousness coincide principally. There had been hitherto no assembly of the whole people or of their representatives, for weighty affairs, in which the religious element had failed. When Joshua called the elders together in Shechem, before his end, “they presented themselves before God” (Joshua 24:1 sq.). When Samuel did the same at Mizpeh, he said to them, “present yourselves before the Lord” (1 Samuel 10:19). When all the tribes came to David in Hebron, after Ish-bosheth’s death, and acknowledged him as king over all Israel, they call to mind Jehovah’s word, and David “made a league with them before the Lord” (2 Samuel 5:1-3). When Solomon assembled all the heads of the tribes and the elders at the dedication, the ceremony not only began with divine worship, but ended by the “king and all Israel with him offering sacrifice before the Lord” (1 Kings 8:1; 1 Kings 8:5; 1 Kings 8:62). In the present instance, however, nothing was done “before the Lord,” but everything was done without Him. No one, neither one of the tribe-heads nor Jeroboam nor Rehoboam nor his counsellors and companions, inquire after Him. No one names Him. That He is their true sovereign before whom they must all bow does not occur to them. They think only which of the two parties should rule the other. This conduct reveals a state of things which always and everywhere precedes revolutions; which are made ready inevitably when, in a nation and kingdom, high and low alike ask no longer for the holy and living God, and where infidelity and indifference have entered. The breaking of religious ties brings with it, sooner or later, that of the State also; hence we generally find, in the present day, that those who plan the overthrow of the government, as a rule, seek also to undermine the church foundations.—When we look particularly at the conduct of the people of the ten tribes we see that they had all forgotten the great benefits and blessing they had received through the house of David, especially during the forty years of Solomon’s prosperous reign; they forgot that each had dwelt securely under his vine and fig-tree as long as Solomon lived, that they had eaten and drunken and been merry; they only thought of the dispute about tribute-labor, hence ingratitude and discontent. They agreed to go to Shechem instead of Jerusalem, and only to do homage under certain conditions; this was already mutiny and rebellion. Hereupon they called a man who had lifted his hand against Solomon, and proved himself a foe of David’s house, to be their speaker and leader; with him at their head, they went to the king in the consciousness that they formed the majority of the nation, and laid before him their complaint of excessive labor and want of freedom. When their stormy petition was rejected, there arose wild and scornful cries, and a regular rebellion broke out; they rushed in blind rage at the innocent mediator for the king, and murder him, whereupon the king has to flee in great haste; and they conclude by making their leader and spokesman king. If, on the other hand, we contemplate the conduct of the government, we find everything here, too, that was calculated to call forth rebellion and insurrection instead of avoiding or appeasing it. First, utter ignorance of the feeling among the people, and therefore no sort of precaution for the threatened danger; the king goes thoughtlessly to the discontented people, thus falling into the snare set for him. When surprised in Shechem with the demand made, he is irresolute, asks time for reflection, and keeps the people in suspense, which must only have increased their excitement. He then consults his immediate attendants; the elders advise him to descend from the throne, for the time being, and to humor the people; the young men advise him to the opposite course. Thus there was want of unity in the higher circles, and views in direct antagonism one over against the other. The high-sounding advice of the courtiers pleased the weak and headstrong monarch best, and he delivered an answer which supposes a power which no longer existed, and shows equal folly, arrogance, and contempt of the people. Thereupon the storm broke loose, and Rehoboam then wished to make concessions, and to treat with them. But instead of going himself courageously to face the excited throng, this arrogant and imperious man sent an old and faithful servant to be exposed to their rage. It was “too late;” Adoram was killed, and he himself had to flee in haste. When such perverted ways, faults, and sins are found in the government, the way for revolution is already formed, and when it has once begun, soldiers are as useless as concessions; what is lost by a person’s own fault is lost forever. 5. The appearance of the prophet Shemaiah after the partition seems like the rising of the sun after a dark, stormy night. Whilst sin and wickedness reign in both parties, and none of them cares about the living God, “the man of God” appears with undaunted courage; armed only with the sword of the Spirit, the word of God, he confronts the blinded, wilful king and an army of 180,000 men. He commands them in the name of the Lord to lay down their arms, and to go home; standing on the rock of his strength (Psalms 62:8), he calls to the surging waves, Thus far and no farther! and no one dares to offer opposition. Thus the prophets again come forth in majesty, as the admonishing and avenging conscience of Israel, as the divine corrective of all human actions; and this shows, too, how erroneous the assertion is that the partition of the kingdom was the result of a series of conflicts that went on, especially under Solomon, between the two powers of the monarchy and of the prophets, which existed side by side in Israel. It was not monarchy and the prophets which were in conflict, but Ephraim and the house of David. Both these took purely secular and political ground, and they had no other aim than to lord it over each other. The prophets take a stand-point above both; and the prophet speaks and contends for the divine monarchy in Judah as well as in Israel. As for the rest, Judah appears here in a much more favorable light than Ephraim; it faithfully adheres to David’s house, and knows nothing of complaint of tribute-labor, which had borne as heavily on it as on Ephraim; while Ephraim, which well knew the promise given to David’s house, disregards that promise completely. Judah, knowing the word of the Lord by the prophet, rises against his brethren at the call of his king; but Ephraim listens to a Jeroboam, and if a prophet in Shechem had warned them against insurrection he would doubtless have fared no better than Adoram. Homiletical and Practical1 Kings 12:1-20. The departure of Israel from the house of David: 1. The grievances. 2. The decision. 3. The rebellion.—The division of the kingdom. 1. A consequence of manifold sins (of Solomon, Jeroboam, Rehoboam). 2. A divine dispensation (for their humiliation and chastisement, and for a direction toward the heavenly eternal kingdom, v. Ethical).—The sources and causes of the rebellion. 1. In general (estrangement from God, indifferentism, and unbelief). 2. In particular, these sins on the part of the people (Proverbs 14:34), and on the part of the princes (Proverbs 20:28). Where prince and people fear God, there will be no rebellion; but where no covenant with God exists, all human considerations fall in pieces. 1 Kings 12:1-5. The assemblage of the people at Shechem. 1. Who were present (the ten tribes with Jeroboam, returned from Egypt, at their head, ostensibly to do homage, but really to stir up revolt; the assembling together was unlawful, unbidden, and arbitrary. Warning from such courses. Proverbs 24:21-22). What the people sought. (Murmurs and complaints against the pretended oppression of Solomon, instead of gratitude for great benefits, and the well-being of the State. These complaints were rather a pretext than the truth, and were an exaggeration of the grievances; they demanded not the maintenance of the law and the covenant; but merely material elevation, less labor, and more outward freedom and independence. Admonition of 1 Peter 2:17-19).—Preiswerk (in the periodical, Morgenland, 1839): The assembling together of great idle crowds in a small space is a device of all demagogues; these crowds mutually excite each other, masses of men, like-minded, inspire each other with confidence, peaceful councils vanish, men become accustomed to the shouts of the insurgents, imbibe their principles, venture no contradiction against the outburst of passion, especially when swelled by numbers, and, thus inflamed, are dragged onwards in paths from which later repentance can never bring them back. 1 Kings 12:1. It is never advisable to go where men are assembling themselves together, who testify by their choice of a meeting-place that they have no good end in view. (Shechem recalls the story in Judges 9.) 1 Kings 12:2-3. Experience teaches that those who have once set up an opposition to legitimate authority will ever persist in their resolve, even if their design fail or is pardoned; they only await another opportunity to carry out their plans; therefore they should never be trusted. 1 Kings 12:3-4. Rebellious people easily seek and find in public circumstances means which they amplify and exaggerate in order to give an appearance of justice to their wickedness, and to have some pretext for their criminal designs.—Cramer: It is an universal fact that men exclaim more concerning oppression than concerning godlessness and other sins; are more careful for the body than for the soul; and, so they are free in action, give little heed to the soul’s nurture (Exodus 16:3).—A people which prescribes to its lawful sovereign the conditions of its obedience to him, and directs him how to govern, assumes to itself royal authority, and overturns the appointed order of God, thus rushing surely on to its own destruction. 1 Kings 12:5. A prince who, upon his accession to the throne, requires time to decide if his rule shall be mild and merciful or harsh and despotic, cannot have assumed his high responsible post in the fear and love of God; therefore he must expect no divine blessing. It is well and good, indeed, in all weighty matters to take time for reflection, but in time of sudden danger, rapid, firm decision is equally necessary. One accustomed to walk in God’s ways will at such times take no step which will afterward cause him bitter repentance. 1 Kings 12:6-11. Rehoboam holds a council. 1. With whom? (With his own servants, old and young, but not with the Lord his God, and with his servants. In difficult and grave matters we should not neglect to take counsel with men, but chiefly should we go to Him for counsel of whom it may be said: He has the way of all ways, and never fails in counsel, and “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, &c. (James 1:5). For, saith the Lord, Woe to the rebellious children who take counsel, but not of me, &c. (Isaiah 30:1). if He sit not in the council, in vain do young and old advise. Had Jeroboam sought light from above in those three days, and prayed as once his father did (1 Kings 3:9), or as Jeremiah (Jeremiah 32:19), or entreated like Jehoshaphat (2 Kings 3:11), then he would not have been like a reed shaken by the wind, but his heart would have been strong.) 2. The advice given him. (Neither counsel was divine, but both merely human (Matthew 16:23). The old men, out of their fear and apprehension, advised: renounce for the present thy royal prerogative, and bow before the will of the people; later thou canst act quite differently. This advice ran counter to his pride and despotism, so he refused the counsel of the old men. Through flattery and insolence combined, the young men counselled a course actually inhuman, viz.: to abuse his royal prerogative, to care nothing for his people and their wishes, but simply to treat them with violence. This advice suited him well, because it corresponded with his rough, harsh, selfish and violent character. But this produced the exact reverse of what he wished and hoped. When you receive conflicting counsels from men, apply to both the test of God’s word, for: Psalms 19:8; Psalms 119:104 sq.) 1 Kings 12:6. It is the first privilege and duty of a king to seek to surround himself with men, who, fearing no man, either high or low, and regardless of their own profit or advantage, shall advise him as befits men responsible before a just and holy God. One such man alone outweighs whole hosts of soldiers, for: Proverbs 20:28. 1 Kings 12:7. A king who refuses to be a “servant of God” readily finds himself in a situation where he is compelled to be a servant of the people. The splendor of majesty is enhanced by benevolence, goodness, and mercy, but never by timid yielding and submission to the popular will. 1 Kings 12:8. Where the counsels of the aged are rejected, be it in a kingdom or in a house, and those only of the youthful followed, there men pursue an unhallowed path. For to a true wisdom of life experience is necessary, and this youth cannot have (Leviticus 19:32; Sir 8:11). Those who grow up with us have, unconsciously and involuntarily, a vast influence over our modes of thought and views of life, therefore parents must have a watchful eye over the intimacies of their children. 1 Kings 12:10-11. A vaunting speech is by no means a proof of courage; the more boastful a man’s speech the less resolute he will be in peril and temptation; a truly strong, firm, and calm man is silent. Time-serving and flattery are most dangerous for a prince; they wear the garb of fidelity and devotion, and in reality are the greatest treachery. Chiefly distrust those who counsel thee to do what gratifies thy vanity, thy selfishness, and thine own desires, and costs thee no sacrifice.—Osiander: One should rather distrust all harsh judgments, because they accord chiefly with the disposition of the flesh, and not of the spirit, which inclines to mercy. 1 Kings 12:12-15. The answer of the king to the people. (a) It is hard—not merely a refusal, but imperious, tyrannical, unbecoming in any sovereign, but especially one who ought to be the servant of the compassionate and merciful God, with whom is great truth and loving-kindness (Exodus 34:6). Authority is the handmaid of God, to thee for good (Romans 13:4), and not a terror. Government is not built upon whips and scourges, but upon justice, love, and confidence; that rule alone is thoroughly right where “mercy and truth are met together, righteousness and peace have kissed each other” (Psalms 85:11). How entirely different is David’s example of sovereignty (Psalms 101.). (b) A rash and inconsiderate counsel, that of the young men, throwing oil on the flames instead of quenching them, and exciting uproar and revolt instead of disposing to submission and obedience. Passion always blinds. When the heart is perverted the head is likewise dulled, and those who are generally shrewd become unwise and unreasonable; for it is not the head which rules the heart, but, on the contrary, the inclinations and desires of the heart are stronger than the thoughts of the head (Prov. 15:1: 30:33; James 1:19-20; Ephesians 5:15-17). “He that liveth many days, let him keep his tongue from evil,” &c. (Psalms 34:13). 1 Kings 12:14. Midway between weak concessions and timid neutrality on the one hand, and selfish persistence in presumptive rights on the other, lies a course always pointed out by the Lord to those who bow before Him, pray to Him for wisdom, and long earnestly to do what pleases Him alone. Not only do great lords give harsh answers, but likewise petty rulers; those who moan and complain most bitterly against the tyranny of the great are frequently the greatest tyrants in a small way; they perceive the mote in their neighbor’s eye, but not the beam in their own.—Starke: The voice of the King of kings comes to us utterly unlike that of Rehoboam; therefore should we listen the more submissively and obediently to it.—Wόrt. Summ: The Most High is ever at hand to change the darkest prospects of the children of men to a happy termination, and the accomplishment of His all holy will, even as Joseph said to his brethren (Genesis 1:20). God disposes not the thoughts of man to folly and sin, but brings them to judgment by their very perverseness, and thus makes it serve to carry out His own designs. 1 Kings 12:16-19. The rebellion, (a) Its causes, sin, and folly, in high and low places: amongst the people, ingratitude, jealousy, envy, hatred, and thirst for independence: with the king, tyranny, violence, and folly. (b) Its consequences. (Disunion, which was in no wise advantageous, but the beginning of every species of ill-fortune, and of the final dissolution of the kingdom, followed deeds of violence. murder, and death-struggles. A people in rebellion is like a fierce dog unchained. The evil consequences of rebellion are often felt for a century.) 1 Kings 12:16. As is the question. so is the answer. He who makes an unprincipled speech must not wonder if he receive a like reply. The same people who once came to David and said: See, we are thy bone and thy flesh, thou hast led us, thou shalt be our king (2 Samuel 5:1-2), now said: We have no part in David; what is the shepherd’s son to us? This is the way of the multitude. To-day they cry: Hosanna, blessed be he who cometh in the name of the Lord! To-morrow it is, “Crucify him, we will not that he reign over us!” To-day, if fortune smile, they are fawning and bland, to-morrow, if misfortune threaten, they cry: “Look to thyself.” Their cry is: We will be free, and servants of no man—not seeing that they are the blind tools of one or more leaders, who seek to reign over them. With the house of David, Israel flung aside the great promise (2 Samuel 7:10-16; 2 Samuel 23:5), which depended on that house. For us has come that Son of David, whose kingdom shall have no end (Luke 1:32 sq.). Let us hold steadfastly by Him, and not be led astray by the uproar of the world: “We will have no part in him.” He will finally destroy all enemies under his feet. Thus went Israel to his tents, but not as formerly, blest by the king and blessing him, rejoicing over the goodness of the Lord to David, and to his people Israel (1 Kings 8:66). He who has not a good conscience cannot return in peace. 1 Kings 12:18. The people desired freedom, but a tree of liberty, watered with innocent blood, can only bear poison fruit. He who asks nothing of God can only lead others to folly,—he who cannot stand in the gap can never protect others. It is a judgment of God when a monarch, instead of being able to repose in the bosom of any one of his subjects, must needs fly before him to save his life. To yield to superior force is no disgrace, but shameful is the flight which is the result of arrogance and overbearing pride. 1 Kings 12:19-20. The great majority fell away, and the small minority remained faithful; the first was ruined and had no future; from the latter came forth the One before whom every knee bowed down, and whom every tongue acknowledged to be the Lord (Matthew 2:6; Philippians 2:11). In the kingdom of God there is no question of majorities and minorities, but it is simply, are we steadfast and faithful unto death? The pretended deliverers of the masses well know how to manage, so that they will become rulers of the people; they allow themselves to be summoned, and apparently persuaded to the very object which was the sole aim of their efforts. 1 Kings 12:21. What Rehoboam had lost through insolence and weakness, through wickedness and folly, he now sought to regain by violence and battle; instead of humbling himself beneath the All-powerful hand of God, he is haughty and depends upon his own arm of flesh. The natural heart of man is a froward and timorous thing (Jeremiah 17:9), without safe resting-place or firm support, now buoyed up, now cast down, the football of every storm of fortune. But blessed is the man whose trust and confidence are in the Lord. It is a precious thing, &c. (Hebrews 13:9). Faith is the victory, &c. (1 John 5:4.) In the renewed heart is no pride and no fear. 1 Kings 12:22-24. The word of the Lord to the king and to the host; (a) the command: Ye shall not, &c.; (b) the cause of the commandment: For this thing is from me; (c) the obedience to the command: And they hearkened, &c. The lives and property of subjects are not to be used to compensate for the sins and follies of their rulers. Civil wars are the most unnatural, and likewise the fiercest and bitterest; he who stirs up strife between brethren commits a crime which never goes unpunished.—Shemaiah, a type of the Lord’s servants. He is a man of God, and as such he brings good tidings of peace (Isaiah 52:7); he has no other arms than the sword of the spirit, which is the word of God (Ephesians 6:17); with His word he comes, strong and fearless, before the king and his whole host (Acts 4:20; Acts 9:15). It is said here of hundreds of thousands: “They hearkened to the word of the Lord, and returned, &c.” How many thousands to-day hear this word, but, burying it beneath cares, riches, and the pride of life, live on without obedience and without repentance, bringing forth no fruit (Luke 8:14).—Wόrt. Summ.: We see here with what great might the God of Truth maintains his word. By the prophet Ahijah he announced to Jeroboam that he should rule over ten tribes of Israel: that is accomplished here. He has promised to leave one tribe to the house of David: that is accomplished here. He promised to Ephraim or to his father Joseph, that kings should proceed from them (Genesis 49; Deuteronomy 33.), and that is fulfilled here, since Jeroboam becomes king through Ephraim. Thus nothing remains unfulfilled of all that God has spoken, promised, or threatened. Solomon and Rehoboam strove to prevent the fulfilment of God’s word in Jeroboam, for which purpose Solomon planned to kill Jeroboam, and Rehoboam assembled a great army against him, but all in vain. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ B.—The establishment of the kingdom of Israel by Jeroboam1 Kings 12:25-3325 Then Jeroboam built Shechem in mount Ephraim, and dwelt therein; and went out from thence, and built Penuel. 26And Jeroboam said in his heart, Now shall the kingdom return to the house of David: 27if this people go up to do sacrifice in the house of the Lord [Jehovah] at Jerusalem, then shall the heart of this people turn again unto their lord, even unto Rehoboam king of Judah, and they shall kill me, and go again to Rehoboam king of Judah. 28Whereupon the king took counsel, and made two calves of gold, and said unto them, It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem: behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. 29And he set the one in Beth-el, and the other put he in Dan. 30And this thing became [was] a sin: for the people went to worship before the one, even unto Dan. 31And he made a house of high places, and made priests of the lowest [mass] of the people, which were not of the sons of Levi. 32And Jeroboam ordained a feast in the eighth month, on the fifteenth day of the month, like unto the feast that is in Judah, and he offered upon the altar. So did he in Beth-el, sacrificing unto the calves that he had made: and he placed in Beth-el the priests of the high places which he had made. 33So he offered9 upon the altar which he had made in Beth-el the fifteenth day of the eighth month, even in the month which he had devised of his own heart; and ordained a feast unto the children of Israel: and he offered9 upon the altar, and burnt incense. Exegetical and Critical1 Kings 12:25.—Then Jeroboam built Shechem. The first thing which Jeroboam undertook after his accession was the building of fortresses to protect his realm. αָּ ?πָ ?δ means fortified here, as Shechem and Penuel were built long before. He chose Shechem immediately as his residence (ειωׁ ?α), no doubt, for the same reason that the ten tribes had assembled there (see on 1 Kings 12:1). It does not follow from εַ ?ιֵּ ?φֵ ?ΰ, that he at once removed to Penuel (Ewald, Thenius), for it only says: he built, and it is not added that he lived there. Penuel, too, did not belong to the tribe of Ephraim, but was in Gad, beyond Jordan, according to some, northward, and others, southward of Jabbok. There was a tower there formerly, which Gideon destroyed (Judges 8:17). Jeroboam can scarcely be supposed to have fortified the place on account of the caravan road to Damascus passing by it (Keil), or to subdue the Ammonites and Moabites again (Duncker), but to secure the territory beyond Jordan against any attacks from Judah. There is no doubt that he built these fortifications by tribute-labor, like Solomon (1 Kings 9:15 sq.); the “grievous service” (1 Kings 12:4) did not, therefore, cease under him, and the complaint against Rehoboam appears all the more like a pretext. 1 Kings 12:26-28. And Jeroboam said in his heart, &c. 1 Kings 12:26. Jeroboam did not seek to establish his kingdom outwardly only, but also inwardly; and to attach the people permanently to himself. The political union with Judah was indeed broken, but the religious one still remained. The people still went up to the yearly feasts at the central place of worship in Jerusalem; this practice seems, from 2 Chronicles 11:16 sq., to have extended even, so that Jeroboam became anxious lest his people should turn to Rehoboam and dethrone him. He therefore sought to break this bond also. We can scarcely admit that εַ ?ιִּ ?εָּ ?ςַ ?υ 1 Kings 12:28 ought to be supplemented thus: “With his counsellors or the heads of the people, who had helped to make him king” (Keil), for the text would certainly not have passed over so important a circumstance as that the representatives of the people concurred with him in changing the place of worship. He reflected about it alone, and came to the following resolution—Vulgate: Et excogitato consilio fecit duos vitulos; Dereser: “it occurred to him to make two golden calves.” Two golden calves, i.e., young bulls, as appears from Psalms 106:19 sq.; they were molten (1 Kings 14:9), probably of brass, and then overlaid with gold (Isaiah 40:19). The expression ψַ ?αΞμָ ?λֶ ?ν is never used in the sense of: it is desiring too much from you; i.e. it is too hard for you, but: it is (now) enough, i. e. you have gone up to Jerusalem long enough, cease doing so. The Sept. translates ἱκανούσθω, the Vulgate has: Nolite ultra adscendere in Jerusalem. Cf. Deuteronomy 1:6; Deuteronomy 2:3; Ezekiel 44:6; 1 Kings 19:4; 2 Samuel 24:16. The words, Behold thy god(s) which, &c., are exactly the same as the people used when setting up the golden calf in the wilderness (Exodus 32:4-8) and refer unmistakably to them. They are not plural (thy gods which, &c.) any more than when used in the former case, for they only refer to one calf, and Nehemiah (1 Kings 9:18) uses them in the singular; ΰμδιν, moreover, is construed with the plural of the predicate (cf.2 Sam. 1 Kings 7:23 with 1 Chronicles 17:21). It is certain that Jeroboam did not wish to introduce the worship of two or more gods; but the plural being used in this place may indicate that “the knowledge of the unity of God is lost in every form of nature-worship” (Von Gerlach), and that image-worship is closely related to polytheism (Ewald). The bringing them up out of Egypt was God’s act, by which he made Israel a separate nation, creating it, as it were, and choosing it at the same time for his own, from out all peoples. This was the real historical proof that the Almighty God, who has no equal either in heaven or earth, was Israel’s God; therefore the God who brought Israel out of Egypt is contrasted, as the only true God, with the vain gods of the heathens (Joshua 24:17; Judges 2:1; Judges 2:12; Judges 6:13). The people Israel only knew him to be God who brought them out of Egypt; and should they worship the golden calf as their God, they must, as Aaron and Jeroboam did, before everything else, attribute to it the deliverance out of Egypt. We cannot endorse the ordinary explanation, that Jeroboam meant to say: Non est nova religio, hoc cultu jam olim patres nostri in deserto usi sunt auctore ipso Aharone (Seb. Schmidt); for if the history of the golden calf were known to the people, and Jeroboam reminded them of it, he must also have known that Jehovah’s wrath waxed hot on account of that sin, that Moses ground the calf to powder, and that all the worshippers were destroyed (Ex. 32:10; 20:28). Nothing could be more ill-advised than an appeal to this event, and it would have been the direct opposite of any recommendation of the new worship. It appears rather that the narrative, giving as it does Jeroboam’s praise of the golden calves in the words the people had used at the sight of the golden calves in the wilderness, wishes to convey the idea that those images were a renewal of the sin committed in the wilderness, and that, therefore, Jeroboam’s undertaking would, sooner or later, have a similar end. 1 Kings 12:30 also implies this, and 2 Kings 17:7 sq. expressly declares it. 1 Kings 12:29-30. And he set the one in Bethel, &c., 1 Kings 12:29. Bethel was on the southern, and Dan on the northern boundary of the kingdom. The situation of these places explains why Jeroboam chose them. He wished to make things easy for the people; the northern tribes could readily reach one place of worship, and the southern tribes the other, and they would so much the sooner become habituated to the new regulation. At the same time also it was in opposition to the Judah-centralizing of worship. This was another reason for having two calves instead of one. It is generally thought that he chose both places, because they had been regarded before as sacred places for worship. This may have influenced him in choosing Bethel, but scarcely in respect of Dan, for the narrative in Judges 18. by no means proves that the latter place was looked on with respect by the people as a place of worship. Had Jeroboam sought only sacred places, there were several (e. g. Shiloh) that were much more esteemed as such than Dan. This thing became a sin, 1 Kings 12:30. Jeroboam was guilty of great sin in making images of oxen, contrary to the fundamental law, and in setting them up in two places remote from each other, and thus destroying the unity of worship which has been the bond of union for the whole people. The text means what is afterwards always spoken of as “the sin of Jeroboam, who made Israel to sin” (1 Kings 14:16; 1 Kings 15:26; 1 Kings 15:30; 1 Kings 15:34; 1 Kings 16:2; 1 Kings 16:19; 1 Kings 16:26; 1 Kings 16:31; 1 Kings 21:22; 1 Kings 22:53; 2 Kings 3:3; 2 Kings 10:29; 2 Kings 10:31; 2 Kings 13:2; 2 Kings 13:6; 2 Kings 13:11; 2 Kings 14:24; 2 Kings 15:9; 2 Kings 15:18; 2 Kings 15:24; 2 Kings 15:28; 2 Kings 17:21-22; 2 Kings 23:15). The people went to worship before the one, even unto Dan.μִ ?τְ ?πֵ ?ιδָ ?ΰֶ ?ηַ ?γ clearly refers to the δָ ?ΰֶ ?ηַ ?γ twice repeated in 1 Kings 12:29, and cannot therefore be translated as Ewald gives it: “the people, as it were one man:” neither does it mean that the people only went to one image, that at Dan, 1 Kings 13:1. “Unto Dan,” moreover, cannot be joined to δָ ?ςָ ?ν and translated, “the people unto Dan; i.e., the people in the whole kingdom as far as Dan” (Keil). The sentence is evidently abbreviated, and μτπιδΰηγ is only put once instead of twice, because the repetition after the double ΰηγ in 1 Kings 12:29 is understood; “δΰηγ is alter here in the sense of alteruter” (Cassel). The people went to both, even to the distant Dan. Vulgate: ibat enim populus ad adorandum vitulum usque in Dan.1 Kings 12:31-32. And he made an house of high places, &c., 1 Kings 12:31. For the so-called high places, see above on 1 Kings 3:2. As the “high places” in 2 Kings 23:15 is simply δַ ?αָּ ?ξָ ?δ, and the high places are contrasted with Jehovah’s house in 1 Kings 3:1-2, the word here certainly does not mean a temple, properly speaking, but probably a kind of cell for the image. Ewald makes it out “a splendid temple,” and says: “this temple evidently lasted many years and probably rivalled that at Jerusalem; later too, this temple was regarded as the great sanctuary of the kingdom.” We find not a single word of all this in the Scripture, however. Jeroboam made priests of the ξִ ?χְ ?φεֹ ?ϊ of the people; this does not mean, from the lowest of the people (Luther), but, from all classes of them (Genesis 19:4; Ezekiel 33:2; Jeremiah 51:31); he made any one that wished a priest. Thus he broke the law which gave the right to the tribe of Levi alone (Numbers 16). He did this either because he wanted to abolish the institution of the Levitical priesthood, or because the Levites and priests, not willing to participate in the service of the golden calves, left the kingdom (2 Chronicles 11:13). And Jeroboam ordained a feast, 1 Kings 12:32. ηָּ ?β alone, or δֶ ?ηָ ?β signifies the feast of tabernacles, because it was the greatest and most frequented of the yearly feasts (the feast of harvest, cf. on 1 Kings 8:2). This feast fell on the seventh month, as the law commanded (Lev. 23:34; 34:41). Jeroboam changed the time to prevent the ten tribes meeting the other two, or having any intercourse with them. He fixed it in the eighth month, because the northern and more distant tribes would thus have time to complete their harvest, and could more easily take the journey to Bethel, where he himself also kept the feast (we need not say that the harvest was later in the northern than the southern parts; see Thenius on the place). The feasts were always announced beforehand (Leviticus 23:4); if this were done after the feast at Jerusalem was over, it could not possibly be celebrated there. Jeroboam did not observe the same day of the month, the 15th, “on account of the weak, who were offended at his innovations” (Keil), for in that case he would have kept it a month sooner, but he did so because the months and weeks were counted by the new and full moons, and the 15th was the day of the full moon. Thus there was simply a reason derived from the calendar why that day was retained. 1 Kings 12:33. And he offered upon the altar, &c. εַ ?ιַּ ?ςַ ?μςַ ?μΞδַ ?ξִּ ?ζְ ?αֵּ ?ηַ three times in 1 Kings 12:32-33 cannot be translated (as Thenius gives them) once (1 Kings 12:32) by: “he sacrificed upon the altar,” and two other times (1 Kings 12:33) by: “he went to the altar;” they must mean the same each time. ςμδ means here, as usual, to go up, to mount; the Sept. correctly gives ἀνέβη three times, the Vulgate has ascendens 1 Kings 12:32, and ascendit twice, 1 Kings 12:33. The altar had a raised part in the middle, to which an ascent [incline?—E. H.] led up (Sym. des Mos. Kult. I. s. 480). It is clear that ιςμ cannot be translated every time, as Luther, De Wette, and Keil give it, he sacrificed, for in 1 Kings 12:32 it is distinctly distinguished from ζָ ?αַ ?η, and in 1 Kings 12:33μְ ?δַ ?χְ ?θִ ?ιψ is added at the end; this does not mean: and he offered incense (De Wette), or while he offered incense (Philippson), but only to offer incense; there is no sense in: he sacrificed to offer incense. The first ιςμ, 1 Kings 12:32, means, that Jeroboam took part in the feast; the second signifies especially his presence at the first feast in Bethel, and the third is only to be connected with the second, on account of the long intermediary clause in 1 Kings 12:33, joining μδχθιψ with it, and so leading on to μδχθιψ 1 Kings 13:1. In fact 1 Kings 12:33 forms the transition to the next section chap. 13., which is evidently derived from another source, and relates what happened at the celebration of the festival at Bethel. Jeroboam ascended the altar to burn sacrifice, and just as he was about to do so, a man of God came, &c. (1 Kings 13:1). What 1 Kings 12:33 repeats from 1 Kings 12:32, as well as the words, “which he had devised of his own heart,” shows the writer’s intention, i.e., to display the arbitrary nature of Jeroboam’s proceedings, which called forth the occurrence of chap, 1 Kings 13:1 sq.Historical and Ethical1. The religious institutions which, next to the fortifications, served to establish Jeroboam’s kingdom are of the greatest importance, for they formed the real and lasting wall of separation between the two kingdoms Israel and Judah, that existed side by side for hundreds of years. Through these institutions the division mentioned in the above section became an incurable schism for all future generations, thus determining the whole of the after-history of the people. To understand it thoroughly in all its bearings, we must, at the outset, take into consideration Jeroboam’s point of view, and the motives which impelled him. The history makes him utter these himself clearly enough in 1 Kings 12:26-27; they were of a purely political nature. He took those measures from no religious convictions, not to do away with abuses, in short, not for the sake of God and conscience, but to secure to himself and his dynasty the dominion over the newly founded kingdom, and to withdraw it forever from the house of David. He well knew that a political separation without a religious one too would not be lasting with a people whose distinct existence from other nations only depended on their common religious basis. To introduce a completely new religion, which should displace the faith of their fathers, would have been very dangerous to his dominion; so he thought of modifying it in such particulars as he was sure would be agreeable to the people, who were disposed to build a strong, impregnable wall of separation between Israel and Judah. All the kings of Israel inherited the principle on which Jeroboam acted, however much the dynasty changed, until the dissolution of the kingdom. We have here, then, the type of that political absolutism which makes the national religion subservient to the interests of a dynasty, which holds that the secular power is justified in prescribing the faith and form of worship for the subjects. This absolutism is found not only in monarchies but in republics—among crowned heads as among democrats—it can be traced through the entire history of the world, and has appeared in Christendom as Cζsaro-papism. In Israel the prophets opposed it, and as it was firmly adhered to from the beginning in that kingdom, we find, accordingly, the prophets were engaged in a perpetual struggle with it. 2. The germ of all the changes Jeroboam wrought was the erection of two golden calves. They were not actual idols, i.e., images that were supposed to have real connection with the divinity they represented, as among the heathens (cf. my treatise, Der Salomonische Tempel, s. 270 sq.), but symbols of Jehovah, the God of Israel; the whole history of Israel shows that Jeroboam did not intend to introduce idolatry or polytheism. The God who had brought Israel out of Egypt, thus showing Himself to be the true God (cf. Cassel, Kφnig Jeroboam, s. 6), was to remain, but he did not wish Him to appear to have His throne and dwelling-place in Jerusalem alone, but also in the new kingdom, and to be visibly present there. He wishes to attach the people to his kingdom by a visible representation of Jehovah. But this visible representation was in direct opposition to the fundamental Mosaic law, which just as expressly forbids the making an image of Jehovah, as the worshipping of other gods beside Him (Exodus 20:3-4). If God be one, and everything in heaven and earth, and in the water under the earth, only his creature, it follows necessarily that He can have no similitude; nothing out of Him can represent Him. Every image is a practical denial of his incomparable and therefore invisible being, an untruth which, as such, can never make Him known, but, on the contrary, destroys the knowledge of Him and leads to idolatry. For the nearer man comes to the life of nature the less power he has to abstract himself from the natural and visible, and to comprehend the spiritual and invisible by itself, i.e., to distinguish the sign from the thing signified. If God be worshipped in an image, it is scarcely possible to avoid worshipping the image itself as God, hence there is but a short step from a representation of God to idolatry, which again, in spite of everything, leads to polytheism (Romans 1:23). This is why the Mosaic fundamental law places the prohibition of every likeness of God in immediate juxtaposition against that of idolatry. To violate this command was to lay the axe at the root of the tree of spiritual life planted in the chosen people. This was “the sin of Jeroboam, wherewith he made Israel to sin.” When he sought to give his kingdom durability by erecting images, contrary to the condition so emphatically laid before him by Ahijah, namely, keeping Jehovah’s laws (1 Kings 11:38), he brought this very germ of destruction and dissolution into it; this our writer expressly notices in his account of the fall of the kingdom of Israel (2 Kings 17:7 sq.). The question whether the Old-Testament law against every representation of God extends unconditionally to the New-Testament economy, has, as is well known, been answered variously. While the reformed church stretches the Old-Testament law still further, and in contradiction with the Mosaic worship, which consisted wholly in symbols, rejects every symbol and representation in the churches, the Lutheran and Roman Catholic churches not only allow representations of Him who walked on earth in the form of a servant, but of God himself, only claiming that they be not worshipped or prayed to. Though we do not approve of an exaggerated spiritualism, yet the representations of God as an invisible being are of very questionable worth, and should at least not be placed in buildings for public worship. Cf. Isaiah 40:18; 1 Timothy 6:16. 3. It is almost universally acknowledged that Jeroboam’s long residence in Egypt (1 Kings 11:40; 1 Kings 12:2) led him to choose images of bulls to represent Jehovah, and that there was reference to the Egyptian cultus of Apis and Mnevis. But we have the clearest evidence of the contrary. The images were to represent (according to 1 Kings 12:28), that God who “brought Israel out of Egypt,” i.e., out of the “house of bondage,” from service to an idolatrous people, by great judgments on the latter, even the destruction of their entire army, and had separated them as from all nations, so especially from Egypt (Exodus 6:6; Exodus 7:5; 1 Kings 8:51-53). To choose a specifically Egyptian divinity in order to represent this God would have been the greatest contradiction; for it would have meant so much as: the God who overthrew the Egyptians and brought you out of Egypt was an Egyptian deity; but the clause, “who brought thee out of Egypt,” contains the most emphatic opposition to any Egyptian idol. Had the bull-images of Jeroboam been borrowed from Egypt, we should find other traces of Egyptian worship in that of the ten tribes, but none are to be found. All the gods that were worshipped by them, or afterwards by Judah, were without exception those of anterior Asia. Besides this, Apis and Mnevis were different gods, while Jeroboam wished to make symbols of one and the same deity; and, moreover, they were not images, but living idols, belonging to the Egyptian animal worship, which had always been despised in Israel, and looked on as an abomination (Exodus 8:26). The material and the workmanship of the golden calves remind us of anterior Asia, not of Egypt; for the Egyptians had only stone images; they had no images that were cast, golden, or overlaid with gold. There is no necessity for seeking the original of Jeroboam’s golden calves in any particular ancient nation. The bull was, according to the view common to all ancient peoples, especially to those who were agricultural, a symbol of the creative power, and consequently of the highest divinity, from which all life and being emanated. There was no type of divinity so universal in the ancient world as the bull (cf. Creuzer, Symbolik I. s. 318, 505, 747; iv. s. 128, 240; Baur, Symbolik I. s. 177 sq.; Movers, Relig. der Phoniz. s. 373 sq.). If Jeroboam wanted to give an intelligible and acceptable symbol of Jehovah to the people, he could have scarcely chosen anything but the bull, especially as the God who had brought Israel out of Egypt, and thus chosen them as His own (Isaiah 43:15-17), was adored by them as the Creator of heaven and earth. (The command that refers to the Sabbath day in the decalogue is founded upon the creation in Exodus 20:11, and upon the exodus in Deuteronomy 5:15). That which is true of Jeroboam’s image is also true of Aaron’s (Exodus 32:4), which was much nearer the time of the Exodus from Egypt, and therefore was still less likely to be an imitation of the Egyptian idols. 4. All the changes that Jeroboam made in the worship were calculated, on one hand, to serve his political ends, and likewise, on the other, to be agreeable and desirable to the people of the ten tribes. By setting up images of the deity he gratified the deep-seated instincts of this portion of the people, who, more inclined to nature-life (see the Hist, and Ethic. on above section), in their rudeness and sensuousness, even in the wilderness were not satisfied with an invisible God, but wanted one they could see. He drew the people from the imageless temple at Jerusalem by the erection of two images, and at each extremity of the kingdom; and he not only withdrew them from the one central point of worship which was necessary to the theocratic unity of the people, but he made it easier for the people to attend the new places of worship. By giving the priesthood to any one, not confining himself to the priestly tribe, he destroyed this sacred institution of a tribe of priests, who, being dispersed among all the tribes, were the guardians of the divine law, and of spiritual and religious culture. At the same time he flattered the people thereby, because any one could aspire to the dignity of the priesthood and obtain its emoluments. These he may have lessened in the interests of the people. There would scarcely have been a surer method of destroying the organization of a “kingdom of priests” (Exodus 19:6), which had, as such, its central point in the priestly tribe, than this procedure of the king. He retained the feast of tabernacles because it was the most liked and the most frequented, and he held it necessary for the separated tribes to gather regularly around him as their lord, and unite in a common attitude over against Judah. To make this meeting, however, as easy as possible, he fixed on a later month, and thus broke the order of the feast-cycle, arranged according to the number 7. This, then, was the supposed deliverer of his country who, once he had the reins in his hands, was not content with controlling secular things, but so altered the religion of his people as to serve his own political ends, and introduced “what he had devised of his own heart” as the State religion. What was the alleged disposition of Solomon, from which he pretended to free the people, compared with this for which Jeroboam overthrew the fundamental law of the entire nation? “This,” remarks Vilmar (s. 191), “is the way with demagogues and Cζsaro-papalists, who have in all times said, and are still at it, so many criminal and senseless things, now of their care for the people, then of the rights of the ‘community,’ just as Jeroboam here;” and he remarks before (s. 189): “the departure (from political motives) from spiritual principles, which surely leads to destruction, is here portrayed for all times.” 5. The modern historical presentation of the elevation and ordinances of Jeroboam sketches quite another picture from that of the bibilical history. Duncker (Gesch. des Alterthums, I. s. 404) thinks the rebellion of the ten tribes in Shechem was not separation from Judah, but the reverse: “they perpetuated the kingdom and name of Israel, while one single tribe in the south separated themselves from the whole body.… As soon as Jerusalem ceased to be the capital of the State, the Temple ceased to be the place of worship for all the tribes. Jeroboam dedicated anew the old places of sacrifice at Bethel and Dan, and placed priests at both. He built a temple on the height at Bethel, which temple was to be instead of that at Jerusalem for his kingdom. Those beginnings of image-worship of Jehovah, which we may observe in the preceding period of the kingdom, and which continued in David’s time, were now universally and officially recognized. Jeroboam set up a golden bull-image to Jehovah in Dan and Bethel. In this restoration of the Jehovah worship we may also perceive a national reaction against the foreign worship that Solomon introduced in the last years of his reign.” Menzel takes the same view (Staats- und Rel.-Geschichte der Kφnigreiche Israel und Juda, s. 156 sq.): “In the deliberation of Jeroboam in respect of the institutions of public worship, there seemed, doubtless, a right to restore its sacred character to the old national sanctuary (of Bethel) which the new Temple-service at Jerusalem had deprived it of, or at least lessened. This restoration, strictly speaking, took place at Bethel only.” That the people worshipped images is said to have no other proof than “the eloquent representation of the foes of image-worship, who in all ages have tried pretty much in the same way to enforce their views (colored by their own feelings) against the representation of what is thought,” as, for instance, “the prophet Hosea” (Hosea 8:6). According to this, there can indeed be no “sin of Jeroboam, wherewith he made Israel to sin;” he seems rather to have done a service to his people; so far from breaking the law, he was rather a reactionist and restorer. And when all the prophets denounced Jeroboam’s form of worship, they only spoke from their peculiar, subjective “manner of feeling,” for Israel always had images of the Deity, and even David “carried the image of Jehovah about with him in his marches” (Duncker, s. 408). We need no proof to show that this is turning the history upside down; it is an example of the unwarrantable style of writing history, which, under the semblance of scientific criticism, utterly ignores the text of the only historical source we have. Homiletical and Practical1 Kings 12:25-33. How Jeroboam sought to establish his sway, (a) outwardly, by the erection of fortifications; but these alone do not protect and guard a kingdom. A mountain fastness is our God (Psalms 71:3; Psalms 127:1); (b) inwardly, by ordinances for public worship, which can protect a kingdom only when they are conformable with the word and command of God and are not designed to subserve selfish purposes. [“Jeroboam king of Israel, to the destruction of him and his, did change the ceremonies which God had ordained, into his own, that is, into men’s inventions and detestable blasphemies.” Bullinger.—E. H.].—Wόrt. Summ.: We should trust ourselves not to fastnesses, but to God, and God wills not to be served otherwise than as He has commanded in His revealed word; our worship and service, therefore, must proceed from faith, and we shall be blessed of Him. 1 Kings 12:26. As soon as Jeroboam obtained the wish of his heart, namely, the rulership, he asked no longer about the condition under which it was promised to him and with which it was bound up (1 Kings 11:38). How often we forget, when God has granted to us the desire of our hearts, to walk in His ways. He who obtains rulership by the path of rebellion, must always be in fear and anxiety lest he lose it again in the same way, for the populace which today cries Hosanna will, on the morrow, shout crucify, crucify! An evil conscience makes the most stout-hearted and the strongest timid and anxious, so that he sees dangers where there are none, and then to insure his own safety devises wrong and evil instruments. One false step always requires another. 1 Kings 12:28-33. The sin of Jeroboam wherewith he caused Israel to sin. (a) He erected images of God against the supreme commandment of God (Exodus 20:4). (b) He set aside the prescribed order of the servants of God, and made his own priests, (c) He altered the feast which was a reminder of the great deeds of God, and made it a mere nature-and-harvest feast. That is the greatest tyranny when the ruler of a land makes himself the master also of the faith and conscience of his subjects.—Cramer: In the estimation of the people of the world this policy of Jeroboam is held to be proper, because they consider that religion is to be established, held, and altered, as may be useful and good for the land and the people and the common interest, and that the regimen is not for the sake of the religion, but the religion for the regimen. Consequently Jeroboam acted well and wisely in the matter. But God says, on the other hand, All that I command you, that shall ye observe, ye shall not add thereto (Deuteronomy 12:32). For Godliness is not to be regulated by the common weal, but the common weal is to be regulated by Godliness. Every government which employs religious instrumentalities, and interferes with the faith of the people, not for the sake of God and the salvation of souls, but for the attainment of political ends, shares the guilt of the sin of Jeroboam, and involves itself in heavy responsibilities. 1 Kings 12:28. Calw. B.: To the perverted man, what he shall do for his God is forthwith too much. In matters of faith and of the homage due to God we should not consider what is convenient and agreeable to the great mass, but should inquire only for what God prescribes in His word. He who conciliates the sensuousness and the untutored ways of the masses, and flatters their unbelief or their superstition, belongs to the false prophets who make broad the way of life. Doctrines, and institutions which depart from the revealed word of God are often praised as progress and seasonable reforms, while in truth they are steps backward, and corrupting innovations. In Christendom we pray no longer to wood and stone, and to golden calves, and think ourselves thereby raised far above a darkened heathenism, but, nevertheless, we often place the creature above the Creator, and abandon ourselves to it with all our love and consideration and service. Behold, the things and persons thou lovest with thy whole heart and strength, these are thy gods. What use of typical representations in the worship of God is permitted, and what is forbidden? 1 Kings 12:30. Starke: As a great tree in a forest, when it falls drags down many others with it, so also are many others carried along by the bad example of those who rule, when they fall away from their religion, or sin otherwise grossly against God. 1 Kings 12:31. We have in the new covenant no Levitical priesthood indeed, but a pastoral and preaching office which the Lord has instituted, so that, thereby, the body of Christ may be edified (Ephesians 4:11). He who despises this office, and thinks that any one without distinction and without a lawful calling may exercise it, is a partaker in the sin of Jeroboam. “No one,” says the Augsburg Confession, “shall teach or preach publicly in the church, or administer the sacraments, without due calling.” 1 Kings 12:32. The festivals which an entire people celebrate in remembrance of the great deeds of God for them, are the support of their faith and of their life of fellowship. It is to destroy this life when, from prejudice and for the sake of outward wordly considerations, arbitrarily they are altered or abandoned. 1 Kings 12:33. As it is good and praise-worthy when kings and princes engage in the service of God along with their subjects, and set them a good example, so also is it blameworthy when they do it only to win the people over to themselves, and to secure their authority over them. Footnotes: 1 Kings 12:27.—[The Sept. has “to the Lord and (or even) to their lord.” The Syr. omits this word Lord altogether. The Vat. Sept. omits the last clause of the verse. 1 Kings 12:28.—[Our author prefers the sense of the Sept., Chald., and Vulg., “let it suffice you,” “do not any longer go up.” Keil argues that the Heb. cannot be so translated, and prefers the sense of the A. V. 1 Kings 12:28.—[The Heb. ΰֱ ?μֹ ?δֶ ?ικָ may be taken either in the plural, as in the A.V. and the ancient VV. generally, or in the singular, as in our author’s translation, according to the common Heb. usage. For reasons for the latter see the Exeg. Com. 1 Kings 12:30.—[The translation of εַ ?ιְ ?δִ ?ι became may seem to ignore the fact that Jeroboam’s deed already was a sin in itself. 1 Kings 12:30.—[Our author’s translation inserts in brackets “or the other.” See Exeg. Com. 1 Kings 12:30.—[The Vat. Sept. adds, “and forsook the house of the Lord.” 1 Kings 12:31.—[αֵּ ?ιϊΞαָּ ?ξεֹ ?ϊ correctly rendered in the A. V. in the singular, since the contrast is with the αֵּ ?ιϊΞιְ ?δεָֹ ?δ at Jerusalem. The Sept. in translating οἴκουςἐφὑψηλῶν, and the Vulg. fana in excelsis, have overlooked the point. 1 Kings 12:31.—[The Heb. ξִ ?χְ ?φεֹ ?ϊ does not mean so much “from the lowest of the people” as, “from all classes,” “from the mass of the people promiscuously,” in contradistinction to the especial Levitical family. Cf. Genesis 47:2; Ezekiel 33:2, and see Exeg. Com. The A. V. is sustained by the Vulg. alone among the ancient VV. 1 Kings 12:32.—[The A. V. is here sustained by the Vulg. and Arab. The other VV. give the sense preferred by our author in the Exeg. Com. “Went up to, or upon (i.e. upon the approach to) the altar,” thus translating the last words of 1 Kings 12:33, “to burn incense.” 1 Kings 12:32.—[The Sept. must have read ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ instead of λֵּ ?ο since it translates”—the altar which he made in Bethel.” 1 Kings 12:33.—Nehemiah 6:8 clearly shows that the k’ri ξμαε is the true reading. All the translations are in accordance with this. The k’tib ξμαγ gives no sense, since it does not mean seorsum sc. a Jud�is (Maurer, Keil); but except, beside. [Keil takes the opposite view of the meaning, and denies the necessity of the change.—F. G.] SECOND SECTION Jeroboam’s Government In Israel1 Kings 13:1 to 1 Kings 14:20A.—The admonition of Jeroboam by a Prophet, and the disobedience and end of the latter1 Kings 13:1-341 And behold, there came a man of God out of Judah by the word of the Lord 2[Jehovah] unto Bethel: and Jeroboam stood by the altar to burn incense. And he cried against the altar in the word of the Lord [Jehovah], and said, O altar, altar, thus saith the Lord [Jehovah]; Behold, a child shall be born-unto the house of David, Josiah by name; and upon thee shall he offer the priests of the high places that burn incense upon thee, and men’s bones shall be burnt upon thee. 3And he gave a sign the same day, saying, This is the sign which the Lord [Jehovah] hath spoken; Behold, the altar shall be rent, and the ashes that are upon it shall be poured out. 4And it came to pass, when king Jeroboam heard the saying of the man of God, which had cried against the altar in Beth-el, that he put forth his hand from the altar, saying, Lay hold on him. And his hand, which he put forth against him, dried up, so that he could not pull it in again to him. 5The altar also was rent, and the ashes poured out from the altar, according to the sign which the man of God had given by the word of the Lord [Jehovah]. 6And the king answered and said unto the man of God, In treat now the face of the Lord [Jehovah] thy God, and pray for me, that my hand may be restored me again. And the man of God besought the Lord [Jehovah], and the king’s hand was restored him again, and became as it was before. 7And the king said unto the man of God, Come home with me, and refresh thyself, and I will give thee a reward. 8And the man of God said unto the king, If thou wilt give me half thine house, I will not go in with thee, neither will I eat bread nor drink water in this place: 9for so was it charged me by the word of the Lord [Jehovah], saying, Eat no bread, nor drink water, nor turn again by the same way that thou camest. 10So he went another way, and returned not by the way that he came to Beth-el.11Now there dwelt an old prophet in Beth-el; and his sons came and told him all the works that the man of God had done that day in Bethel: the words which he had spoken unto the king, them they told also to their father. 12And their father said unto them, What way went he? For his sons had seen5 what way the man of God went, which came from Judah. 13And he said unto his sons, Saddle me the ass. So they saddled him the ass: and he rode thereon, 14and went after the man of God, and found him sitting under an oak [the terebinth]: and he said unto him, Art thou the man of God that camest from Judah? And he said, I am. 15Then he said unto him, Come home with me, and eat bread. 16And he said, I may not return with thee, nor go in with thee: neither will I eat bread nor drink water with thee in this place: 17for it was said to me by the word of the Lord [Jehovah], Thou shalt eat no bread nor drink water there, nor turn again to go by the way that thou camest. [And] 18he said unto him, I am a prophet also as thou art; and an angel spake unto me by the word of the Lord [Jehovah], saying, Bring him back with thee into thine house, that he may eat bread and drink water. But he lied unto him. 19So he went back with him, and did eat bread in his house, and drank water. 20And it came to pass, as they sat at the table, that the word of the Lord [Jehovah] came unto the prophet that brought him back: 21and he cried unto the man of God that came from Judah, saying, Thus saith the Lord [Jehovah], Forasmuch as thou hast disobeyed the mouth of the Lord 22[Jehovah], and hast not kept the commandment which the Lord [Jehovah] thy God commanded thee, but earnest back, and hast eaten bread and drunk water in the place, of the which the Lord did say to thee, Eat no bread, and drink no water; thy carcass shall not come unto the sepulchre of thy fathers. 23And it came to pass, after he had eaten bread, and after he had drunk, that he saddled for him the ass, to wit, for the prophet whom he had brought back. 24And when he was gone, a lion met him by the way, and slew him: and his carcass was cast in the way, and the ass stood by it, the lion also stood by the carcass. 25And, behold, men passed by, and saw the carcass cast in the way, and the lion standing by the carcass: and they came and told it in the city where the old prophet dwelt. 26And when the prophet that brought him back from the way heard thereof, he said, It is the man of God, who was disobedient unto the word of the Lord [Jehovah]: therefore the Lord [Jehovah] hath delivered him unto the lion, which hath torn him, and slain him, 27according to the word of the Lord [Jehovah], which he spake unto him. And he spake to his sons, saying, Saddle me the ass. And they saddled him. 28And he went and found his carcass cast in the way, and the ass and the lion standing by the carcass: the lion had not eaten the carcass, nor torn the ass. 29And the prophet took up the carcass of the man of God, and laid it upon the ass, and brought it back: and the old prophet came to the city, to mourn and to bury him. 30And he laid his carcass in his own grave; and they mourned over him, saying, Alas, my brother! 31And it came to pass, after he had buried him, that he spake to his sons, saying, When I am dead, then bury me in the sepulchre wherein the man of God is buried; lay my bones beside his bones: 32for the saying which he cried by the word of the Lord [Jehovah] against the altar in Beth-el, and against all the houses of the high places which are in the cities of Samaria, shall surely come to pass. 33After this thing Jeroboam returned not from his evil way, but made again of the lowest [mass] of the people priests of the high places: whosoever would, he consecrated him, and he became one of the priests of the high places. 34And this thing became [was a] sin unto the house of Jeroboam, even to cut it off, and to destroy it from off the face of the earth. PreliminaryThis section, over against the preceding and following chapters, bears an unmistakably peculiar character, and is doubtless inserted here from some other source. Nevertheless it is closely connected with chap. 12. and chap. 14., as is sufficiently obvious from its beginning and conclusion. The words, 1 Kings 13:1 : ςֹ ?ξֵ ?γςַ ?μΞδַ ?ξִּ ?ζְ ?αֵּ ?ηַ μְ ?δַ ?χְ ?θִ ?ιψ clearly refer to the concluding words of the former chapter (1 Kings 13:33); εַ ?ιַּ ?ςַ ?μςַ ?μΞδַ ?ξִּ ?ζְ ?αֵּ ?ηַ μְ ?δַ ?χְֹ ?θִ ?ιψ refer back and connect the present section completely with the foregoing. When Jeroboam ascended the altar at the feast he had instituted, and stood on it to offer incense, behold! there came a man of God out of Judah, &c. The man of God did not appear at an ordinary sacrifice, but on a solemn public occasion, most probably at the first of the new festivals. This gave peculiar significance to his appearing; “Jeroboam’s dreadful apostasy was not to escape severe chastisement from God” (v. Gerlach). With the appearing of the man of God (1 Kings 13:1-10) the full account of his conduct and fate is conjoined (1 Kings 13:11-32). That this account, though it says nothing of Jeroboam, is not a mere episode, but bears upon the principal subject, namely, “the sin of Jeroboam,” which had such a marked influence on all Israel’s future history, is obvious from the conclusion of the narrative (1 Kings 13:33-34): “After this thing Jeroboam returned not from his evil way, but made again,” &c. These words form the connecting link with the 14th chap. The connection is, briefly, this: Jeroboam not only entered on an evil way (1 Kings 12:28-33), but let nothing turn him from it, neither the warning and the miracles of the man of God (1 Kings 13:1-10) nor his remarkably significant fate (1 Kings 13:11-32). He remained hardened in his apostasy. The divine sentence on him and his house, recorded in chap. 14., was therefore announced to him by the prophet Ahijah, who had promised him the kingdom on condition of fidelity to Jehovah (1 Kings 11:31-39). In respect of the contents of our section here, in its phraseology, its source was not contemporaneous with the events, as is the case with the other sources of our books, which are written by contemporaneous prophets (cf. Introduc. § 2). 1 Kings 13:32 shows this; the old prophet of Bethel speaks of the “cities of Samaria,” after the burial of the man of God. But the city of Samaria did not even exist then; it was built by Omri, who was king fifty years after Jeroboam (1 Kings 16:24); and there certainly could not have been at that time any province named after it. The explanation that the expression is “proleptic” (Keil) is untenable, because it was not written by our author, who lived in exile, but it is given by him as an expression of the Bethel prophet. Later critics, Ewald and Thenius, for instance, have inferred that the whole account is of a much later date, from 1 Kings 13:2, where the man of God does not speak of a future son of David only, but mentions the proper name of a king who lived more than 300 years later; the narrative must therefore date from after Josiah’s time (2 Kings 23:15-20) and have been written down as it was repeated among the people. The calling of proper names, certainly, does not characterize prophecy, which differs from foretelling in this, that it does not notice more or less accidental outward circumstances, but announces only such things as are connected with the divine economy and development of God’s kingdom; it describes the persons whose future appearances it announces by their qualities, but not by their names. In the only exceptional case (Isaiah 44:28; Isaiah 45:1) the name λεψωׁ may be appellative = sun, as a name of honor for the Persian kings (Hengstenb., Christol. I. 2, s. 192 sq.). Keil says that “the name ιֹ ?ΰωִׁ ?ιָּ ?δζּ (in our passage) only follows its appellative meaning; he whom Jehovah sustains, from ΰָ ?ωָׁ ?δ to sustain, and means, a son shall be born to the house of David, whom Jehovah shall support and establish, so that he shall execute judgment on the high priests at Bethel. This prophecy was afterwards so fulfilled by divine Providence, that the king who executed the sentence bore the name of Josiah as his proper name.” But this name is never used anywhere else as an appellative, and only belonged to one person. If we must take the expression “all the cities of Samaria” (1 Kings 13:32) “as proleptic,” we cannot see the reason why this may not also be the case with the words “Josiah by name” (1 Kings 13:2). We need not suppose they were the gloss of a later interpolator; our author took them as he found them in the document from which he borrowed; this document, however, was, as we have said, not a contemporary one, but the later record of what had been preserved in the verbal traditions of the people, and had been revived by Josiah’s act (2 Kings 23. If any section of our books bears the stamp of tradition, the present one does; and that by no means because a miracle is recorded in it. The names of the two prophets with whom the whole narrative is taken up are wanting, which is an evidence of tradition, as are also the difficulties in 1 Kings 13:6 sq. and 1 Kings 13:18-22, about which opinions differ widely, and which can scarcely be satisfactorily explained. Although those facts which are most important here are historical and unchanged, yet the traditional coloring of single and less important circumstances can be plainly perceived; every attempt to determine what is purely historical and what is traditional is vain. We must not forget the general grand aim of the whole section, which is to make known the wonderful ways and judgments of God. Exegetical and Critical1 Kings 13:1-3. And behold there came a man of God, &c. We cannot ascertain who this was. “Josephus calls him Jadon, thinking no doubt of the ςִ ?γּ ?εֹ or ςִ ?γּ ?εֹ ?ΰ who is called ιֶ ?ςְ ?ψεֹ after the k’ri in 2 Chronicles 9:29; we cannot accept this, however (as Jarchi does), because he lived under king Abijah, according to 2 Chronicles 13:22, while the prophet spoken of here died now. For the same reason we cannot think, with Ephrem and Tertullian, that it was Shemaiah, see 2 Chronicles 12:1, (Thenius). It expressly says that he came out of Judah, therefore he did not spring from the apostate part of the nation. αִּ ?γְ ?αַ ?ψιְ ?δεָֹ ?δ does not mean: on the word or command of Jehovah, but, as appears from 1 Kings 13:2; 1 Kings 13:9; 1 Kings 13:17 (cf. 1 Kings 20:35 and 1 Samuel 3:21): in (through) the word. “The word of the Lord is spoken of as a power that came upon the prophet and forced him to utter the revelation made to him” (Keil). O altar, altar! the altar is metonymically for what was done on it and concentrated in it; in short, of the worship performed there. The fact that the prophet addressed the altar was incomparably more significant than if he had turned himself to the person of the king; the sentence of destruction which he pronounces on the altar as the type of the new worship, and of Jeroboam’s sin, includes the rain of the latter. For Josiah see preliminary remarks. The burning of men’s bones on the altar is the greatest possible desecration of it, as according to the law (Numbers 19:16) every, even involuntary, contact with a dead body made a person unclean; nothing else could have represented the altar as so utterly useless and abominable. In the genuine prophetic manner, the man of God adds to his words a deed (see on 1 Kings 11:30) as a pledge of his prophecy. ξεֹ ?τֶ ?ϊ is not so much a sign (ΰεֹ ?ϊ), as an act producing astonishment, prodigium (Hengstenberg, Christol. II. s. 45 sq.). γֶּ ?ωֶׁ ?ο (really fat, hence the Sept. gives πιότης here) is the fat of the parts sacrificed on the altar, and ran out mixing with the ashes, therefore is not ashes absolutely. These ashes of sacrifice were, on that account, usually taken to a clean place (Leviticus 1:16; Leviticus 4:12). The spilling of them out, in this case, denoted that they, and consequently the sacrifice from which they came, and the whole worship, were unclean; it was no natural result of the bursting of the altar. 2 Kings 23. relates the fulfilment of the prophetical act and word. 1 Kings 13:4-7. And it came to pass when king Jeroboam heard the saying, &c., 1 Kings 13:4. Jeroboam did not raise his hand to offer the incense (Thenius); but as he stood on the altar, he stretched out his hand towards the man of God as he spoke, and cried out, Lay hold on him! It dried up. “Jeroboam’s hand, so suddenly affected that he could not draw it back, was either paralyzed or, what seems more explanatory of the expression dried up, struck with tetanus; this last is what Ackermann accepts (in Weise’s Materialien III. s. 131 sq.)” (Winer, R.- W.-B. II. s. 192). Jeroboam’s order thereby lost all effect; no one ventured to seize the prophet; it was also a warning to the king himself, and had a momentary effect on him. He was terrified, and begged the prophet to “entreat now [to make inattentive] the face of the Lord thy God for me” (ηָ ?μָ ?δ) i. e., to beseech Him so earnestly that He cannot refuse. “The Lord thy God,” he says, not that He was not his God, but: thy God in whose name and behalf thou hast come here. When he was succored he invited the prophet to go home with him, and offered him a present, but not from genuine repentance or gratitude, but only because he wished to win him over, and to do away with or lessen the impression his conduct (the prophet’s) made on the people present; for he himself remained the same apostate after as before. 1 Kings 13:8-10. [But] And the man of God said, &c., 1 Kings 13:8. The object of this prohibition of eating and drinking in Bethel was not to effect the “prompt execution of the commission” (Thenius). Eating and drinking with a person, sitting down to table with any one, is the sign of communion or fellowship, and used as such here, as often elsewhere in Scripture (1 Corinthians 5:11; cf. Gen. 43:32; Luke 15:2; Galatians 2:12; 1 Corinthians 10:18; 1 Corinthians 10:21). The man of God, chosen to announce God’s judgment by word and deed on the apostate and his followers, was to avoid fellowship with him, for this would be utterly inconsistent with his commission; the command was given him, ad detestationem idololatri�; ut ipso facto ostenderet, Bethelitas idololatras adeo esse detestabiles et a Deo quasi excommunicatos, ut nullum fidelium cum iis cibi vel potus communionem habere velit (Corn. a Lapide). When he afterwards ate and drank there, he transgressed a much higher and more important command than one relative to fasting only. This, too, was why he was to take another way home; not “to remain unnoticed and to avoid being detained” (Ewald), but to avoid being brought back, and persuaded to do anything inconsistent with his commission or not contained in it; this alone he was to do, and then vanish as quickly as he came. This sheds the necessary light on the following narrative, 1 Kings 13:11-32. 1 Kings 13:11-22. An old prophet in Bethel, 1 Kings 13:11. He lived in the town (1 Kings 13:25; 1 Kings 13:29), but the high place was probably outside the town. Instead of “his son,” the Sept., the Vulg., and the Syr. give the plural, as in 1 Kings 13:12. One spake in the name of the others, or they agreed with what the one said. These were actual sons of the prophet, not pupils, for the latter would scarcely have witnessed the golden calf worship. The Terebinth (1 Kings 13:14) “is a tree that resembles an oak,.… has evergreen leaves, and grape-like fruit. It attains a great age, and therefore often serves as a monument or for topographical purposes; Genesis 35:4; Judges 6:11; Judges 6:19; 1 Samuel 17:2; 1 Samuel 17:19; 2 Samuel 18:9” (Gesenius). The article points to a certain terebinth known in Bethel. The resting under this tree was not at all the beginning of his sin, as the older commentators think, for delay in Bethel alone was prohibited; still the delay gave time for others to come up to him. The αִּ ?γְ ?αַ ?ψ 1 Kings 13:18 is the same as in 1 Kings 13:17 and 1 Kings 13:2; the angel said to me, “by the word,” i. e., the power of Jehovah’s word; he does not venture to say Jehovah spake to him, but says an angel did. See the His. Ethic, below, for the announcement of punishment (1 Kings 13:20-22) by the same old prophet who had lied to the man of God. The final words of 1 Kings 13:22 : thy carcass, &c., do not mean, morte violenta, antequam in patriam redeas, peribis (J. H. Michaelis, Keil, and others), for πְ ?αֵ ?μָ ?δ means all dead bodies (Isaiah 26:19), not only those killed with violence; the Sept. simply gives σῶμα. The emphasis falls on the “sepulchre of thy fathers.” It was thought a misfortune to be buried among strangers, far from home and relations; so it was a very natural wish to be buried in the grave of his fathers (every respectable family had a family sepulchre, cf. Winer, R.-W.-B. I. s. 444), (2 Samuel 19:38; Genesis 47:29 sq.;1 Kings 1:5). But this blessing so coveted by every Israelite was refused to the “refractory.” 1 Kings 13:23-34. And it came to pass, after he had eaten, &c., 1 Kings 13:23. The subject of the last part of the sentence cannot be other than that of the first part; so it was not the prophet of Bethel who saddled the ass, neither is it “one saddled” (Luther, Bunsen), but the man of God did it or had it done. μַ ?πָּ ?αִ ?ιΰ is not in opposition with μֹ ?ε, so that we could translate: “he saddled the ass for him, for the prophet he had fetched back” (Keil, Luther, De Wette); for throughout the whole section, πָ ?αִ ?ιΰ is only used for the prophet of Bethel; the Judaish one is called “the man of God;” and the clause ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψδֱ ?ωִׁ ?ιαεֹ, that occurs three times, cannot be translated differently here from 1 Kings 13:20; 1 Kings 13:26, where it is impossible to take ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ as the accusative. μַ ?πָּ ?αִ ?ιΰ is the general form of the genitive when it denotes possession and belonging, and must be connected with δַ ?ηֲ ?ξεֹ ?ψ immediately preceding it. The old prophet either offered his ass to the man of God, who hastened home after eating and drinking, or he gave it to him at his request. ωָׁ ?αַ ?ψ, used in 1 Kings 13:26; 1 Kings 13:28 to express killing by the lion, does not mean: to tear (Ewald, De Wette), but, to break, crush, and “is very expressive, for the lion kills with one blow” (Thenius). The grave in which the man of God was laid (1 Kings 13:30) was the family sepulchre of the old prophet; see on 1 Kings 13:22. δεֹ ?ιΰָ ?ηִ ?ι seems to have been the usual form of lamentation, cf. Jeremiah 22:18. The man of God from Judah was mourned and buried as a relative of the family. The Sept. adds at the end of 1 Kings 13:31,ἴνασωθῶσιτὰ ὀστᾶ μουμετὰ τῶνὀστῶναὐτοῦ, which Thenius thinks was original, because the λִּ ?ι in the following verse becomes thus perfectly justified. But this sentence, evidently borrowed from 2 Kings 23:18, is unnecessary here; the connection is: My bones shall rest next his, for he was a true prophet; what he prophesied against the altar at Bethel will come to pass. For the expression “cities of Samaria” see Prel. Remarks. The connection of 1 Kings 13:33-34 with the preceding verses has been given above. If in 1 Kings 13:33, in the various directions for worship devised by Jeroboam, mention only of the priests he appointed is made, the reason of this is that they were the main supports of the whole of the unlawful worship, which could not have lasted without them. To “fill the hand” is the formula for investiture with priesthood, because the pieces of the sacrifices which belonged to Jehovah were solemnly laid in the hands of the candidate for consecration; Exodus 29:24; Leviticus 8:27 sq. (Symb. des Mos. Kult. II. s. 426). Historical and Ethical1. The appearance of the man of God from Judah, at the feast in Bethel, shows in few strokes the characteristic nature of the prophet system, which stands alone in the history of the world. Unknown hitherto and living in retirement, neither named nor called, when the right moment came he stood there as suddenly as lightning from heaven, not coming in any man’s service but as a messenger of the Lord, borne up and sustained by the might of the “word” of God alone. Without any human help he stood before the proud, energetic king, knowing his hatred to David’s house and to Judah, knowing how Adoniram had fared (1 Kings 12:18), but he fears nothing, and boldly announces the divine sentence, not at a private interview, but in presence of all the king’s followers, of the whole priesthood, and crowd of spectators. He adds a divine act to the divine word, which act is a significant “sign” and pledge of the fulfilment of the prophecy. Having spoken and acted in the name of the Lord, he was under Jehovah’s protection, no one dared to seize him; the hand of the king, when stretched forth against him, dried up and became powerless. When the king, thus punished, begs the prophet for help, the latter calls upon the Lord, who hears him, thus showing Himself to be a gracious as well as a just God (Romans 11:22), in order to bring him back from his evil ways. He vanished as suddenly as he came, without eating a bit of bread or drinking water, or receiving a present, even though it were the half of the house. He was to disappear completely, that every one should think of the Lord and His word alone; of what they had heard and seen. 2. Jeroboam’s conduct is full of contradictions and inconsistency. At first he was haughty and violent to the man of God, wishing to seize his person. But when he failed in this, and he felt a higher power, he became humble and dejected, begged the man he had just threatened to intercede for him, gave him a friendly invitation and offered him a present; he then let him go on his way, but paid no regard whatever to his words and deed. The cause of this conduct was not weakness of character, but rather, on the contrary, the obstinacy with which he pursued what his soul desired, and which was the mainspring of all his actions, i. e., the resolve to keep himself on the throne at any cost and under all circumstances, and not to come under the dominion of the hated house of David and Judah again (1 Kings 12:26 sq.). The petition to have his hand restored was only the effect of momentary fright; when this passed, instead of listening to the man of God, he tried to bribe him and win him over, and the whole transaction left no trace behind it. He is a type of those usurpers who have no other aim in life than to gratify their ambition and love of power, and whose apparently good and noble actions are only the fruit of this passion. It seems from 1 Kings 13:11 that the appearance of the man of God made an impression upon the surrounding people, but the account does not say of what sort this impression was, and it passes on at once to the much more important occurrence related in 1 Kings 13:10-32. 3. The old prophet in Bethel was called a false prophet and a “lying prophet” in old times, because he induced the man of God to return by telling him a lie. Josephus regards him as such (Antiq. viii. 9), but he “misunderstands the whole narrative in a truly frightful manner” (Ewald); but Jonathan, several Rabbins, and older R. Catholic commentators, even Hess also, agree in the principal thing, and pronounce the motives of this old prophet, in what he said and did, to have been unworthy. The recent commentators, following Ephrem’s example and that of Theodoret, Witsius, and others, have very rightly rejected this view. The sentence he announces to the man of God (1 Kings 13:21) shows that he was no partaker of Jeroboam’s calf-worship, but was a worshipper of Jehovah; still more does this appear from his belief in the fulfilment of the prophecy of the destruction of that false worship (1 Kings 13:32), but most of all when, on hearing of the death of his guest, although he perceived divine punishment in it, he at once proceeded to the dangerous place to find the corpse and bury it in his family sepulchre, lamented over him as his “brother,” and desired his sons to “lay his bones beside his bones” (1 Kings 13:31). We may see from 2 Kings 23:18, that he never was regarded afterwards as a false prophet, but as a true comrade of the man from Judah. From all this it appears that he could have had no bad intention when he at first hastened after the man of God (1 Kings 13:12-13) and pressed him to return and go into his house. On the contrary, when he had heard from his sons what he had said and done, he was seized with a strong desire to see and speak to the faithful and courageous messenger of Jehovah, to enter into friendship with him, and edify himself in his company. One thing alone he was guilty of, that he used a lie to reach his end. This, however, by no means shows that he was a false, bad, and hypocritical man, but only shows he was no saint, just as “dissembling” did not make the apostle Peter (Galatians 2:13) a pseudo-apostle. “This was one of the many lies spoken in good intentions by otherwise enlightened persons of the Old Testament, but who were weak in faith” (Von Gerlach); old age, too, may have partly accounted for it. It is, however, a difficulty that the same prophet who had lied to the man of God announced his punishment to him afterwards. Perhaps his conscience awoke meantime, when he heard more at table, so that he saw his own guilt as well as that of the man of God, and in this condition became the instrument to announce the punishment, so that what happened to the man of God might not seem an undeserved fate. We ought to notice that he did not announce his death by a lion, but only said that he should not come into the sepulchre of his fathers (see above on 1 Kings 13:22). Of all the conjectures about the reason and motive, of the old prophet’s conduct, the least tenable are such as that he followed the Judah-man from more curiosity or “from human envy” (Thenius), or “because God had charged him to speak to the king” (Dereser), and that he felt his prophetical reputation injured (Hess). Apart from everything else, the commission of the man of God was no enviable one, but difficult and dangerous, and also a fruitless one. According to Hengstenberg (Beitrδge II. s. 149), with whom Keil and Lisco agree, the old prophet had “sinned by silence about Jeroboam’s innovations.” “What the Judah-prophet did, showed him what he should have done. Penetrated with shame for his neglect, he endeavored to restore himself in his own opinion and that of others by intercourse with the witness for the Lord.” In this case, his purpose in hurrying after him could not have been a good one, but selfish and objectionable, and the he would have been so much the greater sin. Besides, if silence were a sin, the prophet Ahijah would have been peculiarly guilty of it, as he was an Ephraimite and had placed the prospect of the kingdom before Jeroboam (1 Kings 11:31-39). Neither prophet undertook the mission to Bethel, because no commission was given them from above—a man of God was to come from Judah. According to Knobel (Der Prophetismus der Hebr. II. s. 66 sq.), the old prophet induced him to return because “no doubt he wished to test the firmness and obedience of the Judah-man to Jehovah; perhaps the Ephraimite wished to form some theocratic plan with him, and thought it needful to ascertain first whether he was reliable—a very natural measure for an old and cautious man who lived among hostile idolatrous priests.” This, it is supposed, explains how he announced his punishment to the Judah-man, but could not refuse him his pity and esteem, as one in the same vocation. This opinion is also untenable, for, according to it, the old prophet would have taken the very opposite means to attain his end (the formation of a theocratic plan); if his test of the fidelity and obedience of the Judah-man had succeeded, and he had continued his home journey without delay, the old prophet could not have communicated his plan to him, still less have carried it out together with him. 4. The tragical end of the man of God out of Judah is clearly represented as a divine dispensation, in consequence of disobedience to Jehovah’s command, wholly conformable to the stern legal character of the Old-Testament economy (cf., for instance, Numbers 20:24; Numbers 27:14; 1 Samuel 12:15, &c.). The question has often been asked, why the prophet of Judah came to such an end, and the Bethel prophet who lied to him went unpunished? To this we may reply with another question: Who can say to Him who is righteous in all His ways and holy in all His works (Psalms 145:17), Lord, what doest Thou (Job 9:12)? We do not know what fate God allotted to the old prophet; he acts only a minor part in the narrative, compared with the prophet of Judah. It is quite wrong to assert, as is so often done, that the sin of the lie was much greater than the disobedience to Jehovah’s command. This was distinct from Jeroboam’s sin wherewith he made Israel to sin, for it touched the whole of the prophet-system, i. e., the institution of the office of divine guardians and witnesses. By not eating or drinking in that place, where that sin fully showed itself, he was to prove (as well by word as by deed) that there could be no fellowship between those who kept Jehovah’s covenant and those who had broken it. If he ate and drank in that place, he nullified the important end of his mission, and deprived the threat he had solemnly pronounced of all its force, by appearing as one who himself did not fear to transgress the express command of Jehovah. The fate that overtook him was a confirmation of the truth of the sentence he had pronounced against Jeroboam’s sin, and which sentence had appeared doubtful through his conduct; it showed also to all the people, as Theodoret remarks, that if God so punished the man of God, he would certainly not leave Jeroboam’s sin unpunished. In that the man of God did not “come unto the sepulchre of his fathers” (1 Kings 13:22), but was buried in Bethel, (i. e., “in this place”), he was, even after death, a witness against the apostasy, and his grave was a lasting monument that reminded the apostates of Jehovah’s judgments and exhorted them to conversion. But for the prophet-system itself, his fate was of great significance. With it began the active working (henceforth uninterrupted) of the prophet-system in the kingdom of organized apostasy: here it had a mission, on the unconditional fulfilment of which everything depended, namely, the constant struggle against the pseudo-theocracy. The fate of the man of God contained the strongest warning to all who should afterwards receive a similar charge, not to allow themselves to be enticed by anything, however plausible and alluring it might be (1 Kings 13:18), from implicit obedience to the divine commission. This is very probably the reason that the narrative is so explicitly detailed. As to the old prophet, his lamentation (1 Kings 13:31-32) evidently proceeds from a heart that mourns over his own sin; he says, as it were, If I can have no more fellowship with my brother in life, I will at least be united to him in death; our common grave, to which I shall soon go down in sorrow, shall be a lasting testimony against the sin of Jeroboam. 5. Witsius says of the wonderful circumstances which accompanied the end of the man of God (Miscell, sacr. I. cap. 15, s. 145): Denique tot admiranda in unum concurrentia effecerunt, ut vaticinium adversus aram Betheliticam in omnium ore atque memoria versaretur, et legatio hujus Prophet� multo redderetur conspectior et illustrior. The extraordinary nature of these circumstances distinguishes his end from every ordinary accidental death, and bears the impress of a special dispensation; this is peculiarly apparent in the fact that the corpse remained untouched, instead of falling a prey to the wild beasts (cf. 1 Kings 14:11), and that it was honorably carried to the grave without any pollution. To pronounce this deeply serious and significant narrative to be a “sensational” story (Vatke), on account of its miraculous disclosures, seems to indicate an almost frivolous character. For, though one or another part may bear the trace of a verbal tradition (see Prelim. Remarks), having been written down at a later date, yet the chief point remains, and that is that this history of the two prophets loudly and sternly proclaims the wonderful ways and judgments of God, and therefore lived for hundreds of years in the mouths of the people. The fact of the man of God out of Judah being killed by a lion is significant, inasmuch as God carried out His judgments elsewhere by lions (2 Kings 17:25 sq.; Wis 11:15-17), and He Himself, when He comes as a judge, is likened to a lion (Isaiah 31:4; Jeremiah 4:7; Amos 3:8), and those also who execute His judgments are called lions (Jeremiah 25:30; Jeremiah 25:38; Jeremiah 49:15). That the lion did not tear the dead so that he could not be buried, is a sure evidence that all creatures are in His hand (the Almighty’s), and that they cannot stir against His will (Heidelberg Katech.). Cf. Job 38:11. Homiletical and Practical1 Kings 13:1-10. The man of God out of Judah. (a) He comes, led by the word of God, and goes on his dark, difficult way in faith, without taking counsel with flesh and blood. (b) He stands, strong and bold, before the king, fears him not, testifies against his sins, and announces the judgment of God. (c) He makes entreaty for him, who was about to lay hold on him, and heaps coals of fire on his head. (d) He resists the offers of the king, and will not be secured by bribes. The testimony against the service of the false gods. (a) It proceeded from a nameless, unknown, insignificant man who, without worldly consequence, has nothing and knows nothing, except only the power of the divine Word. That is the manner of the Lord in His kingdom. He accomplishes by means of small, insignificant instruments what no king, with all his power, can do. The altars of heathendom are shattered by means of the testimony of fishers and tax-gatherers (1 Corinthians 1:27-29), even as were the altars of the false worship of God by means of a poor world-despised recluse. It was received, at first, with scorn, wrath, and violence; but the wrath is powerless and avails nothing; the altar is rent, and the threatening arm is dried up. Humble entreaties then take the place of wrath, for: Isaiah 26:16. But, though the withered hand be restored, the heart remains withered as before. Physical aid is alway readily received by men, whilst they shut their hearts to the testimony against their sins. 1 Kings 13:1. God has never, even when apostasy was almost universal, suffered His Church to fail for want of messengers, who would cry aloud in the world, “Down with the false idols! The Lord is God! the Lord is God! Give God all honor!”—God not only warns and admonishes men, as Jeroboam by Ahijah (1 Kings 11:38) before they set out in the path of evil, but when they are already walking in it, even then He strives with them, in order to reclaim them, for “He has no pleasure,” &c. (Ezekiel 33:11; Romans 2:4-5). 1 Kings 13:2. God announces beforehand to sinners His judgments, that they may have time and space, for repentance. Woe to them who misemploy the respite, for the measure of their sins will be full. In the new covenant we have a far weightier prophecy. Unto us is born a Son, named Jesus, out of the House of David; who will come again, and pronounce judgment upon those who know not God, and who obey not the Gospel, &c. (2 Thessalonians 1:8-9). 1 Kings 13:3. The miracles which the Lord our God performs are not only proofs of His almighty power, to amaze us, but likewise significant signs which reveal to us His eternal decrees, and lead us to the recognition of that heavenly truth which sanctifies our hearts. 1 Kings 13:4. Cramer: Although faithful teachers often accomplish nothing, and fail, most signally, with men of high degree, yet must they never on this account abandon their office. For if thou warn him, thou hast delivered thy soul (Ezekiel 3:19), and although the obdurate remain untouched, yet it shall not remain without fruit (Isaiah 55:10). How did even this warning work itself out, and bear fruit, after 300 years (2 Kings 23:15). Sinners, eminent by wealth and position, will only listen to prophets who are dumb dogs, and cannot bark (Isaiah 56:10). When a true servant of the Lord cries out “The axe is already laid at the root of the tree,” they arise in wrath, and cry out, Seize him! (2 Timothy 4:1-5). He who attacks a servant of God, on account of his testimony, never remains unpunished. In vain doth the enemy stretch forth his hand against those who are under God’s protection (Job 7:44; Leviticus 4:29 sq.; Psalms 37:17). Those who will not listen to the word of truth, God often visits with bodily pain in order to humble them, and teach them to pray and supplicate. 1 Kings 13:6. He who desires for himself the intercession of others must himself draw near, humbly and penitently, to God and implore His mercy. In this wise can we know if we are indeed children of God, and guided by His spirit, if we pray and supplicate for those who have done their worst to us, and thus overcome evil with good (1 Peter 3:9). 1 Kings 13:7. Osiander: Although the ungodly often hold in high esteem these holy men especially raised up by God, yet they never follow their instructions and warnings (Mark 6:19 sq.). What boots it that we gratefully acknowledge the material blessings which meet us, if we leave unfulfilled the very object of these blessings, viz., the turning of our hearts from sin and the world to God. Unbelief and impenitence cannot be outweighed by even the highest friendship and humanity. When the world can effect nothing more by force and threats, it seeks to gain its ends by plausible love-tokens. 1 Kings 13:8-9. There is no bribe to which the man of God will yield: to him, that which God has commanded him seems, in all times and all places, in evil as in good days, the fixed and definite plan of action.—Starke: The best weapon and defence against the snares of our spiritual enemy is the word and law of God. It must always be said: God has forbidden me (Matthew 4:4; Matthew 4:7; Matthew 4:10). It is far from being unimportant with whom we eat and drink, i. e., in fellowship and intimate alliance (1 Corinthians 5:11). 1 Kings 13:10. If in a certain position thou hast done what God commanded, and left undone what he forbade, then go on thy way peaceful and content, how dark and unknown soever it may seem to thee. 1 Kings 13:11-32. Von Gerlach: The history of these two prophets offers an important view of the relation of this class to the new order of things; in the prophet out of Judah we see a man of God full of life and strength, but who yet proved unstable in these disturbed times; in the old Israelite we look upon one in whom the fire is almost quenched—it only glimmers faintly—a type of the expiring high and manly strength of Israel; he is still upheld by faith in God’s word rather than by self-reliance. They both yet speak and testify in death. The fall and death of the man of Judah set forth two great truths: (a) He who thinketh he standeth, let him take heed, &c. (1 Corinthians 10:12). (He had conducted himself grandly and nobly, and victoriously withstood a severe temptation, yet he yielded to a lesser one. The higher a man stands the deeper is his fall, and to whom much is given from him will much be required. Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, &c. 1 Corinthians 16:13; 1 Corinthians 10:13. Only those who are true unto death can obtain the crown of life.) (b) How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out, Romans 11:33. He who is holy in all his ways knows how to establish firmly that which is threatened with destruction and annihilation by human treachery and deceit. The death and the grave of the man of God announce in louder and more threatening accents than did his lips—the altar is rent. 1 Kings 13:11-15. The old prophet when he hears of the man of God hastens upon his way and spares neither care nor pains to see him and bring him to his house; how much time, pains, and money are expended by the children of this world to see and to hear what will gratify their senses, whilst they stir neither hand nor foot to acquire that which pertains to their peace and salvation. 1 Kings 13:16-19. So in indifferent ordinary matters, which God has either ordered or forbidden, we must observe unerring obedience, for he who is faithful in that which is least, &c. (Luke 16:10; Luke 19:17). Hearken not unto him who says: I am a prophet, declaiming that he announces divine truth, whilst he deprives your heart of the dear and steadfast word of God, which shall remain until heaven and earth shall pass away. Hence the warning of the apostle: Beloved, believe not, &c. (1 John 4:1-3), and, But though we or an angel, &c. (Galatians 1:8). Whatever obtains success and position by means of deceit cannot be followed by a blessing, but rather by a curse. The Scripture is not silent concerning the sins of the man of God; and this, not that we may excuse our sins by his, but that we may guard ourselves from haughtiness and spiritual pride, and pray earnestly: Search me, O God, &c. (Psalms 139:23-24). 1 Kings 13:20-22. The same sentence which the old prophet pronounced upon the man of God he pronounced upon himself, while he had led and betrayed him to disobedience. How often does the judgment which we utter for others fall upon ourselves, when we have sinned equally or in greater measure (Romans 2:1): for wherein thou, &c. 1 Kings 13:23-25. The judgments of God often fall suddenly and unexpectedly, thus proving that although long delayed they are sure to come, even as this, after the lapse of three hundred years, was the punishment threatened for the golden ealf worship. 1 Kings 13:24. see Histor. and Eth. 5. 1 Kings 13:25-29. The chastisement with which God visits our fellow-men for their sins is both a warning to reflect upon our own sins and deserts, and a call to work active deeds of love with all our might, in life and in death. 1 Kings 13:30-31. We often for the first time, at the grave of a friend, recognize what we possessed in him, and how we have sinned against him. One look into the open grave of one dear to us in life is adapted, beyond anything, to remind us of our own end. It is a very natural wish to rest in death near those who were closely bound to us in life by ties of blood or strong affection; but yet stronger should be the wish to die in the Lord, and enter into eternal glory. Then, wherever in the providence of God we may find our grave, there shall we rest in peace, for the earth is the Lord’s and the fulness thereof (Psalms 24:1). 1 Kings 13:33-34. When neither the severity nor the patient long-suffering of his God brings to repentance a man who walks in evil ways, he is brought by his own sin under the sentence for the obdurate, viz., temporal and eternal ruin (2 Timothy 3:13; John 8:34).—Starke: Church patrons should not abuse their so-called jus patronatus, to place in charge of themselves and congregations teachers “having itching ears” (2 Timothy 4:3), or one who will preserve silence concerning every kind of godlessness and misrule. Should they do so they become followers of Jeroboam, and must expect Jeroboam’s punishment. The spiritual office is put to shame if borne by men who make a traffic of religion, and are intent only upon filling their own hands. [R. South: 1 Kings 13:33-34. “The means to strengthen or ruin the civil power is either to establish or destroy the right worship of God.” … The way to destroy religion is to embase the dispensers of it. “This is to give the royal stamp to a piece of lead.” … “It is a sad thing when all other employments shall empty themselves into the ministry; when men shall repair to it not for preferment but refuge; like malefactors flying to the altars only to save their lives, or like those of Eli’s race (1 Samuel 2:36), that should come crouching, and seeking to be put into the priest’s office that they might eat a piece of bread.”—E. H.] Footnotes: 1 Kings 13:2.—[The Alex. Sept. omits the last clause of this ver. 1 Kings 13:3.—[On the meaning of ξεֹ ?τֵ ?ϊ = τέρας see the Exeg. Com. It is to be remembered, however, that any portent must have had the significance of a “sign” and hence this meaning appears in the Vulg., Chald., and Syr., as well as in the A. V. the Vat. Sept. curiously puts the verb in the future δώσει. 1 Kings 13:3.—[γֶּ ?ωֶׁ ?ο from the root γָּ ?ωֵׁ ?ο to be or become fat, primarily meaning fatness (Cf. Judges 9:9; Psalms 63:6, &c.), and hence translated here and in 1 Kings 13:5 by the Sept. πιότης, is used for the ashes of animals offered in sacrifice, in contradistinction to ΰֵ ?τֶ ?ψ , common ashes. Cf. Leviticus 1:16; Leviticus 4:12, &c. 1 Kings 13:11.—[The Heb. has here αְ ?πεֹ in the sing., followed by the sing. verb. With this agree the Chald. and Arab., and our author, like Luther, so translates. On the other hand the Sept., Vulg., and Syr., like the A. V., have the plural.] 1 Kings 13:12.—ειψΰε according to the understanding of all the VV. (except the Arab.) is to be pointed εַ ?ιַּ ?ψְ ?ΰεּ [i.e. in the Hiphil = showed], and so we have translated: “they looked on” or “after the way” gives no proper sense. [The A. V. has followed the masoretic punctuation εַ ?ιִּ ?ψְ ?ΰεּ in the Kal, but by taking it in a pluperfect sense has avoided the difficulty. 1 Kings 13:14.—[δָ ?‍ ?ֽ ?ΰֵ ?μָ ?δ is usually rendered in the A. V. oak; in Isaiah 6:13 it is translated teil tree, because ΰַ ?μּ ?εֹ ?ο, also rendered oak, is in immediate connection with it; for the same reason, in Hosea 4:13 it is rendered elm. The Sept. have δρῦς, the Vulg. terebinthus, which is the interpretation of most moderns. The article is by all means to be retained, as pointing out some well-known tree. 1 Kings 13:18.—[There seems no good reason for omitting the conjunction of the Heb., which is retained by the Sept. and Vulg. 1 Kings 13:23.—[Our author translates “the ass of the prophet who had brought him back.” The VV. differ from one another, the Vulg. and Chald. understanding “the ass of the prophet whom he had brought back;” the Syr. and Arab. simply “the ass for the prophet of God;” while the Sept. omits the words altogether. 1 Kings 13:26.—[The Vat. Sept. omits from this point to the end of 1 Kings 13:27. 1 Kings 13:31.—[The Sept. adds ἵνασωθῶσιτὰ ὀστᾶ μοῦ μετὰ τῶνὀστῶναὐτοῦ doubtless with reference to 2 Kings 23:18, when the bones of the Samarian prophet were left undisturbed with the bones of the prophet from Judah. 1 Kings 13:33.—[Lit. “filled his hand,” a figurative expression for consecration, but rendered literally in the Sept. and Vulg. 1 Kings 13:33.—[The Heb. noun is in the plural λֹּ ?δֲ ?πֵ ?ιαָ ?ξεֹ ?ϊ, and is rendered in the plural by the Chald. and Arab.; the Sept., Vulg., and Syr. use the sing. as in the A. V.—F. G.] 1 Kings 13:34.—Instead of αַּ ?γָּ ?αָ ?ψ we must read here δַ ?γָּ ?αָ ?ψ with all the VV. and several [eight] of the MSS., as it is also in 1 Kings 12:30. The translation: “The reason for sinning was in this thing (through the same)” (Keil) is forced. B.—The prophecy of Ahijah against the house and kingdom of Jeroboam, and the death of the latter.1 Kings 14:1-201 At that time Abijah the son of Jeroboam fell sick. And Jeroboam said 2to his wife, Arise, I pray thee, and disguise thyself, that thou be not known to be the wife of Jeroboam; and get thee to Shiloh: behold, there is Ahijah the prophet, which told me that I should be king over this people. 3And take with thee ten loaves, and cracknels, and a cruse of honey, and go to him: he shall tell thee what shall become of the child. 4And Jeroboam’s wife did so, and arose and went to Shiloh, and came to the house of Ahijah. But Ahijah could not see; for his eyes were set by reason of his age. 5And the Lord [Jehovah] said unto Ahijah, Behold, the wife of Jeroboam cometh to ask a thing of thee for her son; for he is sick: thus and thus shalt thou say unto her: for it shall be, when she cometh in, that she shall feign herself to be another woman. 6And it was so, when Ahijah heard the sound of her feet, as she came in at the door, that he said, Come in, thou wife of Jeroboam; why feignest thou thyself to be another? for I 7am sent to thee with heavy tidings. Go tell Jeroboam, Thus saith the Lord [Jehovah] God of Israel, Forasmuch as I exalted thee from among the people, and made thee prince over my people Israel, 8and rent the kingdom away from the house of David, and gave it thee: and yet thou hast not been as my servant David, who kept my commandments, and who followed me with all his heart, to do that only which was right in mine eyes; 9but hast done evil above all that were before thee: for thou hast gone and made thee other gods, and molten images, to provoke me to anger, and hast cast me behind thy back: 10therefore, behold, I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam, and will cut off from Jeroboam him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel, and will take away the remnant of the house of Jeroboam, as a man taketh away dung, till it be all gone. 11Him that dieth of Jeroboam in the city shall the dogs eat; and him that dieth in the field shall the fowls of the air eat: for the Lord [Jehovah] hath spoken it. 12Arise thou therefore, get thee to thine own house: and when thy feet enter into the city, the child shall die. 13And all Israel shall mourn for him, and bury him: for he only of Jeroboam shall come to the grave, because in him there is found some good thing toward the Lord [Jehovah] 14God of Israel in the house of Jeroboam. Moreover, the Lord [Jehovah] shall raise him up a king over Israel, who shall cut off the house of Jeroboamthat day: but what? even now. 15For the Lord shall smite Israel, as a reed is shaken in the water, and he shall root up Israel out of this good land, which he gave to their fathers, and shall scatter them beyond the river, because they have made their groves, provoking the Lord [Jehovah] to anger. 16And he shall give Israel up because of the sins of Jeroboam, who did sin, and who made Israel to sin. 17And Jeroboam’s wife arose, and departed, and came to Tirzah; and when she came to the threshold of the door, the child died: 18and they buried him; and all Israel mourned for him, according to the word of the Lord [Jehovah], which he spake by the hand of his servant Ahijah the prophet. 19And the rest of the acts of Jeroboam, how he warred, and how he reigned, behold, they are written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel. 20And the days which Jeroboam reigned were two and twenty years: and he slept with his fathers, and Nadab his son reigned in his stead. Exegetical and Critical1 Kings 14:1-6. At that time, &c. As Jeroboam was not led to a change of heart by what is recorded in chap, 13., a visitation overtook him in the form of the illness of his promising son Abijah, who was doubtless to have been his successor. Then, when in distress, he thought of the prophet who once promised him the kingdom, and a “sure house” (1 Kings 11:38); he thought of Ahijah, whose prophecy respecting the kingdom had been fulfilled, and he hoped to receive from him a sure answer to a question which concerned the continuance of his dynasty. But, conscious that he had not fulfilled the prophet’s condition—unswerving loyalty to Jehovah—he did not venture to go himself, but tried to deceive him, and, as it were, to steal an answer from him. He sends the mother, the most natural intercessor for the son; she is disguised, so that no one can know her and tell the prophet who she is. The presents that it was customary to take (1 Samuel 9:8) were purposely very small, for she wished, no doubt, to appear to the prophet as a very poor woman; but πִ ?χֻּ ?γִּ ?ιν does not mean “mouldy loaves” (Hess, Dereser, and others), for πָ ?χֹ ?γ means punctured, spotted, but not therefore mouldy; the Sept. gives κολλυρίς, the Vulgate crustula. The expression χָ ?ξεּ ςֵ ?ιπָ ?ιε (1 Kings 14:4), i.e., his eyes stood (were set), “means the gray cataracts, amaurosis, that take place in old age, through paralysis of the optic nerves” (Keil) (1 Samuel 4:15). χָ ?ωָׁ ?δ, 1 Kings 14:6, is the same as in 1 Kings 12:13. 1 Kings 14:7-9. Go tell Jeroboam, &c. 1 Kings 14:7. The older commentators remark that the prophecy which begins here and ends in 1 Kings 14:16 takes a rhythmical form. It has ten verses (1 Kings 14:7-16), five of which make one section (1 Kings 14:7-16); the first section is in 3 + 2, and the second in 2 + 3 verses. Jeroboam had sinned above all that were before him (1 Kings 14:9); for none, whether king, judge, or leader, had made an unlawful worship a State institution, and forcibly maintained it to gratify lust of power and selfishness; Solomon had only permitted the idolatrous worship, and that first to his already idolatrous wives. ξַ ?ρֵּ ?λεֹ ?ϊ, the same as in Deuteronomy 9:12; Judges 17:3-4, molten images. Worship of images is here placed on a level with worship of idols, because it involuntarily leads to it (see Hist. and Eth. on 1 Kings 12:28). “The expression, hast cast me (God) behind thy back, which occurs nowhere else but in Ezekiel 23:35, is the strongest possible phraseology to denote intentional contempt of God—the opposite from having God before one’s eyes; and it is stronger than ‘cast Thy law behind their backs,’ Nehemiah 9:26” (Keil). 1 Kings 14:10-12. Therefore behold, I will bring evil, 1 Kings 14:10. The expression “that pisseth against the wall” in 1 Samuel 25:22 (1 Kings 16:11; 1 Kings 21:21; 2 Kings 9:8), was, no doubt, originally used of dogs, and was not an honorable way of alluding to the male sex; for it is employed in all these passages only of those who are to be cast away and rooted out. The words ςָ ?φεּ ?ψεְ ?ςָ ?ζεּ ?α, which are mostly connected with it, are epexegetical; literally, the detained, and those set free, which Seb. Schmidt rightly interprets puer, qui domi adhuc detinetur et qui emancipatus est; the male descendants not of age are under guardians (2 Kings 10:1; 2 Kings 10:5; 1 Chronicles 27:32). This is the only explanation which suits the word αְּ ?ιִ ?ωְׁ ?ψָ ?ΰֵ ?μ, which “refers to an intruded, or already assumed share in public life” (Thenius); all the male descendants of the king, even the minors, were threatened with destruction. Luther’s translation, “those shut up and forsaken in Israel,” is decidedly erroneous. “Behind the house of Jeroboam” means: as often as a new scion arises I shall take it away, &c. (cf. Isaiah 14:23). The Vulgate which Luther followed is wrong: mundabo reliquias domus Jeroboam. The threat reaches its climax in 1 Kings 14:11, which foretells the frightful and disgraceful manner of the destruction. To remain unburied was an intolerable thought to the Hebrews; and in all the ancient world it was accounted the severest disgrace, because in such cases the corpse became the prey of the birds or of wild beasts, or of the voracious dogs in the East, that ran wild and were reckoned unclean. According to Deuteronomy 28:26 this punishment was a divine curse. The same threat occurs elsewhere, especially in Jeremiah (1 Kings 16:4; 1 Kings 21:24; Ezekiel 29:5; Ezekiel 39:17; Jeremiah 7:33; Jeremiah 8:2; Jeremiah 9:22; Jeremiah 12:9; Jeremiah 14:16). cf. Winer R.- W.-B. I. s. 148. The λִּ ?ι at the end is to heighten the effect, as elsewhere, and is = imo (Ewald, Lehrb. der hebr. Sprache § 330 b); yes, Jehovah will fulfil this as well as the former prophecy of Jeroboam’s elevation. 1 Kings 14:13-14. Some good thing toward the Lord God, 1 Kings 14:13. ΰֶ ?μιְ ?δεָֹ ?δ is not to be connected with πξφΰ, and then translated as the Vulgate has it, a domino (Thenius); but it means towards, or in relation to, Jehovah (cf. 2 Kings 6:11). The whole context shows that it can scarcely mean anything else than that this son, from whom the king and people hoped so much, was inclined to the pure and lawful worship of Jehovah. The Rabbins have a fable that he disobeyed his father’s command to hinder people from travelling to Jerusalem to keep the feasts, and that he even removed obstructions in the road. The abrupt words in 1 Kings 14:14 : εּ ?ξֶ ?δβַּ ?νΞςָ ?ϊָּ ?δ are obscure, and are very variously explained. Thenius adopts the view of the Chald.: He shall cut off the house of Jeroboam “that which now (lives), and that which shall be (born) to it.” But the athnach with δַ ?ιּ ?εֹ ?ν as well as with ξֶ ?δ contradicts this, which means not quod but quid. The meaning seems to be: Jehovah will raise up a king, who at a certain period shall cut off the house of Jeroboam; what now occurs (the death of the boy) is the sign and beginning of this complete destruction. The interrogatory form makes the words more impressive. The Hirsch-berger Bible says: “And what shall I say (on that coming day)? It is even now come;” Keil also; “but what (sc. say I)? even now (viz. he has raised him up).” 1 Kings 14:14-16. For the Lord shall smite Israel, 1 Kings 14:15. Smiting refers to the wasting of Israel by hostile nations, before the Assyrian captivity. A “reed” continually waves to and fro in water, as it cannot resist the force of the wind and waves. “The image is very striking, for Israel was brought so low, that every political influence bore it along” (Thenius). The “scattering” took place in the captivity (2 Kings 15:29; 2 Kings 17:23; 2 Kings 18:11). ΰֲ ?ωֵׁ ?ψִ ?ιν does not mean groves (Luther), but the statues of the female deity, elsewhere called Astarte (see above on 1 Kings 11:5), who stands over against Baal, the Canaanitish (Ph�nician) male deity. These statues were wooden (upright tree-stems); the worship was licentious (Judges 3:7; Judges 6:25 sq.;2 Kings 23:7; Ezekiel 23:42 sq.). It is not expressly said that images of Astarte were erected under Jeroboam, but 1 Kings 14:23 remarks that this was done in Judah under Rehoboam, how much more then in Israel. The Astarte worship existed in the time of the Judges (cf. on the place). Jeroboam’s image-worship is here regarded as a continual evil and source of all ruin. Keil’s assertion that “ΰֲ ?ωֵׁ ?ψִ ?ιν stands for any idols, among which the golden calves are to be numbered,” is not susceptible of proof. 1 Kings 14:17-18. And Jeroboam’s wife … to Tirzah, 1 Kings 14:17. According to Joshua 12:24, Tirzah was originally a Canaanitish royal city, situated in a beautiful district (Ecclesiastes 6:4). We cannot ascertain its precise situation; it was probably near Shechem; Robinson thinks it was rather north of Mount Ebal; former travellers state that they found a Tersah on a high mountain, three hours’ distance east of Samaria (cf. Winer, R.-W.-B. II. s. 613). According to 1 Kings 12:25, Shechem was the residence of Jeroboam; and he must either have changed it afterwards to Tirzah, or the latter must have been only a summer residence. Penuel, mentioned above, was not a place of residence but a fortress; so that the present passage does not at all contradict that one, as Thenius thinks. The kings Baasha and Asa and Elah resided at Tirzah (1 Kings 15:21; 1 Kings 15:33; 1 Kings 16:8). 1 Kings 14:19-20. The rest of the acts of Jeroboam, &c., 1 Kings 14:19. For the book of the contemporaneous history of the kings of Israel see Introduction § 2. What is only alluded to by our author, in the words “how he warred,” is fully given by the Chronicler, from the book of the prophet Iddo; 2 Chronicles 13:2-20. This is an account of a great defeat of Jeroboam by king Abijah, and it says at the end: “and the Lord struck him (εַ ?ιִּ ?βְּ ?τֵ ?δεּ), and he died.” Bertheau’s supposition that this refers to the defeat itself, is scarcely right; neither can it mean a sudden death (Thenius), but, as in 2 Chronicles 21:18, a severe and painful illness. Historical and Ethical1. From the long reign of Jeroboam, whose history closes with the present section, our author only selects those deeds that bear on his apostasy from the fundamental law of Israel, i.e., on “the sin wherewith he made Israel to sin.” He passes over all the rest that Jeroboam did as a shrewd and powerful regent or warrior, because it was of far less importance to the history of the kingdom and of the entire theocracy than that sin which especially characterized his government, and the results of which were felt for hundreds of years. David was the king who faithfully kept the fundamental law, and was therefore the type of a theocratic king, but Jeroboam was the king who openly broke the fundamental law, made the bull-worship the religion of the State, and used it as a bulwark of his kingdom over against Judah. He was the real cause of the apostasy of all the after kings of the ten tribes, for they all regarded it as the support of their power, and as a firm wall of separation between both kingdoms. This is the reason why the account of his reign significantly closes with the divine sentence on him and the apostate kingdom. It was a divine dispensation that he himself, after all warnings and threatenings had been in vain, called forth this divine sentence by the deceitful means he took, and even from the very prophet who had announced to him his future elevation; so that he could judge from the fulfilment of that announcement that the sentence would also come to pass. As his sin was the type of the sin of all succeeding kings and of the whole kingdom, so Ahijah’s prediction is the type of all succeeding predictions regarding this kingdom; it forms the key-tone that rings through all of them (1 Kings 16:4; 1 Kings 21:23; 1 Kings 22:28; 2 Kings 9:36). 2. Ahijah’s prophecy, in form as well as in contents (cf. above on 1 Kings 14:7) is a perfectly connected whole. It refers back (1 Kings 14:7-8) to the former prediction, 1 Kings 11:30, particularly to 1 Kings 14:37 sq. After, in 1 Kings 14:8, it is stated in a general way that Jeroboam did not follow David’s example, which was the condition imposed upon him. 1 Kings 14:9 declares how he sinned; then follows, in 1 Kings 14:10-11, the announcement of the punishment, which was to be a shameful destruction of his house; 1 Kings 14:12-13 apply this to the heir-apparent, to the sick and only son, who was, indeed, also to die, but he was not to perish so disgracefully, because some “good thing” was found in him. 1 Kings 14:10-11 are repeated in 1 Kings 14:14, and it is added who is to carry out this sentence; but as Jeroboam had drawn all Israel into his sin, and they had consented thereto, the prophecy finally proceeds in 1 Kings 14:15-16 to deal with guilty Israel, pronouncing its disastrous future and final ruin. This alone shows how unfounded the assertion of the recent criticism is, that the form of the prediction, as it now is, is not the original. According to Ewald, 1 Kings 14:9; 1 Kings 14:15 are “clearly an addition of the later (i.e., fifth Deuteronomical) author;” the style of 1 Kings 14:9 is peculiar to this author, and 1 Kings 14:15 interrupts the connection. But 1 Kings 14:9 is an essential part of the whole, and its omission would leave a serious gap; the following sentence of punishment is founded on what 1 Kings 14:9 states. Just as little does 1 Kings 14:15 break the connection; it rather forms the object and acme of the prediction, pronouncing the natural and necessary end of Jeroboam’s sin. To take away this conclusion is to break off the point of the whole. Thenius only objects to the second half of 1 Kings 14:15, on account of the expression; “beyond the river;” this he thinks is from an “elaborator.” But the Euphrates is generally given as the extreme limit of the land that was promised to the fathers (Genesis 15:18; Exodus 23:31; Deuteronomy 1:7; Deuteronomy 11:24; Joshua 1:3-4; Psalms 80:12). The prophet, when he wished to say that Israel should lose the land given to their fathers, could scarcely use any other form of expression than that they should be sent away beyond the river; a case which Solomon foresaw as possible (see above). If criticism did not take it for granted that any genuine prediction is impossible, it would not think of doubting the authenticity of this. That the prophet predicted the cutting off of Jeroboam’s house, and the destruction of the kingdom of Israel, is as little to be doubted as the prediction connected with it, that of Abijah’s death, whom the blind prophet had not even seen. 3. Ahijah’s prophecy repeatedly describes the consequence and working of “Jeroboam’s sin” (1 Kings 14:9; 1 Kings 14:15) in the words, provoked the Lord to anger. This expression occurs in other parts of the Old Testament also (1 Kings 14:22; 1 Kings 16:2; 1 Kings 16:7; 1 Kings 16:13; 1 Kings 21:22; 2 Kings 17:11; 2 Kings 17:17; 2 Kings 23:26; Deuteronomy 4:25; Deuteronomy 31:29; Deuteronomy 32:16; Deuteronomy 32:21; 2 Chronicles 23:25; Ezekiel 8:17; Ezekiel 16:26; Psalms 78:58); it by no means presupposes rude, anthropopathical ideas of the nature of God, but is founded on perfectly just views of the deity. The two expressions for Jehovah’s anger, λςν and χπΰ, which are cited in the above passages, sometimes interchanged and sometimes used synonymously, are employed only in reference to a particular sin, i.e., apostasy from Jehovah through idolatry or image-worship, and never of sin in general; and they have, therefore, direct reference to the fundamental law, the covenant, in which this sin is forbidden, with the addition, “for the Lord thy God is a ΰֵ ?μχַ ?πָּ ?ΰ,” i.e., a jealous God. Jehovah had from love chosen Israel out of all peoples to be His people, and had made a covenant with them (Exodus 19:4-5; Deuteronomy 4:36-40; Deuteronomy 7:6-13; Deuteronomy 10:14-15; Psalms 47:5; Jeremiah 31:3), that they should be a holy people, even as He is holy (Leviticus 19:2). The holy love of Jehovah to his people is so great and strong that each departure of Israel from the covenant excites His “jealousy;” Jehovah, “the holy God,” is, as such, also “a jealous God” (Joshua 24:19), and He would appear as faithless and unholy if He were indifferent to idolatry and image-worship, which are breaches of the covenant, and therefore called adultery and whoredom (Jeremiah 3:9, and many other places). Offence against the holy love of God awakens His jealousy, which manifests itself in retributive justice, i. e., it provokes Him to anger. “Just anger can only be conceived of as closely united with mercy. The Old Testament proclaims this high and blessed truth with a voice above that of man. This is its greatest excellence, and conspicuously with it is to be seen its peculiar sublimity, which consists in its preaching at one and the same time the all-consuming wrath of God and the ardor of His mercy, surpassing infinitely that of a mother. Both are closely and inseparably interwoven on every page, the thunder of God’s wrath and the quickening spring-breath of His mercy. Classical antiquity had no genuine, awe-inspiring knowledge of divine anger, neither had it any living consciousness of the divine mercy” (Rothe, Theologische Ethik II. s. 203). 4. The divine judgments announced in Ahijah’s prediction, namely, cutting off Jeroboam’s house, and dispersion of Israel out of the good land given to their fathers, correspond with the nature of the old covenant, which has its form in the bodily and in the temporal. As natural descent and derivation was the condition of belonging to the chosen covenant people, so the curse and blessing, good and evil bound up with the covenant relation, were of a material, temporal nature. As natural descent determined a right to partake of the covenant with Jehovah, so also natural posterity was blessing and peace, while the dying out or cutting off of a race was a curse and misfortune. This is the reason why David, who was faithful to the covenant, was promised that he should always have a light, i.e., a house forever (1 Kings 11:36; 1 Kings 15:4; 2 Samuel 21:17), while the speedy and shameful extinction of his house was announced to the unfaithful Jeroboam. So also the “good land,” flowing with milk and honey, was promised to the whole of the chosen people; but when they broke the covenant and partook of Jeroboam’s sin they were deprived of the good land, were scattered in strange lands, and ceased to be a nation, which was to them the greatest punishment. Homiletical and Practical1 Kings 14:1-20. The last divine warning to Jeroboam, (a) through the illness of his son, (b) through the prediction of the prophet. Jeroboam in need and in distress, (a) He is only concerned about the taking away of the need and the lifting off of the punishment, not in the renunciation of his sin and the conversion of the heart, which should have been the result of his need, as it is the case now with so many, (b) He seeks consolation and help, not at the hands of his false priests and spiritual hirelings, whom he himself did not trust, but from the prophet, about whom he did not long trouble himself after he had nothing to ask. Thus it is always. In need and necessity unbelievers and the children of this world seek for consolation and comfort from a spiritual preacher, and despise the finery of the hirelings who care only for the wool and not for the sheep, (c) He does not himself apply to the prophet, because he has an evil conscience, and he sends his wife in a disguise, for before the world he does not wish to be viewed as one who cares much for prophets. This is the folly of the wise of this world, that they suppose they can deceive God as they deceive men. But the Lord sees what is concealed in the darkness, and gives to every one what he has deserved. 1 Kings 14:1. When the threatening, warning word of God bears no fruit, God at last sends the cross, especially the cross in the household, to humble us, to bring us to a knowledge of our sins, and to lead us to the cross of Christ.—Starke: God generally lays hold upon men in those respects where it is most grievous to them (2 Samuel 12:14; John 4:47). 1 Kings 14:2. Calw. B.: Jeroboam did not wish to be seen having anything to do with the prophet, by any one. Worldly people are ashamed to make it known that they believe in anything, even if it be a superstitious faith. If God send thee necessity and distress, take no by-ways, but go to Him and pour out thine heart before Him; He hears all who call upon Him, all who earnestly cry unto Him. Disguise thyself, that no one mark who and what thou art! This is the bad advice which the world gives for the conduct of life, and which passes current with it as the true wisdom thereof. How social life is vitiated by this sin, by the endeavor to seem before people rather than to be—often it is like a masquerade! It is even more deceived by actions, by mien and manner, than by words. The art of disguise corrupts man in the profoundest ground of his being, and transforms him into an incarnate lie. 1 Kings 14:3-4. Calw. B.: The little bit of faith which worldly people often exhibit is but part of their selfishness.…The foreknowledge of the future in the affairs of daily life man would gladly possess, because he will not yield himself, in faith, to the will of God. Hence flow often superstition, fortune-telling, dream-interpretation, astrology, both among the heathens as well as among Christians.—Cramer: The gift of God neither should nor can be sold or bought for money. As a rule, unbelief is bound with superstition. Jeroboam did not believe when God spoke to him by word and deed (chap. 13), and yet he believed that by means of a few loaves and cakes he could persuade God to reveal the future to him. [The history of religion in modern times confirms and illustrates this.] 1 Kings 14:4-6. The wife of Jeroboam before the prophet, (a) She means to deceive the aged blind prophet by a disguise, but the Lord gives him sight (Ps. 156:8). He gives strength to the weary and power to the feeble. The Lord ever gives sight to His true servants, so that the world cannot deceive and blind them. (b) She hopes, by her present, to secure the desired answer, but, at the hour, the Lord gives him the word he shall speak; it is the Spirit of God who speaks through him (Matthew 10:19 sq.). A true servant of God proclaims the word of truth to every one, without respect of persons, no matter how hard it be for him. This often is his hard yet sacred duty. 1 Kings 14:7-16. Ahijah’s sermon of repentance and retribution, (a) Against Jeroboam, who corrupted Israel. (b) Against Israel, allowing themselves to be corrupted. 1 Kings 14:7 sq. How often it happens that the very ones whom God raises from the dust, and to whom He gives the largest favors, turn their back upon and forget Him. So Jeroboam, so Israel. Deuteronomy 32:6. 1 Kings 14:10; 1 Kings 14:15. Not a blessing but a curse rests upon a house which turns its back upon the Lord and His commandments. And so also a people who forget the faith of their fathers lose all territory, are given up to all convulsions from within and from without, and go to destruction. Sin is the destruction of the people. (Hebrews 10:28-30.) 1 Kings 14:12-13. The death of a beloved child, for whom God has prepared good, is often the only and the supreme means of turning away the heart of the parents from sin and the world, and of winning them to the life in God to which they are strangers. For many a child it is a divine blessing when it is early taken out of this vain world and called away from surroundings in which there is danger of the corruption both of soul and body. 1 Kings 14:15. Israel, it is thine own sin that thou hast destroyed thyself. 1 Kings 14:16. If the Lord say,—he who offends one of the least of these, &c., &c. (Matthew 18:6), what will He say to those who give offence to an entire people, at the head of which they stand, through unbelief and immorality, and beguile them into an apostasy from the living God? 1 Kings 14:18. What the Saviour said to those who bewailed Him on His way to death, Weep not for me, but, &c. (Luke 23:28), might have been said to the whole people Israel, and is true to-day of so many who are weeping over a grave. We should carry the dead in whom good before God is found with honor to their rest in the grave. 1 Kings 14:19-20. The Scripture says (Proverbs 10:7), The memory of the just is blessed, but the name of the godless will perish (rot). The first is true of David, the last of Jeroboam, whose name is not like an ointment poured out (i.e., diffusing sweet perfume, Ecclesiastes 1:3), but is a savor of death unto death; for with his name, for all the future, this word is connected: who sinned and made Israel to sin. Of what use is it to have worn a worldly crown two and twenty years, to have striven and fought for it, when the crown of life does not succeed it, which they alone obtain who are faithful unto death (Revelation 2:10)? Footnotes: 1 Kings 14:1.—[The Vat. Sept. omits the first twenty verses of this chapter, i.e., the whole of this section. 1 Kings 14:2.—[γִ ?αֶּ ?ψςָ ?μַ ?ιμְ ?ξֶ ?μֶ ?κְ lit. “spake of me for king.” 1 Kings 14:3.—[πִ ?χֻּ ?γִּ ?ιν occurs only here and in Joshua 9:5; Joshua 9:12, where it is rendered in the A. V. by the adjective mouldy. The sense of the word seems to be “that which is easily crumbled.” The Alex. Sept. translates by κολλυρίδα, adding τοῖςτέκνοιςαὐτοῦ, supposing them to be a sort of cakes for the children, and adds to these σταθίδας, raisins. 1 Kings 14:5.—[The peculiar form λָּ ?ζֹ ?δεְ ?λָ ?ζֶ ?δ occurs elsewhere only in Judges 18:4 and Sam. 1 Kings 11:25. 1 Kings 14:10.—[The reading ςַ ?μαֵּ ?ιϊ, found in many MSS. instead of ΰֶ ?μΞαֵּ ?ιϊ, scarcely modifies the sense. 1 Kings 14:10.—[The difficult words ςָ ?φεּ ?ψεְ ?ςָ ?ζεּ ?α are so literally translated in the A. V. as to give a scarcely intelligible sense. There is no uniformity in the ancient VV. although it seems to have been understood as an expression to designate all classes. Our author translates “those under age and those of age.” Keil makes the sense to be “the married and the single.” The phrase occurs also 1 Kings 21:21, and 2 Kings 9:8; 2 Kings 14:26, and is taken from Deuteronomy 32:37. 1 Kings 14:10.—[The proposition ΰַ ?‍ ?ֽ ?ηֲ ?ψֵ ?ι is taken in the A. V. as if it were the noun ΰַ ?‍ ?ֽ ?ηֲ ?ψִ ?ιϊ. So also the Vulg. There is really nothing in the Heb. answering to the word remnant. On the construction of the verb with this prep. see Gesenius lex. s. v. αָּ ?ςַ ?ψ, Piel. 3.—F. G.] THIRD SECTION The Kingdom In Judah Under Rehoboam, Abijam, And Asa (1 Kings 14:21 to 1 Kings 15:24)A.—The Rule of Rehoboam1 Kings 14:21-3121 And Rehoboam the son of Solomon reigned in Judah. Rehoboam was forty and one years old when he began to reign, and he reigned seventeen years in Jerusalem, the city which the Lord [Jehovah] did choose out of all the tribes of Israel, to put his name there. And his mother’s name was Naamah an Ammonitess. 22And Judah did evil in the sight of the Lord [Jehovah], and they provoked him to jealousy with their sins which they had committed, above all that their 23fathers had done. For they also built them high places, and images [pillars], and groves, on every high hill, and under every green tree. 24And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the Lord [Jehovah] cast out before the children of Israel. 25And it came to pass in the fifth year of king Rehoboam, that Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem: 26and he took away the treasures of the house of the Lord [Jehovah], and the treasures of the king’s house; he even took away all: and he took away all the shields of gold which Solomon had made. 27And king Rehoboam made in their stead brazen shields, and committed them unto the hands of the chief of the guard, which kept the door of the king’s house. 28And it was so, when the king went into the house of the Lord [Jehovah], that the guard bare them, and brought them back into the guard-chamber. 29Now the rest of the acts of Rehoboam, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah? 30And there was war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam all their days. 31And Rehoboam slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David. And his mother’s name was Naamah an Ammonitess. And Abijam his son reigned in his stead. Exegetical and Critical1 Kings 14:21. Twenty and one years old was Rehoboam. [Rehoboam was forty and one years old.—Eng. Ver.] The usual reading is “forty and one.” Although the Chronicler (2 1 Kings 12:13) and all translations give the latter, and only some MSS. give twenty and one, yet this is indisputably the right reading. For (a) in 1 Kings 12:8; 1 Kings 12:10 (2 Chronicles 10:8; 2 Chronicles 10:10), Rehoboam’s companions at the time of his accession are called ιְ ?μָ ?γִ ?ιν, which generally mean infants, or at most youths, but never men of forty. The older commentators resorted to the very strange and far-fetched supposition that the young men mentioned in chap. 12 were not young in years but in understanding. Thenius thinks that their youth was relative as compared with the age of the “old men;” but men in ripe manhood of one and forty years cannot be called ιμγιν in any case. (b) Regarding the son of Rehoboam, Abijah, 2 Chronicles 13:7, says, the insurrection of Jeroboam and the separation of the ten tribes took place because his (Abijah’s) father was still a boy, βַ ?ςַ ?ψ, and ψַ ?κְ ?Ξμֵ ?αָ ?α (of a weak, tender heart, cf. Genesis 33:13). The son wishes to explain the conduct of his father by his youthful age; but he could not possibly speak thus of a man forty-one years old. Besides, 1 Kings 12:6 sq. agrees perfectly with the description of Rehoboam’s conduct. (c) If Rehoboam were forty-one years old at the death of Solomon, who reigned forty years (1 Kings 11:42), Solomon must have married during David’s life-time, and have married an Ammonitess, which was contrary to the law; and, as he calls himself only a πַ ?ςַ ?ψ (1 Kings 3:7) when he had become king, he must have had a son in about his 18th year. There is nothing, however, of all this in the history; on the contrary, it says expressly that he married a daughter of Pharaoh after he became king, and she was the real queen (1 Kings 3:1; 1 Kings 9:24); he did not take Canaanitish wives till later (1 Kings 11:1 sq.). All these positive historical evidences for the youth of Rehoboam at his accession cannot be disproved and rejected on account of a mere numerical figure, though it were originally in the text. We must, therefore, believe, like Capellus and Le Clerc, that the numeral signs were changed, as so often happens, viz., that of ξ with λ; this obviates all difficulties, and there is no passage that in the least contradicts it. The name and descent of the mother are expressly given, because the queen-mother was very much esteemed and very influential, as the βְּ ?αִ ?ιψָ ?δ, just as the sultana Walida is now in the Turkish empire. The text also subsequently gives the name of the queen-mothers, but only of those belonging to the Judah-kings (1 Kings 15:2; 1 Kings 15:13; 1 Kings 22:42, &c.). The reason of the words, in Jerusalem, the city which the Lord did choose, &c., is found in the following 1 Kings 14:22; 1 Kings 14:24, in connection with which they mean: the residence of Jeroboam was indeed the city where Jehovah’s dwelling stood, which was the centre of the whole theocracy, but even here the people fell into idolatry. For the expression: put His name there, see above on chap. 6 1 Kings 14:23-24. And Judah did evil, &c. Even in the times of the judges the apostasy was never so great in Judah as it was now under Rehoboam. For the expression: provoke to jealousy, see above. For αָּ ?ξεֹ ?ϊ see on 1 Kings 3:2, and for ΰֲ ?ωֵׁ ?ψִ ?ιν see on 1 Kings 14:15. The ξַ ?φֵּ ?αεֹ ?ϊ are also mentioned in Exodus 34:13; Deuteronomy 7:5; Deuteronomy 12:3; Deuteronomy 16:21 sq., in connection with the Astarte-images; from which passages it appears that the former were made of stone, and the latter of wood. ξַ ?φְֹּ ?αָ ?δ from πָ ?φַ ?α means something that is made fast or placed firmly, and refers to monuments (Exodus 28:18; Exodus 28:22; Exodus 31:13; Exodus 35:14; Exodus 35:20; Exodus 24:4; 2 Samuel 18:18). As they were only used to commemorate a divine appearance and revelation (Genesis 28:18), men easily came to pay them divine honor, and in the heathen world they passed into regular idols (Leviticus 26:1). Whilst the wooden monuments (Astarte) represented the female nature-divinity, the stone pillars represented the male deity, i.e., Baal; hence δַ ?αַּ ?ςַ ?μξַ ?φֵּ ?αַ ?ϊ (2 Kings 3:2; cf. 2 Kings 10:26; 2 Kings 18:4; 2 Kings 23:14). The αָּ ?ξεϊ were erected on hills and mountains, the idols of the male and female divinities were placed under thick shady trees, as appears from Hosea 4:13, cf. Deuteronomy 12:2; Jeremiah 2:20; Jeremiah 3:6; Jeremiah 17:2. That χָ ?γֵ ?ωׁ (1 Kings 14:24), used collectively, does not mean female (Ewald, Thenius), but only male prostitutes, is quite evident from 1 Kings 15:12 (ηַ ?χְּ ?γֵ ?ωִׁ ?ιν) and Deuteronomy 23:18; the author mentions as the greatest excess of idolatry, that men or boys allowed themselves to be prostituted in honor of the gods. There is no reason to suppose, as Keil does, that they were such “as had castrated themselves in a fit of religious frenzy.” The words “in the land” (cf. with 1 Kings 15:12) shows that they were not natives (Israelites or Judeans), but strangers, Canaanites or Ph�nicians who had settled in the land for unlawful gain. 1 Kings 14:25-26. Shishak came up, 1 Kings 14:25. For this king see on 1 Kings 11:40. 2 Chronicles 12:2-8 gives a further account of his invasion of Judah. We do not know the cause; the Rabbins think it was only a robber expedition. As Jeroboam had sojourned as a refugee with Shishak (according to an addition of the Sept. to 1 Kings 12:24, he had even married the daughter of the latter), it has been supposed that he was induced to undertake the war by Jeroboam. “It can scarcely be doubted that the king with a Jewish countenance on one of the monuments at Carnac (see Winer, R.-W.-B. II. s. 311, 474) was Rehoboam, if Champollion was correct in reading Sheshonk (Prιcis du syst. hieroglyph, p. 204),” Thenius. εְ ?ΰֶ ?ϊΞδַ ?λֹּ ?μ, i. e., all that he found; took the shields, &c. (1 Kings 10:16). These were of peculiarly high value. According to the connection, the author means, “That Judah was given over into the power of the heathen was the punishment that speedily followed their fall into heathen abominations” (Keil). 1 Kings 14:27-28. King Rehoboam made, &c., 1 Kings 14:27. The ψָ ?φִ ?ιν are the royal guards (see above on 1 Kings 1:38), who were also named celeres with Romulus (Liv. 1 Kings 1:14). They kept watch at the palace gate (see on 2 Kings 11:6) and accompanied the king in solemn procession, as often as he went to the temple; it was only then that they bore these shields, and not on ordinary occasions. ϊָּ ?ΰ does not mean exactly the “guard-room,” but any place where the runners where staying. The costly golden shields which Solomon had made were in the house of the forest of Lebanon (1 Kings 10:17), but it is doubtful whether the brazen shields of Rehoboam were only kept in the ϊָּ ?ΰ, being considered as “of no value” (Thenius). 1 Kings 14:29-31. The rest of the acts, &c. What 2 Chronicles 11 relates of the cities fortified by Rehoboam, of the emigration of priests and those faithful to Jehovah to the Judah-territory, and of the family relations of Rehoboam, is certainly derived from ancient historical sources, probably from those mentioned in 2 Chronicles 12:15 (Thenius). As also the account of the Chronicles gives no details of a regular war of Rehoboam with Jeroboam, ξִ ?μְ ?ηָ ?ξָ ?δ here 1 Kings 14:30, and ξִ ?μְ ?ηֲ ?ξεֹ ?ϊ2 Chronicles 12:15 only refer “to the hostile position of both kingdoms as manifested in single acts” (Winer), therefore not to a warlike disposition simply.—Thenius thinks that the repetition of the concluding words of 1 Kings 14:21 (the name of his mother, &c.) “was caused by a fault in the copyist that cannot be accounted for.” This, however, is very improbable, for why should just these words have been taken by a copyist from 1 Kings 14:21, have been repeated here, and then always have remained? The repetition appears rather to have been intentional, in order to show once more at the end of the account of Rehoboam that the mother of this king was descended from that rough heathenish people, the Ammonites, who were always hostile to Israel, and that under Solomon the worship of Moloch, the “abomination of the Ammonites,” was brought by her to Jerusalem (1 Kings 11:7) and suffered to remain for her by his son Rehoboam. This appears also to be meant by 2 Chronicles 12:14, in connection with 1 Kings 14:13. Historical and Ethical1. We learn only a few facts from these books regarding king Rehoboam and his reign, and from those few no certain conclusion can be drawn regarding his relation to the fundamental law of Israel; the general phrase also which expresses the relation to Jehovah, and which always immediately follows the account of the personal circumstances of all the later kings (cf. 1 Kings 15:3; 1 Kings 15:11; 1 Kings 15:25; 1 Kings 15:34, &c.) is omitted here. But Chron. concludes its rather more explicit account with the words: “he did evil, because he prepared not his heart to seek the Lord (δֵ ?λִ ?ιο),” 2 Chronicles 12:14; and the remark is made before (1 Kings 14:1), that “he forsook the law of the Lord.” We are not to conclude from this, however, that he himself served idols; on the contrary, it is emphatically said that, in solemn procession, accompanied by his whole body-guard, he continually visited the temple, and thus showed himself publicly to all the people as a worshipper of Jehovah. As such he showed himself also when Shishak made war against him (2 Chronicles 12:6; 2 Chronicles 12:12) But he forsook the law in so far that he did not obey its injunctions; he suffered idolatrous worship in Jerusalem and did nothing towards exterminating it. This was “the evil” he was accused of; he continued Jehovah’s servant, but he wanted firmness and decision. Sometimes fiery and arrogant, sometimes yielding and weak, he was unstable, as he had shown himself in Shechem at the commencement of his reign (1 Kings 12:5-9; 1 Kings 12:18; 1 Kings 12:21); he seems also to have been under the influence of his idolatrous mother (see on 1 Kings 14:31) and wife (1 Kings 15:13), and of his many wives (2 Chronicles 11:21). Menzel (Staats- und Rel.-Gesch., s. 236) is wholly wrong in referring, in his superficial way, the expression μִ ?γְ ?ψεֹ ?ωׁ ΰֶ ?ϊΞιְ ?δεָֹ ?δ (2 Chronicles 12:14) which he translates “to ask the Lord,” to “the relation of the king to the priesthood, and in that he is blamed for not inquiring of the Lord, we can perceive that Rehoboam had not been led, by the misfortune which had befallen him, to accord greater consideration to the priesthood than they had enjoyed under his predecessors.” That expression denotes rather, as Dietrich very justly remarks (Zu Gesenius W.-B. s. v.), “the striving of the spirit after God, the inward seeking, especially in prayer, and calling upon Him; cf. Isaiah 55:6; Isaiah 58:2; Jeremiah 29:13; 2 Chronicles 15:2; 2 Chronicles 15:14; 2 Chronicles 15:6; Hosea 10:12; Psalms 14:2.” That the priesthood under Rehoboam strove for greater consideration than they had under David (for instance) is a pure invention; but we see from 1 Kings 12:22-24 and 2 Chronicles 12:5-6; 2 Chronicles 12:12, that Rehoboam did not resist or act in opposition to the prophetical word. 2. The idolatrous worship that commenced in Judah under Rehoboam was not begun by the latter but by the people; for 1 Kings 14:22 does not say, he did evil in the sight of the Lord, as is said of other kings, but: Judah did, &c. This seems remarkable, because Judah had the central sanctuary in their midst, and the priests and levites; indeed all the true worshippers of Jehovah had left the apostate ten tribes and had gone to Judah, by which the kingdom of Jeroboam was weakened, but that of Rehoboam strengthened (2 Chronicles 11:13-17). That Judah, nevertheless, fell so deeply was owing to an after-influence of the condition of things under Solomon’s reign, and particularly the latter part of the same. Commerce and intercourse with foreign nations, acquaintance with their customs and mode of life, great riches and uninterrupted peace, had exercised an enervating and demoralizing influence. Ease, superfluity, and luxury gradually undermined serious thought, and brought forth lukewarmness, indifference, and even aversion to the strict covenant-law: what was written in Deuteronomy 32:15 (Hosea 13:6) came to pass. Added to this, Solomon at last removed every obstacle to the strange heathen-worship of his wives, so that although Jerusalem was the centre of the Jehovah-worship, it was at the same time the spot where the most various national gods were adored, and where their unchaste worship found a ready soil (see on 1 Kings 11:1-8). Immediately after Solomon’s death this “religious liberty” could only have been abolished by force and iron severity; but the times were not adapted for this task, and still less was his successor, Rehoboam, the son of the Ammonitess, the πַ ?ςַ ?ψεְ ?ψַ ?κְ ?Ξμֵ ?αַ ?α (2 Chronicles 13:7); so that idolatry and immorality rather increased than decreased, and the fall of Judah seems to have been even deeper than that of Israel. However, the condition of Judah was not so bad as the condition of Israel in this respect; as in the latter, the breach of the fundamental law had become the State religion and institution of the kingdom, the separate existence of which depended on the new worship; whilst in Judah the apostasy was only permitted, and the lawful worship of Jehovah had always a firm footing at the central sanctuary. Many good elements also still existed in Judah (2 Chronicles 20:12). Judah always repented as often as they fell into idolatry, and they continued to be the guardian of the law, whilst Israel, on the contrary, never completely returned to the right way. Homiletical and Practical1 Kings 14:21-30. The deep fall of Judah: (a) Whence it came (Deuteronomy 32:15; Hosea 13:6; Proverbs 30:9—see Hist. and Ethic. 2); whither it led (Romans 1:25-28). Amongst individual men as in entire communities, cities, and nations, revolt against the living God results from haughtiness, over-prosperity, and carnal security, bringing as inevitable consequences, poverty, ruin, and misfortune in war. High as stood Judah under David and Solomon, so deep in proportion did it sink under Rehoboam. 1 Kings 14:21-22. Wherever God has a house, the devil always builds a chapel close at hand. How often does it happen that cities and countries, whence it has been ordained by God that the light of His knowledge should shine forth, have become the seat alike of superstition and of scepticism, and thus infinitely sink below the level of those lands which have never heard His blessed word. When an individual man, or a whole community and people, who have received and acknowledged the truth, again depart from it, then is their last state worse than their first (Isa. 11:26). 1 Kings 14:23-24. Wherever profligacy and fornication are in the ascendant, there is true heathendom, how many soever may be the churches. King Rehoboam, too, sinned grievously in this wise—he, although not himself an idol-worshipper, yet failed as a servant of God, in that he did not oppose idol-worship with all his might, and even regarded it as having equal rights with the service of the true God—even, alas, as we find Christian sovereigns who permit unbelief and revolt from the truth to rank upon a level with faith and confession of God in Christ. 1 Kings 14:25 sq. Where the carcass is, there will the eagles be gathered together (Matthew 24:28). The chastisements of God are never delayed where immorality and godlessness prevail, but they do not always lead, as with Judah, to the humble confession: The Lord is righteous! (2 Chronicles 12:6).—Calw. B.: Sovereigns are often only the instruments of God in their undertakings, although they do not or will not recognize the fact. 1 Kings 14:26. The true treasures of the temple are the worship of God in spirit and in truth, prayer, faith, love, and obedience; these no thieves nor robbers can steal, and without them all the gold and silver in temples and churches is vain and empty show. Golden or copper shields are alike in value if only we can say: The Lord is our shield, and the Holy One of Israel our King. 1 Kings 14:27-28. It is better to pray to our heavenly Father in our closet, rather than to worship with pomp in church to be seen by men. Yet now there are many who ceremoniously frequent the churches, but neglect to maintain the fear of God, discipline, and good morals in their own houses and neighborhoods. 1 Kings 14:30-31. It is not to a man’s honor when, at his grave, these words are said: There was life-long enmity between him and his neighbor. Footnotes:1 Kings 14:21.—[Our author substitutes the number twenty-one in his translation, the reasons for which see in the Exeg. Com. On the other hand, the entire agreement of the VV. and MSS. is a strong argument for the text as it stands. Keil decides against the proposed alteration. 1 Kings 14:23.—[εַ ?ιִּ ?αְ ?πεּ βַ ?ρΞδֵ ?ξָּ ?δ “and they, even they built,” i. e., the Jews as well as the Israelites. 1 Kings 14:23.—[ξַ ?φֵּ ?αεֹ ?ϊ = monumental pillars for religious purposes. Sept., στήλας. See the Exeg. Com. 1 Kings 14:26.—[The Vat. Sept. thus enlarges the close of 1 Kings 14:26 : shields of gold which David received of the hand of the children of Adrazaar, king of Souba, and brought them into Jerusalem, all the things which he received, the arms of gold which Solomon made, and carried them into Egypt. 1 Kings 14:27.—[The Heb., followed by all the VV., has the plural. The A. V. must have used “chief” collectively. 1 Kings 14:31.—[The Vat. Sept., as also the Syr., omits the foregoing clause, which is repeated from 1 Kings 14:21.—F. G.] B.—The reigns of Abijam and Asa1 Kings 15:1-24 (2 Chronicles 13, 14)1Now in the eighteenth year of king Jeroboam the son of Nebat reigned 2Abijam over Judah. Three years reigned he in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Maachah, the daughter of Abishalom. 3And he walked in all the sins of his father, which he had done before him: and his heart was not perfect with 4the Lord [Jehovah] his God, as the heart of David his father. Nevertheless, for David’s sake did the Lord [Jehovah] his God give him a lamp in Jerusalem, to set up his son after him, and to establish Jerusalem: 5because David did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord [Jehovah], and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite. 6And there was war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam all the days of his life. 7Now the rest of the acts of Abijam, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah? And there was war between Abijam and Jeroboam. 8And Abijam slept with his fathers; and they buried him in the city of David: and Asa his son reigned in his stead. 9And in the twentieth year of Jeroboam king of Israel reigned Asa over Judah. 10And forty and one years reigned he in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Maachah, the daughter of Abishalom. 11And Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, as did David his father. 12And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made. 13And also Maachah his mother, even her he removed from being queen, because she had made an idol in a grove; and Asa destroyed her idol, and burnt it by the brook [in the valley of] Kidron. 14But the high places were not removed: nevertheless Asa’s heart was perfect with the Lord [Jehovah] all his days. 15And he brought in the things which his father had dedicated, and the things which himself had dedicated, into the house of the Lord [Jehovah], silver, and gold, and vessels. 16And there was war between Asa and Baasha king of Israel all their days. And 17Baasha king of Israel went up against Judah, and built Ramah, that he might not suffer any to go out or come in to Asa king of Judah. 18Then Asa took all the silver and the gold that were left in the treasures of the house of the Lord [Jehovah], and the treasures of the king’s house, and delivered them into the hand of his servants: and king Asa sent them to Ben-hadad, the son of Tabrimon, the son 19of Hezion, king of Syria, that dwelt at Damascus, saying, There is a league between me and thee, and between my father and thy father: behold, I have sent unto thee a present of silver and gold; come and break thy league with 20Baasha king of Israel, that he may depart from me. So Ben-hadad hearkened unto king Asa, and sent the captains of the hosts which he had against the cities of Israel, and smote Ijon, and Dan, and Abel-beth-maachah, and all Cinneroth, with all the land of Naphtali. 21And it came to pass, when Baasha heard thereof, that he left off building of Ramah, and dwelt in Tirzah. 22Then king Asa made a proclamation throughout all Judah; none was exempted: and they took away the stones of Ramah, and the timber thereof, wherewith Baasha had builded; and king Asa built with them Geba of Benjamin, and Mizpah. 23The rest of all the acts of Asa, and all his might, and all that he did, and the cities which he built, are they not written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah? Nevertheless in the time of his old age he was diseased in his feet. 24And Asa slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David his father: and Jehoshaphat his son reigned in his stead. Exegetical and Critical1 Kings 15:1-5. Abijam king of Judah. Instead of ΰֲ ?αִ ?ιָּ ?ν Chronicles has always ΰֲ ?αִ ?ιָ ?δ (2 Chronicles 13:1 sq.), ’Αβιά in the Sept. The latter seems to be the right and original name, composed of ΰαι and ιδ, which mean ΰֲ ?αִ ?ιΰֵ ?μ (1 Samuel 9:1), not, therefore, father of the sea, vir maritimus (Gesenius), but whose father (benefactor) is God. According to 2 Chronicles 11:20 sq. Abijam was the eldest son of Rehoboam’s second wife Maacha, who was his favorite, for which reason he set Abijam above his brothers, and appointed him for his successor. As there is no mention made of an Absalom except of him known as the son of David, αַּ ?ϊ must mean the granddaughter here, as ΰָ ?α means grandfather in 1 Kings 15:3. Maacha must then have been the daughter of Tamar (2 Samuel 14:27), as Absalom had no sons (2 Samuel 18:18). The same name is no doubt meant in 2 Chronicles 13:2, where Abijam’s mother ξִ ?ιλָ ?ιָ ?δεּ is called a daughter of Uriel of Gibeah; see on 1 Kings 15:13. In all the sins, &c, is not to be taken in a universal sense, but of all the sins which Rehoboam committed regarding the service of Jehovah; in these he followed the example of his father (μְ ?τָ ?πָ ?ιε). He was in his own person Jehovah’s servant, but he did not oppose the idol-worship; he permitted it, and therefore in no respect resembled his great-grandfather David, who therefore for all kings continued to be the pattern and model of right conduct towards Jehovah. Thenius thinks that 1 Kings 15:4-5 are the addition of an “elaborator”; they are certainly not useless, but stand in a very proper connection. Abijam was the third king on David’s throne who allowed idol-worship to exist side by side with that of Jehovah. Such kings had, in fact, deserved to lose their land and throne, because they had not acted as servants of the true king of Israel; but for David’s sake, to whom God had promised that a descendant of his should always reign in Jerusalem (for πִ ?ιψ see on 1 Kings 11:36), Jehovah suffered even such kings of the house of David, who, like this one, were not wholly and undividedly devoted to Him. The sin of David against Uriah was great indeed (2 Samuel 11, 12), but apart from the fact that he repented of it bitterly, it was not one which broke the fundamental law of the theocracy, the covenant and its chief commandment, and it did not therefore undermine the foundation of the Israelite nationality. 1 Kings 15:4-5 serve, then, to explain 1 Kings 15:3, and in a certain measure to justify what is said there. 1 Kings 15:6-8. And there was war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam, &c. 1 Kings 15:6 says the same that was previously said in 1 Kings 14:30, only with this difference, that there the concluding words λָּ ?μΞδַ ?ιָּ ?ξִ ?ιν are changed to λָּ ?μΞιְ ?ξֵ ?ιηַ ?ιָּ ?ιε here, from which it follows, at least, that this verse is not, as Thenius thinks, a mere repetition arising from the carelessness of a copyist. Instead of “Rehoboam,” the Syrian, Arabic, and several manuscripts have “Abijam;” but this would make the conclusion of 1 Kings 15:7 a mere repetition of our verse, which is even less tenable than the repetition from 1 Kings 14:30. As the words stand they can scarcely be understood in connection with 1 Kings 15:7 otherwise than as Schulz, Maurer, and Keil take them; they give their meaning to be this: that the hostile feeling which existed between Rehoboam and Jeroboam during the entire lifetime of the former, also lasted during the lifetime of his son Abijam. This interpretation is certainly rather forced, and it is very possible that the text is no longer the original one; happily, however, the substance of the narrative is in no wise affected by it, but it remains the same, howsoever those words may be read or explained. 1 Kings 15:9-11. In the twentieth year of Jeroboam, &c. 1 Kings 15:9 sq. If Abijam became king in the eighteenth and Asa in the twentieth year of Jeroboam (1 Kings 15:1; 1 Kings 15:9), Abijam could not have reigned three full years (1 Kings 15:2). The incomplete years are here, as elsewhere (see on 1 Kings 15:25), reckoned as if complete, in statements of the length of the reigns. Maachah, the daughter of Abishalom, is named in 1 Kings 15:2 as the mother of Abijam, and as the mother of Asa in 1 Kings 15:10, but she could not, of course, have been the mother of both father and son at the same time. It has therefore been supposed “that Maachah, Abijam’s mother, was in the position of queen-mother or δַ ?βְּ ?αιψָ ?δ, i. e., sultana Walida, under Asa, until Asa deposed her on account of her idolatrous worship (1 Kings 15:13), and that she had been such because, perhaps, Asa’s mother had died early” (Keil and Ewald after the Rabbins). ΰֵ ?ν (1 Kings 15:10) would then stand for grandmother, which is very questionable for the reason that, often as the name of the mother of a king is given, his grandmother is never meant thereby; besides, the mother alone, and never the grandmother of a king, had the dignity and position of the Gebirah, the name given to Asa’s mother, 1 Kings 15:13 and 2 Chronicles 15:16. Other commentators, who are not insensible to these considerations, think that Maachah, the mother of Abijam, was indeed, as is said in 1 Kings 15:2, and 2 Chronicles 11:20-21, a daughter of Abishalom, but that Maachah, the mother of Asa, was the daughter of Uriel of Gibeah. They think that the Chronicler (2 1 Kings 13:2) committed an oversight when he mentioned the latter (whom he names Michaiah) as the mother of Abijam instead of Asa, whilst, inversely, our author names the daughter of Abishalom (1 Kings 15:10) instead of the daughter of Uriel, as the mother of Asa (Thenius, Bertheau). This much is certain, that the mother of Asa, as well as the mother of Abijam, was called Maachah. 1 Kings 15:12-15. All the idols. 1 Kings 15:12. The designation βִּ ?μּ ?εּ ?μִ ?ιν for idols, includes, confessedly, the idea of something contemptible, as appears from the many passages in Ezekiel where it occurs. The Rabbins, whom several commentators follow, have derived the word from βָּ ?μָ ?μ or βֵּ ?μֶ ?μ, i. e., mud drained off, and translated it Dei stercorei, mudgods, which Thenius thinks the most correct interpretation. But in the Pentateuch, where the word first occurs, βָּ ?μָ ?μ, mud, is not used, but βμ, βμιν, stone-heaps, masses of stone (Genesis 31:46; Genesis 31:48; Genesis 31:51-52), hence Hδvernick (Comm. όber Ezechiel, s. 75) understands it to mean stone monuments, with the additional notion of what was dead and lifeless (cf. Ezra 5:8; Ezra 6:4); which translation seems better than: lumps (Keil). Cf. also Deuteronomy 29:16; Leviticus 26:30. For βְּ ?αִ ?ιψָ ?δ see on 1 Kings 11:19. ξִ ?τְ ?μֶ ?φֶ ?ϊ means horrendum, and no doubt refers to a phallus-image, which was something terrible and detestable to the Hebrews. The Vulgate gives in sacris Priapi for it. The statue of the male and generative power in nature was placed next that of the female power (Astarte). That the former was of wood, like the latter, appears from the “burning in the valley of Kidron;” the ashes were thrown into the brook, which carried them quite away. The αָּ ?ξεֹ ?ϊ, 1 Kings 15:14, mean here such as were dedicated to Jehovah, as in 1 Kings 3:2 therefore, and not as in 1 Kings 11:7, and 2 Chronicles 14:2. These, to which the people were accustomed from ancient times, Asa did not destroy, perhaps because doing so might have given offence to many even of the true servants of Jehovah. This was the only unlawful thing he permitted; in everything else he adhered perfectly, as long as he lived, to the worship of Jehovah as enjoined in the law. He even began to fill again the treasure chambers of the Temple, which had been plundered by Shishak; to fill them partly with what his father Abijam had taken (cf. 2 Chronicles 13:19), partly with the plunder he himself had seized (2 Chronicles 14:12; 2 Chronicles 15:18). 1 Kings 15:16. And there was war between Asa.… all their days. 1 Kings 15:16. The account of Chronicles does not agree with this, if the former be only understood in the sense as given above, 1 Kings 14:30. For, according to 2 Chronicles 14:1 (1 Kings 13:23) the land had rest ten years under Asa; according to 2 Chronicles 15:19, “there was no more war unto the five and thirtieth year of the reign of Asa,” and in 1 Kings 16:1 it says that Baasha did not make war on Judah till the six and thirtieth year. But these numbers cannot possibly be correct, for according to our chapter 1 Kings 15:33, Baasha became king of Israel in the third year of Asa, and only reigned four-and-twenty years, therefore he could not have made war against Asa in the six-and-thirtieth year of the latter. The number ten is also too great, and was used probably because the numeral sign ε was shortened to ι. Judah had rest before Baasha’s accession to the throne of Israel, and also two years afterwards, but then, when he was properly prepared for war, Baasha undertook the invasion; this occurred, therefore, in the fifth or sixth year of Asa’s reign. The numeral sign μ = 30 of the Chronicles may very well have been taken out of the μְ ?ξַ ?μְ ?λεּ ?ϊ. Cf. Thenius and Bertheau on the same passages. The supposition of older commentators and of Keil, that the five-and-thirty, that is, the six-and-thirty years dated from the time of the separation of the two kingdoms, is not admissible, because the text in 2 Chronicles 16:1 says quite positively: “in the six-and-thirtieth year of the reign of Asa.” 1 Kings 15:17. Ramah (1 Kings 15:17) was not in the mountains of Ephraim (1 Samuel 10:2) but in the tribe of Benjamin (Joshua 18:25; Judges 19:3), somewhat more than two hours’ distance from Jerusalem: it is the modern Er-Ram. The fortification of Ramah presupposes that Baasha had recovered the towns that belonged to the kingdom of Israel (2 Chronicles 13:19) which had been taken by Abijam. The conjectural reading δֱ ?ιεֹ ?ϊ instead of ϊֵּ ?ϊ (Thenius) is unnecessary; it is literally: “to the end that one should not give (or send) any one coming in or going out, to Asa” (Bertheau) i. e., ut non posset quispiam egredi vel ingredi de parte As� (Vulg.). As the principal road from Jerusalem to the north passed through Ramah, Baasha wished to cut off all traffic, and in fact to blockade Jerusalem completely. The δַ ?πּ ?εֹ ?ϊָ ?ψִ ?ιν, 1 Kings 15:18, does not mean here, in the strict sense of the word, the remainder, for Shishak had taken all (1 Kings 14:26); Asa, after his victories and those of his father, filled the treasure chambers again with the plunder he took (1 Kings 15:5), and this, when compared with the former treasure, was the remainder. The Sept., therefore, gives τὸ εὑρεθὲν, i. e., what he then found. 1 Kings 15:18-22. Benhadad (1 Kings 15:18) means “son of the sun,” for the sun received divine honors from the Syrians, under the name of Adad (Macrob. Saturn. i. 23). Three kings of Damascene-Syria bore this name; the one named here was the first of them, and he who is mentioned in 1 Kings 20:1 sq.34 was his son. The name could scarcely have been a general royal title (Keil), for the name Tabrimmon is certainly the name of a person, but it is, in composition, like “good is Rimmon” (2 Kings 5:18). Thenius identifies Hezion with the Rezon mentioned in 1 Kings 11:23, who was called so originally (?). The phrase “king of Syria” is certainly in opposition with Benhadad. There is a league, &c. (1 Kings 15:19), i. e., as between our fathers there was a league, let it continue between us also. Syria must have increased rapidly in power since the days of Solomon; for both kingdoms, Israel and Judah, sought its friendship, although it was the natural foe of both. There is no doubt that Benhadad was induced to break his league with Baasha by the larger sum that Asa offered him. The Syrian army, which came from the north, overran the whole land of Naphtali to the lake of Genesareth; the towns which it laid waste lay in a line from north to south. Ijon was the most northern, and is nowhere else named, except in the parallel passage 2 Chronicles 16:4; according to Robinson (Researches, &c. II. p. 438), it is situated in the well-watered district of Merj Ayun. Dan could not have been far south of it. Abel-beth-maachah (2 Chronicles 16:4; Abel-maim) is the same town as that mentioned in 2 Samuel 20:14; 2 Samuel 20:18, and was situated at the mouth of the Merj Ayun; it is the modern Abil el Kamh (see Thenius on the place). Cinneroth, “evidently a district, not a town; it was the basin which stretches from the lake of Merom to the head of the lake of Genesareth” (the same). Although then Benhadad only disturbed the northern parts of the kingdom, Baasha saw himself induced to obey the demand to leave Judah (probably made to him) in order to prevent further losses. He left off building the fortifications of Ramah which he had begun, and returned to his residence Tirzah (1 Kings 14:17) without disturbing Asa any more. The latter now had the building materials at Ramah removed, and he fortified Geba of Benjamin and Mizpeh with them; the former was one-half mile [two and a quarter Eng. miles] from Ramah, and the latter about three miles [thirteen and a half Eng.]. These two fortresses overlooked each side of the road that led northwards from Jerusalem. 1 Kings 15:23-24. His might and … the cities.βְּ ?αεּ ?ψָ ?δ, not so much potestas as deeds of might, i. e., brave deeds, as appears from chap, 16, 27; 1 Kings 22:46. Besides Geba and Mizpah, Asa erected other fortresses in Judah (2 Chronicles 14:5-6), which were probably designed to protect the southern part of his kingdom. He was on the whole prosperous, “only in his old age” he suffered much, and did not show a right trust in God (2 Chronicles 16:12). It is uncertain if his disease were gout (Thenius). Chron. says that he had caused his tomb to be hewn out in the city of David; probably the place of sepulture hitherto used was not large enough. Historical and Ethical1. Chronicles gives not only more extended accounts of king Abijam, but some also which recent criticism declares to be utterly irreconcilable with the representation here. “According to the earlier narrative,” says Winer (R.-W.-B. I. s. 6), “Abijam walked in the footsteps of his idolatrous father (1 Kings 15:3); according to the later one, he appears to be a very zealous guardian of the worship of Jehovah and of the levitical system (2 Chronicles 13:8 sq.). We must bear in mind that the Chronicler elsewhere endeavors to acquit the Judah-state from idol-worship, as much as possible.” De Wette, Thenius, and others hold similar views. But against this we remark, that the presupposition that Rehoboam was addicted to idolatry, and that Abijam followed in his ways, is erroneous, and Winer contradicts himself, for (in the work already cited, II. s. 312, note) he himself declares, that “the older (i. e., our) narative says nothing of the personal participation of Rehoboam with the untheocratic worship, rather, see 1 Kings 15:28.” Now we have already proved above that Chron. does not accuse him of it. Ewald therefore justly says (Gesch. Isr. III. s. 460 sq.): “Rehoboam indeed permitted or encouraged the exercise of foreign forms of worship, from his own predilections,” and in this respect “Abijam walked completely in Rehoboam’s footsteps; he shared his father’s religious views and principles.” It is no contradiction when in Chron. he is represented as a worshipper of Jehovah, for this he really was. The words he uttered before the beginning of hostilities to the opposite host of “all Israel” were not merely edifying and “exceedingly pious expressions” (Thenius), they quite correspond with the political and theocratic stand-point which Abijam took as king of Judah. He reproaches the ten tribes with their revolt from the house of David, and at the same time with all that Jeroboam had done, out of his own mind, against the divine fundamental law, given to the whole people. The evident purpose of the entire discourse was to win over Israel again to the house of David, to attach those who, being faithful to Jehovah, had already left the other tribes and settled in Judah, and also to attract and encourage such as still remained in Israel. Abijam had probably observed that his best support in a war with Israel was not to be found in the idolaters of his kingdom, but in the faithful servants of Jehovah. His very brief reign did not allow him any larger experience in this respect. 2. The long reign of king Asa, which lasted forty-one years, is treated with great brevity by our author; but the Chronicler devotes three whole chapters to it (2 Chronicles 14, 15, 16). The former, however, lays especial emphasis on what is most important to the history of the theocracy, and what the Chronicler also esteems the principal thing, namely, that Asa energetically and sternly put down the idol-worship, which had been suffered to remain side by side with that of Jehovah since Solomon’s time, together with all the abominations the former included, and that he even deprived his idolatrous mother of her dignity as the Gebirah. How it happened that he entered with such decision on an entirely different course, immediately after his accession, is not told in either of the narratives; we can only form suppositions on the subject. After the separation of the ten tribes from Judah, the latter must have plainly perceived the injurious results of the religious liberty, which had been granted from political motives (see above, Histor. and Eth. on chap. 11). This already small kingdom lacked unity, and therefore a firm bond. The more that danger threatened it from Israel under Jeroboam, through the continual wars that went on, the more people must have become convinced of the necessity of making an end of the schism which had arisen from the various forms of idolatry, of restoring the lost unity, and of thus giving full sway to the theocratic fundamental law through which Judah had become great and strong, and so making the kingdom firm, both in its internal and external relations. Besides this, the number of those who, from true affection to the divine law, emigrated from all the other tribes to Judah, increased (2 Chronicles 15:9), and all these abhorred the idol-worship which still existed in juxtaposition with that of Jehovah. Besides, some powerful and influential prophets were not wanting, who exhorted the king and the people to be faithful to Jehovah, and not to forsake the God of Israel, who had always helped His people (2 Chronicles 15:1 sq.; 1 Kings 16:7 sq.). These circumstances may have convinced Asa that nothing could secure stability and permanence for his kingdom but the return to the fundamental law and firm adherence to the same; and the great victory which the Lord had given him over Zerah the Ethiopian must have tended not a little to strengthen him in that conviction (2 Chronicles 14:7 sq.). From Asa’s subsequent conduct, it seems very uncertain whether his strict proceedings against the idol-worship were really the result of genuine conversion to Jehovah and of true piety, as might appear from his prayer (2 Chronicles 14:10); political motives, if not principally, no doubt partially, influenced him. The Chron., which has been accused of giving a too partial and favorable view of Asa’s character, lays especial stress on some facts which do not seem to show a true conversion and godly mind, such as David had. For instance, Asa took away the Temple-treasures that were consecrated to Jehovah, and had been lately gathered anew (this our author also mentions), and sent them to the king of Syria (who was growing continually more dangerous to both kingdoms) in order to induce him to break his league with Baasha. Also that when the prophet Hanani reproved him for doing so he threw the latter into prison, which no king of Judah had yet ventured to do to a prophet; and he even punished others who took the prophet’s part; finally, that he showed no resignation to the will of the Lord or trust in Him during his last sickness (2 Chronicles 16:10; 2 Chronicles 16:12). How completely different was David’s conduct after the report of the prophet Nathan, and a short time before his end (2 Samuel 12:13; 2 Samuel 23:1 sq.)! When, notwithstanding all this, both narratives say that Asa’s heart was ωָׁ ?μֵ ?νςִ ?νΞιְ ?δεָֹ ?δ, it follows that this often repeated expression only means: he never wavered between God’s service and that of idols or images, but was unreservedly devoted to the lawful worship of Jehovah, which was an exclusive one; and by being so he rendered his people a great service. Homiletical and Practical1 Kings 15:1-8. The fruit falls not far from the tree. What the old sing, the young chirp (Was die Alten sungen, das zwitschern die Jungen). The parental house is, for the child, the preparatory school of life; what he there sees and hears is never forgotten through life. No example is so weighty and important as that of the parents: how great, then, is their responsibility. Abijam followed not after the example of David, great and glorious as it was, but after that of his father Rehoboam, which he saw immediately before him. 1 Kings 15:4. The blessing of pious, God-fearing fore-fathers often falls to the advantage of even degenerate children, through the mercy of God. 1 Kings 15:5. No human example, however glorious it may be, is perfect, for even the greatest and best are wanting in the sight of God, and miserable sinners. Therefore we are referred to the example of Him who alone is sinless, and out of whose mouth proceeds no guile. He alone can say: He who follows me, walketh not in darkness, but has the light of life (1 Peter 2:21; John 8:12). The children of this world often quote and excuse their sins by citing the example of good and holy men who have fallen, but never take pattern after their repentance and humiliation, and refuse to know anything of the wrung and smitten heart of a David (Psalms 51:19), or of the tears of a Peter (Matthew 26:75). 1 Kings 15:6-8. The enmity, strife, and war between the sister-kingdoms was the result of their broken covenant with the Lord God. Wheresoever, be it amid a nation, a community, or a family, the fear of the living God, and the bond of union with Him is destroyed, there will ever be strife and discord; peace is only to be found where the God of peace reigns in the heart (Colossians 3:15). To go out of the world at enmity is not a blessed death. 1 Kings 15:9-24. The reign of Asa the king, (a) in its religious aspect (1 Kings 15:9-15); (b) in its political aspect (1 Kings 15:16-24). 1 Kings 15:11. It is to be regarded as a merciful providence of God, when a son who has grown up with evil surroundings, and the bad example of a father and mother, yet holds steadily to His word and commandments, and resists firmly all ungodly influences. 1 Kings 15:12-13. Against sins of licentiousness no authority can be powerful enough, for where this evil has crept in, there comes a moral corruption which works destructively upon all relations of life. Authority being ordained of God, as the Apostle says, its duty and task is to oppose with severity all godless conduct, without fear or favor of man, and to vindicate the eternal divine laws. Therefore it is that we have the church prayer for those in authority. 1 Kings 15:13. Calw. B.: Thus it is: A man must first cleanse his own house if he would be an example to others. Therefore says the Apostle, “if a man know not how to rule his own house he cannot take care of the church of God” (1 Timothy 3:5). Where the honor of God or the salvation of the soul comes in question, there even a mother must not prevail. I am come, says our Lord (Matthew 10:35 sq.), to set at variance, &c. 1 Kings 15:14. To remove deep-rooted and long-standing evils suddenly and completely is impossible, even for a well-intentioned and powerful ruler; for in that case he would bring about resistance to the good rather than further it. 1 Kings 15:15. Hence noble and pious princes should bethink themselves of using their gold and silver not only for worldly objects, but to enrich churches and schools, necessary to the accomplishment of godly designs. 1 Kings 15:16 sq. The enemies who rise up against us, and bring us into straits, must often serve, in the hand of God, to try and prove whether our faith is rooted in the deepest soil of the heart, and our zeal in religious things no fleshly one, but a high and holy one. 1 Kings 15:17-18. What is bestowed in faith must be regarded as sacred, and under no pretext must it be diverted to worldly purposes. Nothing but a rude power, knowing neither fear nor awe of God, could commit such a robbery, and no blessing can ever rest upon it. He who gives with one hand and takes back with the other, has his just recompense therein. 1 Kings 15:19. This is the curse resting upon the strife of brethren—each forms a league with the common enemy rather than resolve upon peace with each other. The least reliable friend and companion in need is he who can be bought with gold, and is always at the disposal of the highest bidder. He who persuades another to break faith must be prepared to find that he will not maintain the word given to him. In every strait, seek first the support and aid of thy God, without whom no man can help thee. Asa was indeed right believing, but he was not right believing.1 Kings 15:20 sq. Whoso diggeth a pit shall fall therein, and he that rolleth a stone, it will return upon him (Proverbs 26:27). Baasha wished to become possessed of an additional city, and thus lost a series of his own cities; with the same stones with which he purposed to strengthen Ramah, Asa built two strong cities. 1 Kings 15:24. Sickness in old age, previous to death, is a divine chastisement and trial, to wean men from the world and ripen them for eternity. How many men would die unconverted if God did not visit them before death with sickness! Well is it for all who through such visitations turn unto the Lord, as did Asa in 2 Chronicles 16:12. Footnotes: 1 Kings 15:1.—[Many MSS. and Ed. read throughout this narrative ΰֲ ?αִ ?ιָּ ?δ instead of ΰֲ ?αִ ?ιָּ ?ν as in 2 Chronicles 11:22; 2 Chronicles 13:1, &c. (Cf. 2 Chronicles 13:20 ΰֲ ?αִ ?ιּ ?δεּ) and so the Sept. Αβιού, and the Syr. 1 Kings 15:2.—[The Alex. Sept. makes his reign sixteen years. 1 Kings 15:4.—[In the author’s translation the name Rehoboam is inserted in brackets as explanitory of the pronoun him. The natural reference to Abijam may, however, as well be preserved. 1 Kings 15:5.—[The Vat. Sept. omits the mention of this exception, and also omits the following verse. 1 Kings 15:6.—[For Rehoboam eight MSS., followed by the Syr. and Arab., substitute Abijah. The Alex. Sept. puts the last pronoun of 1 Kings 15:6 in the plural—a variation in the opposite direction. 1 Kings 15:8.—[The Vat. Sept. adds, “in the twenty-fourth year of Jeroboam,” and in 1 Kings 15:9 changes the number to correspond—a manifest error. 1 Kings 15:10.—[The Vat. Sept. escapes the difficulty connected with the queen-mother’s name, here and in 1 Kings 15:13, by substituting Ana for Maachah. The Arab. omits the name here, but gives Maachah in 1 Kings 15:13. 1 Kings 15:13.—[ξִ ?τְ ?μֶ ?φֶ ?ϊμַ ?ΰֲ ?ωֵׁ ?ψָ ?δ. The meaning of these words has been much discussed and is variously given in the VV.—The most probable sense seems to be “an idol of Asherah.” See Exeg. Com. 1 Kings 15:15.—For εχγωε must be read with 2 Chronicles 15:18 εְ ?χָ ?γָ ?ωָׁ ?ιε. [The k’ri is χγωι, which Kiel says “is a bad emendation for the above correct χγωε, which is to be read χָ ?γְ ?ωׁ ?εֹ, or more correctly perhaps χָ ?γְ ?ωָׁ ?ε.] 1 Kings 15:18.—[The Sept. in translating by τὀ εὑρεθέν give the sense as expressed in the Exeg. Com. All the other VV., like the A.V. translate literally. 1 Kings 15:22.—[The adverbial use of ΰֵ ?ιοπָ ?χִ ?ι = nemine immuni i. e., excepto is peculiar to this passage. Keil refers for its source to such passages as Deuteronomy 24:5; Numbers 32:22. The Sept., not understanding the phrase, has rendered it as a proper name, εἰς ’Ενακίμ (Alex. ’Αννακείμ.) 1 Kings 15:22.—[The Sept. has undertaken to translate the names Geba and Mizpah as common nouns, πᾶνβουνὸνΒενιαμὶνκαὶ τὴνσκοπιάν.—F. G.] FOURTH SECTION the kingdom of israel under nadab and his successors until ahab 1 Kings 15:25 to 1 Kings 16:28A.—The reign of Nadab and Baasha1 Kings 15:25 to 1 Kings 16:725 And Nadab the son of Jeroboam began to reign over Israel in the second year of Asa king of Judah, and reigned over Israel two years. 26And he did evil in the sight of the Lord [Jehovah], and walked in the way of his father, and in his sin 27[sins] wherewith he made Israel to sin. And Baasha the son of Ahijah, of the house of Issachar, conspired against him; and Baasha smote him at Gibbethon, which belonged to the Philistines; for Nadab and all Israel laid siege to Gibbethon. 28Even in the third year of Asa king of Judah did Baasha slay him, and reigned in his stead. 29And it came to pass, when he reigned, that he smote all the house of Jeroboam; he left not to Jeroboam any that breathed, until he had destroyed him, according unto the saying of the Lord [Jehovah], which he spake by his servant Ahijah the Shilonite: 30because of the sins of Jeroboam which he sinned, and which he made Israel sin, by his provocation wherewith he provoked the Lord [Jehovah] God of Israel to anger. 31Now the rest of the acts of Nadab, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel? 32And there was war between Asa and Baasha king of Israel all their days. 33In the third year of Asa king of Judah began Baasha the son of Ahijah to reign over all Israel in Tirzah, twenty and four years. 34And he did evil in the sight of the Lord [Jehovah], and walked in the way of Jeroboam, and in his sin [sins] wherewith he made Israel to sin. 1 Kings 16:1 Then the word of the Lord came to Jehu the son of Hanani against Baasha, saying, 2Forasmuch as I exalted thee out of the dust, and made thee prince over my people Israel; and thou hast walked in the way of Jeroboam, and hast made my people Israel to sin, to provoke me to anger with their sins; 3behold, I will take away the posterity of Baasha, and the posterity of his house; and will make thy house like the house of Jeroboam the son of Nebat. 4Him that dieth of Baasha in the city shall the dogs eat; and him that dieth of his in the fields shall the fowls of the air eat. 5Now the rest of the acts of Baasha, and what he did, and his might, are they not written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel? 6So Baasha slept with his fathers, and was buried in Tirzah: and Elah his son reigned in his stead. 7And also by the hand of the prophet Jehu the son of Hanani came the word of the Lord [Jehovah] against Baasha, and against his house, even for all the evil that he did in the sight of the Lord [Jehovah], in provoking him to anger with the work of his hands, in being like the house of Jeroboam; and because he killed him. Exegetical and Critical1 Kings 15:25-26. In the second year of Asa. We see clearly from this verse, compared with the time given in 1 Kings 15:28; 1 Kings 15:33, as in all the statement regarding the length of reigns, that years not fully complete are considered as whole ones. “For if Nadab ascended the throne in the second year of Asa’s reign (1 Kings 15:28), and Asa ascended the throne in the twentieth year of Jeroboam’s (1 Kings 15:9), Jeroboam could not have reigned quite twenty-two years, but only twenty-one and some months; and if Baasha succeeded to Nadab in the third year of Asa’s reign (1 Kings 15:28; 1 Kings 15:33) Nadab could not have reigned two years (1 Kings 15:25), in fact not much more than one and a half year or perhaps a little shorter time” (Keil). 1 Kings 15:27-31. Baasha … of the house of Issachar,i. e., of the tribe of Issachar; he cannot therefore have been the son of the prophet Ahijah, as Menzel supposes, for he was an Ephraimite of Shiloh. The city of Gibbethon belongs to the tribe of Dan (Joshua 19:44), and was one of the four cities of the levites which belonged (i. e., the cities) to this tribe (Joshua 21:23); it must have been on the borders of Philistia. It is very doubtful if it had always been occupied by the Philistines, and was now for the first time besieged by the Israelites (Winer); it rather appears that the Philistines, after the partition of the kingdom, again took possession of it as an important border fortress; whereupon the Israelites under Nadab and Elah (1 Kings 16:15) tried to recover it. As Nadab met his death on this occasion, it seems that Baasha’s conspiracy was of a military description, and that the latter was an army chief like Zimri (1 Kings 16:9). Thenius supposes that Gibbethon was the same as the modern Muzeiri’ah, or Elmejdel (Tower) (cf. Robinson, Pal. III. p. 282). How the conspiracy arose is not stated; perhaps Nadab was still very young, and not a match for Baasha, who was very enterprising. It seems that he was not satisfied with exterminating the male relatives of Jeroboam, but murdered the whole of his race. The λִּ ?γְ ?αַ ?ψ 1 Kings 15:29, does not, of course, mean: as the Lord had promised him, but: so that the word of prophecy was fulfilled. For 1 Kings 15:29-30 see above on 1 Kings 14:10 sq.1 Kings 15:32-34. And there was war … all their days. 1 Kings 15:32 is a literal repetition of 1 Kings 15:16, and does not seem suitable to the context here, for even if we were to read Nadab instead of Baasha (Ewald), this does not agree with “all their days,” for Nadab did not reign much longer than a year, and had war with the Philistines during that time. Nadab, too, should be named first; between Nadab and Asa; and finally Asa, whose year of accession coincided with the short period of Nadab’s reign, had, according to 2 Chron. 13:23, no war at that time. Thenius thinks that the repetition of 1 Kings 15:16 arose through a mistake of the copyist, but there is certainly no necessity for this easy but at the same time violent solution of the difficulty. Keil’s view is better. He finds (1845) the reason of the repetition in the excerptive character of these books, and in the manner of theocratic historical writing, namely, in the want of strict order in the arrangement of the historical matter. 1 Kings 15:16 is taken from the book of the acts of the kings of Judah; 1 Kings 15:32 from that of the kings of Israel. In the first instance the remark is given beforehand, because there was something special to be said about the war between Asa and Baasha; here, though it would certainly be more suitable after 1 Kings 15:33-34, it is not put in on account of Asa, but on account of Baasha, and is the regular mode of expression for the conditions of the State under the different reigns. For Tirzah see 1 Kings 14:17. 1 Kings 16:1-6. The word of the Lord came. The chapter is not here divided according to the accession of the king, but according to the prophetic sentence which proclaimed ruin to the whole reigning dynasty, and therefore was the beginning of all the subsequent period. The prophet Jehu is mentioned in 2 Chronicles 19:2 sq. as well as in 1 Kings 15:1; 1 Kings 15:7; 1 Kings 15:12; in the above passage ho blames the conduct of the Judah-king Jehoshaphat, the successor of Asa; and in 2 Chronicles 20:34 he is named as the author of the “acts of Jehoshaphat in the book of the kings of Israel.” There is no doubt that his father Hanani was the same as he who was thrown into prison because of his censure of king Asa (2 Chronicles 16:7; 2 Chronicles 16:10). According to this, he must have belonged to the kingdom of Judah, and either pronounced his sentence there (1 Kings 15:2; 1 Kings 15:7), or have gone over, for the purpose, into the northern kingdom. It is also uncertain whether he pronounced the threatening to Baasha personally and directly. For out of the dust (1 Kings 15:2) 1 Kings 14:7 gives “from among the people,” from which “we might conclude that Baasha had raised himself from a very low position to be a commander of the army and finally king” (Thenius). What Baasha did, of himself and by crime, the prophet ascribes in so far to Jehovah, that he could not possibly have executed his plans had they been contrary to the purposes of Jehovah. The entire sentence is evidently modelled after that of the prophet Ahijah against Jeroboam (1 Kings 14:7-11) (see Hist. and Eth. there, 1). 1 Kings 15:6 says that Baasha died a natural death, but Zimrl (1 Kings 15:12) exterminated all “his posterity” (cf.ΰַ ?ηֲ ?ψֵ ?ι, 1 Kings 15:3). For βְּ ?αεּ ?ψָ ?η, see on 1 Kings 15:23. 1 Kings 16:7. Came the word, &c. The εְ ?βַ ?ν is not equal to and also, or yes (De Wette), neither does it mean that Jehu himself bore the message, but rather “any former thought or excuse that might be brought forward was strongly rejected” (Ewald, Lehrbuch § 354). The whole of 1 Kings 16:7 is not, as the Rabbins say, a new and further prophecy, but a supplementary remark to the prediction 1 Kings 16:2, which might be misinterpreted as meaning that Baasha had a divine commission to murder Nadab and his race. No! the word, 1 Kings 16:2, spoken by Jehu was called forth by the fact that Baasha had of his own accord destroyed the whole house of Jeroboam, and yet himself had adhered to Jeroboam’s sin. This very word “clearly shows that the extermination of the house of Jeroboam was not done by divine commission, but from selfish motives.” For δִ ?λְ ?ςִ ?ιν, see above on 1 Kings 14:15. “The work of his hands” denotes, according to Deuteronomy 4:28, Dii factitii, whether images of Jehovah (calves) or idols. Historical and Ethical1. We have much less concerning the two Israelitish kings Nadab and Baasha and the acts of their reigns than of the two Judah-kings Abijah and Asa. The narrative merely says of Nadab that he walked in the ways of his father Jeroboam; i. e., that he retained unlawful institutions, and after a reign of scarcely two years was murdered in a conspiracy, by Baasha. But of the reign of Baasha, which lasted twenty-four years, our only narrative says that he destroyed all the whole house of Jeroboam after he (Baasha) became king, as was threatened to Jeroboam by the prophet Ahijah (1 Kings 14:7 sq.); that he also persisted in the sin of Jeroboam, and had the same fate as the latter announced to him by the prophet Jehu. We can see plainly from this what the principle which guided our author in his historical writing was. He does not care to give a complete account of all the facts and events of the reign of each king,—for these he refers to the authorities that lay before him,—but the thing rather which concerned him most of all, was the position each king took with regard to the Israelitish fundamental law, i. e., the covenant, which was the soul of the entire Old-Testament theocracy; and how the promises and threatenings of this law itself, or of the prophets charged with its announcements, and who spoke as the servants and ambassadors of Jehovah, became fulfilled (see Introd. § 5). The heavy judgment which overtook the house of him who first openly broke the fundamental law of the entire people, and made the image-worship (so strictly forbidden in that law) the religion of the State and people; that heavy judgment, we say, was a practical historical prediction for every royal house which persisted in “the sin of Jeroboam.” No less than nine dynasties of the kingdom of Israel, with whom this was the case, perished in like manner with the house of Jeroboam, until at last the kingdom itself was destroyed, whilst the dynasty of David continued uninterruptedly in Judah. 2. The little that is told of Baasha is sufficient to show that he was an ambitious, rough, and violent, indeed even a blood-thirsty man. He did not conspire against his lord and king, and usurp the throne, in order to bring the fundamental law of Israel into force again, and to make an end to the sin of Jeroboam, for he himself adhered firmly to it all his life, in spite of all the warnings and threatenings of the prophets. He only cared for dominion thereof, and for this he esteemed the sin of Jeroboam as necessary as the latter himself had done; in short, he seems to have been a rough soldier who cared little or nothing about religion. We see from his enterprise at Ramah (1 Kings 15:17), which he wished to fortify “to reduce Judah utterly, through complete obstruction of trade” (Ewald), that he hated Judah and wished to destroy it, and therefore to reign over it also. He was the first king-murderer in Israel, and led the way, as It were, to this crime, which was afterwards so often imitated. He was the first, too, who exterminated an entire royal house with violence, and not only killed the males, but “every one that had breath,” an unheard, of cruelty, even in throne-usurpations in the ancient East. Menzel (s. 171), who wrongly takes him to have been the son of the prophet Ahijah (see above on 1 Kings 15:27), intimates that he was therefore under prophetical influence, and then says that he “disappointed the hopes which the prophets of Jehovah had placed in him.” This, however, is pure fancy. The conspiracy of Baasha was completely a military insurrection, as 1 Kings 15:27 indubitably proves, while there is not a word to show that he was influenced by the prophets. He was, no doubt, one of the leaders in Nadab’s army, but there is no evidence in the history that he was “a man distinguished for his valor” and a “skilful warrior,” as Ewald calls him (III. s. 446 sq.); the general term, too, used in 1 Kings 16:5 is no proof. There is still less ground for the further supposition, that besides the growing discontent of the prophets, the fact that the house of Jeroboam had not been able to conquer the kingdom of Judah, and other enemies, was evidently the chief root of the insurrection against it; that Baasha thought he could perform more, and in this hope he seized the throne. The text does not say the least word of all this. For the sentence announced to Baasha by the prophet Jehu, see above, Hist. and Eth. on 1 Kings 14:1-20 (4). Homiletical and Practical1 Kings 15:25-31. The ruin of the house of Jeroboam proclaims these two great truths: sin is the destruction of a people (Proverbs 14:34), and: He who heareth not my word, of him will I require it (Deuteronomy 18:19). God does not punish the innocent children for the sins of their fathers, but those who, despising the divine patience and long-suffering shown to their fathers, perpetuate, without any shame, the sins of the fathers (Exodus 20:5-6). A given example of evil is rarely without imitation; as Jeroboam rebelled against the house of David, so did Baasha against the house of Jeroboam. Desire for rule and envy beget first dissatisfaction with the condition in life ordained by God, lead then to breach of faith, and end at last with murder and homicide. 1 Kings 15:29. Conspirators and rebels profess to overthrow tyranny and to throw off its yoke; but when they attain power and sovereignty they are themselves the most violent and cruel tyrants. 1 Kings 15:34. Calw. B.: Baasha trod in the footsteps of Jeroboam just as if Jeroboam had been good and upright. And yet Baasha himself was an instrument in the hands of God to punish Jeroboam on account of his sins. What folly! When Jeroboam’s son, Nadab, did as his father, we can explain it by paternal influence;—but that Baasha should have pursued the same course is a proof of monstrous blindness. The world does not allow itself to be interrupted in its purposes; vain conduct after the way of those who lived before, is always inherited (1 Peter 1:18).—Chap 1 Kings 16:1. The word of the Lord in the mouth of a true servant of God is, for the pious, sweeter than honey and the honey-comb (Psalms 19:11), for the wicked and impious it is a consuming fire, and like the hammer which breaketh the rock in pieces (Jeremiah 23:29). 1 Kings 16:2-4. Osiander: The sins of the common people which they have learned from their princes, as well also as those which these do not restrain when they can, are charged to them. Those who are lifted up out of the dust are often the proudest and most arrogant because they think they must thank only themselves for their exalted position, and they forget what is written in 1 Samuel 2:7 sq. For Baasha, also, the hour struck when it was said, Behold, oh! most proud, &c. (Jeremiah 50:31). The throne which has been obtained by lying, deceit, and falsehood and bloodshed has no stability. The judgment of God, though delayed for a time, will not always tarry (Psalms 5:6-7). Robbers and murderers are not always in caves and the hidden recesses of forests, sometimes they are seated upon thrones; but the Lord will “sweep them away,” and their end will be with horror: before His tribunal no people, no crown is a protection. Footnotes: 1 Kings 15:26.—[It is better here and in 1 Kings 15:34, &c., to retain the plural form of the Heb. Sin was doubtless intended to be understood collectively in the A. V. 1 Kings 15:27.—[The Heb. εַ ?ιִּ ?χְ ?ωֹׁ ?ψ from the root χָ ?ωַׁ ?ψ, to bind or tie together, is correctly translated conspired, and implies that others were concerned with Baasha in the plot. 1 Kings 15:29.—[μֹ ?ΰΞδִ ?ωְׁ ?ΰִ ?ιψλָּ ?μΞπְ ?ωָׁ ?ξָ ?δ, “he left not any that had breath,” i.e., he destroyed all, both male and female, of the house of Jeroboam, in contrast with the expression in 1 Kings 14:10, &c. Cf. Joshua 11:11; Joshua 11:14. 1 Kings 15:32.—[The Vat. Sept. omits 1 Kings 15:32, which has occasioned so much perplexity from its being an exact repetition of 1 Kings 15:16. For the reasons of its insertion see Exeg. Com. 1 Kings 16:6.—[The Alex. Sept. adds “in the twentieth year of king Asa”—an impossible date. Cf. 1 Kings 15:33.—F. G.] B.—The reigns of Elah, Zimri, Omri, and Ahab1 Kings 16:8-348 In the twenty and sixth year of Asa king of Judah began Elah the son of Baasha to reign over Israel in Tirzah, two years. 9And his servant Zimri, captain of half his chariots, conspired against him, as he was in Tirzah, drinking himself drunk in the house of Arza, steward of his house in Tirzah. 10And Zimri went in and smote him, and killed him, in the twenty and seventh year of Asa king of Judah, and reigned in his stead. 11And it came to pass, when he began to reign, as soon as he sat on his throne, that he slew all the house of Baasha: he left him not one that pisseth against a wall, neither of his kinsfolks, nor of his friends. 12Thus did Zimri destroy all the house of Baasha, according to the word of the Lord [Jehovah], which he spake against Baasha by Jehu the prophet, 13for all the sins of Baasha, and the sins of Elah his son, by which they sinned, and by which they made Israel to sin, in provoking the Lord [Jehovah] God of Israel to anger with their vanities. 14Now the rest of the acts of Elah, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel? 15In the twenty and seventh year of Asa king of Judah did Zimri reign seven days in Tirzah. And the people were encamped against Gibbethon, which belonged to the Philistines. 16And the people that were encamped heard say, Zimri hath conspired, and hath also slain the king: wherefore all Israel made Omri, the captain of the host, king over Israel that day in the camp. 17And Omri went up from Gibbethon, and all Israel with him, and they besieged Tirzah. 18And it came to pass, when Zimri saw that the city was taken, that he went into the palace [citadel] of the king’s house, and burnt the king’s house over him with fire, and died, 19for his sins which he sinned in doing evil in the sight of the Lord [Jehovah], in walking in the way of Jeroboam, and in his sin which he did, to make Israel to sin. 20Now the rest of the acts of Zimri, and his treason [conspiracy] that he wrought, are they not written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel? 21Then were the people of Israel divided into two parts: half of the people followed Tibni the son of Ginath, to make him king; and half followed Omri. 22But the people that followed Omri prevailed against the people that followed Tibni the son of Ginath: so Tibni died, and Omri reigned. 23In the thirty and first year of Asa king of Judah began Omri to reign over Israel, twelve years: six years reigned he in Tirzah. 24And he bought the hill Samaria of Shemer for two talents of silver, and built on the hill, and called the name of the city which he built, after the name of Shemer, owner of the hill, Samaria. 25But Omri wrought evil in the eyes of the Lord [Jehovah], and did worse than all that were before him. 26For he walked in all the way of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, and in his sin [sins] wherewith he made. Israel to sin, to provoke the Lord [Jehovah] God of Israel to anger with their vanities. 27Now the rest of the acts of Omri which he did, and his might that he shewed, are they not 28 written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel? So Omri slept with his fathers, and was buried in Samaria: and Ahab his son reigned in his stead.29And in the thirty and eighth year of Asa king of Judah began Ahab the soil of Omri to reign over Israel: and Ahab the son of Omri reigned over Israel in Samaria twenty and two years. 30And Ahab the son of Omri did evil in the sight of the Lord [Jehovah] above all that were before him. 31And it came to pass, as if it had been a light thing for him to walk in the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, that he took to wife Jezebel the daughter of Ethbaal king of the Zidonians, and went and served Baal, and worshipped him. 32And he reared up an altar for Baal in the house of Baal, which he had built in Samaria. 33And Ahab made a grove; and Ahab did more to provoke the Lord [Jehovah] God of Israel to anger than all the kings of Israel that were before him. In his days did Hiel 34the Beth-elite build Jericho: he laid the foundation thereof in Abiram his first-born, and set up the gates thereof in his youngest son Segub, according to the word of the Lord [Jehovah], which he spake by Joshua the son of Nun. Exegetical and Critical1 Kings 16:8-14. Began Elah to reign, &c. For Tirzah see on 1 Kings 14:17. As Elah commenced his reign in the twenty-sixth year of Asa, and according to 1 Kings 16:10 was killed in the twenty-ninth, the two years he was king could not have been full ones. ψֶ ?λֶ ?α is now generally translated riding; but a comparison with 1 Kings 9:19; 1 Kings 10:26 would seem to indicate that it should be chariot. There is no doubt that some of the chariot-cities which Solomon built (see on the place) were in the kingdom of Israel; perhaps “the half” of all the chariots were at the capital, and Zimri was placed over them. According to Josephus (Antiq.viii. 12, 4), Zimri took advantage of the absence of the army and its chief to undertake the siege of Gibbethon (see above on 1 Kings 15:27). The house steward Arza, who had arranged a drinking bout, was no doubt the principal person in the conspiracy which Zimri set on foot. Cf. 1 Kings 14:10 with 1 Kings 16:11. Zimri acted, as Grotius remarks, according to the tyrannical principles νήπιος, ὃςπατέρακτείναςυἱοὺςκατέλιπε. But he went farther than Baasha, inasmuch as he not only killed the relatives of the king, but also his friends, in order to secure himself from any possible blood-revenge; all this took place in a few days, for his whole reign was only seven days. For 1 Kings 16:12-13 cf. 1 Kings 16:3, and above on 1 Kings 14:15-16. δֲ ?αָ ?μִ ?ινi. e., vanitates, anything which is called God, yet is not God, and which is consequently vain and empty (cf. Deuteronomy 32:21). The word here does not refer to idols, properly speaking, but to images of Jehovah, which, however, are, like the former, empty and vain. 1 Kings 16:15-20. Did Zimri reign seven days, &c. The distance of Tirzah from Gibbethon requires us to suppose that the seven days apply to the time during which Zimri was in undisturbed possession of the throne, i. e., until the day when the army in Gibbethon made their chief, Omri, king, who then first went to Tirzah and besieged it. Zimri’s death followed when he saw that he could not hold the town against the besiegers. The “people” and “all Israel” mean here all those who were armed, i. e., the men of war. ΰֲ ?ψְ ?ξεֹ ?ο, from the root ΰָ ?ψַ ?ν to be high, is the part that was highest, that is “the fortress of the royal palace, the securest and inmost place, the citadel, as it were; for the royal palace contained a great number of buildings” (Gesenius, cf. 2 Kings 15:25). Zimri set fire to this last place of refuge, and through it to the entire palace, in order not to fall into the hands of his enemies, and to prevent the palace and all it contained from passing into their possession. Similar instances are to be found in Justin. hist. i. 3; Liv. xxi. 1 Kings 14 : Flor. ii. 18. Ewald’s rendering of ΰַ ?ψְ ?ξεֹ ?ο is quite arbitrary; he gives the “women’s chamber,” the harem; and supposes that Zimri went there, for the “effeminate man had only suffered the queen and other women of the palace to live, as they readily lent themselves to the murder of their lord; and the queen mother seems to have offered him her favor.” However, there is not a syllable of all this either in the text or anywhere else. Besides, the deed recorded in 1 Kings 16:18 rather displays courage and contempt of death than effeminacy. The Syriac has: and they, the besiegers, fired his royal house over his head; and Kimchi translates: and he, that is Omri, set fire, &c.; both are decidedly wrong. In consideration of Zimri’s short reign of seven days, we must conclude from 1 Kings 16:19 that he had formerly shown much partiality for the calf-worship of Jeroboam, and that, at the time of his accession, he had no intention of removing it. 1 Kings 16:21-22. Then the people of Israel divided. 1 Kings 16:21 sq. It is generally thought that two parties had arisen within the army, each of which wished to make their leader king, and that they fought for some time until the weaker party succumbed, and their leader Tibni fell in battle. According to Ewald, Tibni was assisted in the war by his brother Joram, and both fell in the one battle. But it is very doubtful if the “people of Israel,” 1 Kings 16:21, means the same as “the people that were encamped,” 1 Kings 16:18, i. e., only the army. The latter had not divided, for according to 1 Kings 16:16 Omri was made king by “all” the army; it is only said of him that he was the captain of the host, but neither this nor anything similar is said of Tibni. We have therefore more reason to suppose that after the death of Zimri a faction arose, which did not acknowledge the soldier-king Omri, who had been chosen by the army alone, and which faction set up Tibni in opposition. The Sept only makes mention of a brother of Tibni (καὶ ἀπέθανεθαβνὶ καὶ ’Ιωρὰμὁ ἀδελφὸςαὐτοῦ ἐντῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ), and Josephus also (Ant.viii. 12, 15), only says, Tibni was killed by Omri’s faction, but not that the two brothers fell in the same battle. 1 Kings 16:23-28. Began Omri to reign over Israel, twelve years. 1 Kings 16:23. According to 1 Kings 16:15 the elevation and death of Zimri occurred in the twenty-seventh year of the reign of Asa, king of Judah (929); according to 1 Kings 16:29, Ahab, the successor of Omri, came to the throne in the thirty-eighth year of Asa (918); therefore the twelve years of Omri’s reign could not have been twelve full years. And furthermore, if Omri became king in the thirty-first year of Asa, according to 1 Kings 16:23 (925), and yet died in the 38th year of Asa, according to 1 Kings 16:29 (918), that is, in from seven to eight years, it is plain that the twelve years of his reign are reckoned from the year in which he was made king by the host (929), but did not at the same time attain the sole sovereignty, as part of the people wished Tibni to be king. He became sole sovereign only in the year 925, so that the struggle with Tibni’s faction must have lasted four years. The six years during which Omri resided at Tirzah were the first half of the twelve years of his reign; during the latter six years he lived in Samaria, a city which he had newly built (1 Kings 16:24). In order to explain some chronological difficulties that occur later, with regard to the kings Jehoram and Jehoshaphat, Ewald (III. s. 432) refuses to reckon the four years before Tibni’s death in the twelve years of Omri’s reign, and as Asa reigned four years as a contemporary of Ahab, the successor of Omri (1 Kings 22:41), Asa could not have reigned forty-one years (1 Kings 15:10) but forty-seven, for the years mentioned in 1 Kings 16:15 amount to that; 27+4+12+4. “But according to this supposition, the numbers here and in 1 Kings 16:29, also in 1 Kings 15:10, which are perfectly correct, should be altered” (Thenius), and there is no reason whatever for doing so. The name ωֶׁ ?ξֶ ?ψ (1 Kings 16:24), is probably the same as ωׁ ?εֹ ?ξֵ ?ψ and ωָׁ ?ξֵ ?ψ (1 Chronicles 7:32-34), we cannot, therefore, pronounce the derivation of the name of the city to be “wrong,” because the owner must otherwise have been called ωֹׁ ?ξֵ ?ψ (Petermann). The mountain of Shemer is not far to the east of Tirzah, and it lies north-east of Shechem. The palace at Tirzah, which was destroyed under Zimri, does not seem to have been rebuilt, and Omri appears, as soon as he became king, to have taken the resolution of building a new capital and royal city, for which that mountain was peculiarly adapted. It was a “beautiful round mountain, covered with splendid trees, and lying in a valley or basin enclosed with mountains; “it commanded” a glorious prospect of the fruitful valley and the heights and villages surrounding it” (Knobel on Isaiah 28:1-4; Robinson, Palest. III. 1, p. 503 sq.). Samaria, therefore, continued to be the capital of the kingdom until its destruction. The two talents of silver, for which Omri bought the hill, are reckoned at 5,200 Thr. by Keil, and at 4,000 Thr. by Thenius [$3,900 and $3,000 respectively]. We may infer from Micah 6:16, where Judah is reproached with keeping “the statutes of Omri and all the works of the house of Ahab,” that Omri went further in regard to the worship than the former kings of Israel (1 Kings 16:25). We have no more exact information, but it is certain, at any rate, that he prepared the way for the state of things under his successor Ahab. That Omri was a valiant warrior appears from the word βְּ ?αεּ ?ψָ ?ϊεֹ (1 Kings 16:27), which is used respecting Asa and Baasha, Elah and Zimri, but not of Nadab. 1 Kings 16:29-33. Ahab.… to reign over Israel. 1 Kings 16:29-34 describe the government of Ahab generally; from chaps, 17 to 22 follow notices of separate events that occurred in this time, and then in 1 Kings 22:39-40, comes the usual concluding formula, the rest of the acts, &c. Our section, therefore, forms a general introduction, and at the same time the superscription to the following particulars; it is also designed to place the reader beforehand upon the stand-point from which all that is coming must be viewed and judged. Omri had departed farther than any of his predecessors from the fundamental law, but Ahab went still farther than his father (1 Kings 16:30 is therefore no mere repetition of 1 Kings 16:25). He was not contented with the sin of Jeroboam, but he formally introduced the service of Baal into his kingdom, in consequence of his marriage with Jezebel, and he even built a temple to Baal in the royal city and capital Samaria. Ethbaal is no doubt the Εἰθώβαλος (who was mentioned by Menander in Josephus c. Apion.I. 18), king of Tyre and Sidon, who succeeded to the throne about fifty years after Hiram’s death, and could, therefore, have very well been the father-in-law of Ahab; he was priest of Astarte and the murderer of his brother, king Pheles. What is related of Jezebel afterwards coincides perfectly with what we should expect from the daughter of such a father. δַ ?αַּ ?ςַ ?μ is the known chief male divinity of the Ph�nicians, “the sun god, which was regarded as the primary preserver and principle of physical life, and of the generative, reproductive power in nature, which flowed from his being” (Movers, Rel. d. Phφn. s. 184). According to 2 Kings 3:2; 2 Kings 10:27 the image of Baal which Ahab had made, was ξַ ?φֵּ ?αָ ?δ, i. e., a monument, a monumental pillar (see on 1 Kings 14:23). In the temple of the Tyrian Hercules (=Baal), at Tyre, there stood two pillars, one of gold, the other of emerald (Herodot. II. 44, see above). Besides the male divinity there was also the δָ ?ΰֲ ?ωֵׁ ?ψָ ?η, the female deity a (wooden) image of Astarte (see above 7). From the great number of the priests who were employed in the worship of Baal which Ahab introduced (chap, 1 Kings 18:19), it appears that it was very extensive and magnificent. More particulars regarding the temple of Baal are given in 2 Kings 10:25-27. That Ahab built besides “another splendid building of the same kind, which served as a sacred grove for Astarte, and which was probably close to his favorite palace at Jezreel” (Ewald III. s. 457), is a pure invention, of which there is not a single word in the text. 1 Kings 16:34. In his days did Hiel the Bethelite build Jericho. 1 Kings 16:34. The city of Jericho, which was very strong at the time of the conquest of the promised land, was destroyed after being taken, and Joshua pronounced these words over it: “Cursed be the man before the Lord that raiseth up and buildeth Jericho; he shall lay the foundation thereof in his first-born, and in his youngest son shall he set up the gates of it” (Joshua 6:1-2). This does not mean that no one should live there again, but he who endeavors to make it again what it was, i. e., a fortress, shall be severely punished. Jericho was afterwards apportioned to the tribe of Benjamin, but in Ahab’s time it certainly belonged to the kingdom of Israel (Joshua 18:21; 2 Kings 2:5; 2 Kings 2:18). At the command of Ahab, Hiel of Bethel (the chief seat of the calf-worship) now built, i. e. fortified (αָּ ?πָ ?δ as in chaps. 1 Kings 11:27; 1 Kings 12:25), Jericho again; probably because it lay on the borders of Ephraim, or was designed to protect the passage of the Jordan, which was near. Whether this was done in defiance of Joshua’s prediction, as older commentators think, or in ignorance of it, is uncertain; at any rate Joshua’s word was fulfilled. “We cannot doubt the truth of what is related in this verse, for the names are mentioned, and the signification of these names has no reference to the event” (Thenius). There is no other ground for the supposition that Joshua’s utterance was a vaticinium ex eventu than the rationalistic presupposition that all prophecies are impossible. The supposition of the Rabbins that all the sons of Hiel, from the eldest to the youngest, were destroyed during the building, is unsupported by the text. However, the question remains how the whole of the information contained in 1 Kings 16:34 comes to be inserted just here. As it follows immediately after the account of the introduction of the Canaanitish idolatrous worship by Ahab (1 Kings 16:30-33), our author may very well have thought of it in connection with the latter. The fortress of Jericho was, in Joshua’s time, die gate and key to the whole laud of Canaan; he who possessed it had the entire country open before him (Joshua 2:1; Joshua 2:24; Joshua 6:1 sq.). The taking of this town was, therefore, of the greatest importance; it was achieved by a miraculous act of Jehovah, which was compared, on that account, to the passage through the Red Sea, i. e., the complete deliverance from Egypt (Joshua 2:9 sq.). With it, the land of Canaan fell into the hands of the Israelites; with the walls of Jericho the stronghold of Canaanitism fell, its destruction was begun, and the pledge of the same lay, in a measure, in the destruction of that city. But just for this very reason it should never again become what it was before its capture. Ahab, however, who placed the country again in its ante-Israelitish condition through the introduction of the Canaanite idol-worship, caused the fortress, which had been destroyed by the almighty power of Jehovah, to be restored. As he denied the God of Israel, and placed the Baal of the Canaanites in His stead, so he also denied the great saving act of Jehovah as manifested in the fall and destruction of Jericho. He showed his apostasy from Jehovah by causing the walls of Jericho to be rebuilt. It appears, however, that the God of Israel would not surfer contempt of Him to go unpunished. The curse of Joshua was fulfilled as a warning that the divine threatenings would not remain unfulfilled. The account in 1 Kings 16:34, thus understood, is so well connected with that of 1 Kings 16:32, that it forms the direct transition to the activity of the prophet Elijah (of whom the following chapter treats) against the apostasy of Ahab. Historical and Ethical1. The unspeakable results of the partition of the kingdom, and the consequent breach of the fundamental law of Israel, appears more plainly in the history of the reigns of Elah, Zimri, Omri, and Ahab, than in those of the three previous kings. All four of these kings continued in the sins of Jeroboam, because they as well as he considered it to be necessary to the separate existence of their kingdom and to the support of their power. In fact each One surpassed the other until the image-worship reached its natural goal in the worship of idols (see above), which the last of them, Ahab, not only permitted, but introduced as the State-religion. With Ahab, therefore, the history of the kingdom of Israel comes to a conclusion relatively, and a new epoch begins, characterized by the appearing of the great prophet Elijah and his struggle with idolatry (chap. 17). The consequences of the partition, which were felt in the sphere of religion, were felt, in like manner, in that of politics, on account of the peculiar and inseparable connection of the Israelite people with their religion. The monarchy in Israel had arisen by means of rebellion and forcible separation from the house of David, and thus it lacked the ground of divine law. What Jeroboam conceived he was justified in doing, every other one thought he had a right to do also, as soon as he had followers and power enough; that was the case with Baasha and still more with Zimri and Omri. Thus the kingdom became the football of human ambition and caprice, so that one insurrection followed another; and in the comparatively short time of from fifty to sixty years, seven kings reigned, of whom four attained the throne by violence and even murder. But no blessing could rest on such a kingdom. The people of the ten tribes, who were already more inclined to nature-life, and therefore more adapted for the reception of Jeroboam’s calf-worship, must, by the persistence of their kings in this worship, and by their complete separation from Judah, the guardian and protector of the law, and with it of the spirited life by the nation, have sunk lower and lower. A people can indeed endure a bad ruler without themselves degenerating; but a whole line of sovereigns, of whom each obtained the throne by conspiracy, rebellion, and murder, is only possible where the people themselves are rough and barbarous. What social and religious degeneracy is presupposed, where the nation accepted all the abominations of its rulers, and where an Ahab (finally) met no opposition in instituting the shameful and indecent worship of Baal and Astarte as the State-religion! How far different the state of things in Judah! For though the religious liberty permitted by Solomon bore evil fruit, yet the fundamental law was always adhered to by the kings, and the idol-worship was completely destroyed by Asa, who reigned two years contemporaneously with Ahab. The kingdom was firm; there was not a trace of conspiracy or rebellion, and the house of David retained the throne. Although the kingdom of Judah was much smaller and weaker than that of Israel, and was continually in danger from the latter; yet, holding fast to its royal house, it victoriously repelled all attempts to subjugate it. Such was the blessing which rested in fidelity to Jehovah and His law. 2. Of the two kings, Elah and Zimri, we learn nothing besides that they held to the sin of Jeroboam, except how they died. This was, however, sufficient to characterize them. We see that Elah did not even inherit energy and courage from his father Baasha, but was a coward and a low-souled glutton; because when the whole army was engaged in combat with the Philistines before Gibbethon, he not only remained at home, but drank and caroused. Zimri was still worse; ambition led him to unfaithfulness and treason; he not only murdered his king and master, but the king’s whole house. How little esteemed and respected he was, appears from the fact that the whole army, as soon as they heard of his having ascended the throne, immediately made another king, and marched against Zimri. Then, when shut in and surrounded, he set fire to the citadel over his head and gave himself to the flames—his act was one of despair rather than of heroism. 3. The accounts of Omri’s reign are limited entirely to this: that he built the city of Samaria after the taking of Tirzah, and that he walked in all the ways of Jeroboam, and was worse than all who preceded him. It is not said in what respect he was worse, but it certainly implies that he maintained the anti-theocratic institutions of Jeroboam with great zeal and decision. It appears that he stood well as captain of the army, for it was in the camp that he was elected to the throne. Yet however valiant he may have been as a warrior, in the chief thing, i. e., in his relation to Jehovah and the theocratic fundamental law, he stood worse than any of his predecessors, and was furthest from being what was especially required of a theocratic king, that is, a servant of Jehovah. According to Ewald (III. s. 452 sq.), whom Eisenlohr (II. s. 150) again follows, Omri was “a ruler as enterprising as he was prudent,” and “very wisely took advantage of the times to secure greater prosperity for his kingdom and security to his own house. This camp-king ruled his people with great power and decision, not even sparing the prophets when they opposed his designs. But without, he sought..… the needful peace in order to strengthen himself in his internal relations. He concluded peace with the kingdom of Judah.… Omri’s chief efforts were directed towards the furtherance of trade, commerce,” &c. Every one that has eyes can see that the text does not say a word of all this; it gives us another example of how history is made. Omri is not great and distinguished even as a commander, for it took him four years to conquer the already weaker faction of Tibni, and according to 1 Kings 20:34; 1 Kings 22:3, he was, as Eisenlohr himself is obliged to confess, “forced to conclude a peace with (the Syrian king) Benhadad on very humiliating conditions.” It is not credible that a soldier-king should have thought only of quiet and peace; and it does not follow from the marriage of his son Ahab with the Sidonian Jezebel that his chief desires were for the furtherance of trade and commerce, for Ahab did not marry till after he became king, that is, after the death of Omri (1 Kings 16:31). It is just as arbitrary to conclude that because he was worse than they all, the prophets must have thrown obstacles in the way of his designs, and that he “punished their interference with the utmost severity.” Ahab is the first of these kings of whom we have a complete picture, which is given in the following chapters. Homiletical and Practical1 Kings 16:8-34. General reflections upon the history of the reigns of the four kings in the following succession, Elah, Zimri, Omri, and Ahab. (a) At variance as they were with each other, hating, destroying, and killing each other, yet they all remained faithful to the calf-worship, regarding it as the means by which they could maintain their own kingdom and their dominion over Judah. The religion of the people in the service of the policy of the sovereign. How often does it happen that selfish profit, power, or seeming form the real motive of a confession of faith. (b) One exceeds the other in revolt against the living God.—Calw. B.: In sin and departure from God there are always gradual advances, just as in godliness and well-doing—one step follows another, and the slavery of sin is ever increasing (2 Timothy 3:13). (c) One successful insurrection seldom stands alone in history, but is ever followed by a fresh one, and becomes a passion, which, like a deadly plague, saps the moral and religious life of a nation to its foundations. Hence the apostle’s meaning: let no man, &c. (1 Timothy 2:1-3). 1 Kings 16:8-10. King Elah. (a) He riots and carouses whilst his people are pouring out their blood in war. It is a sign of great barbarousness and rudeness amid exterior refinement, when the great and rich lead a frivolous and luxurious life, whilst the masses eat their bread in the sweat of their brow, and are famishing. A riotous court life is the usual precursor of the storm which shakes or destroys the throne (b) Death overtakes him in drunkenness. To go suddenly and unprepared from time into eternity is a heavy fate; but it is still more fearful to leave the world in darkness. Therefore, we should daily pray: Lord, teach us so to, &c. (Psalms 90:12).—Wόrt. Summ.: The nearer chastisement comes to the ungodly the more secure are they. When they say, “There is peace, there is no danger,” then destruction shall overtake them suddenly, and they shall not escape from it (1 Thessalonians 5:3; cf. Psalms 39:6). Therefore: be sober, &c. (1 Peter 5:8). It is fearful, when one can say nothing more of a man than, “He has despised God and his word, served his belly, and ended his life with a revel. Better to famish and be miserable with Lazarus, and then to be borne by angels into Abraham’s bosom, than with the rich man to live in splendor and revelry, and afterwards to suffer the pains of hell. 1 Kings 16:9. Drunken revels are an abomination unto the Lord, and only occur where the fear of the Lord is absent. The drunkards rank with those (1 Corinthians 6:9-10) who will not inherit the kingdom of God, and the Lord Christ warns: Take heed to yourselves, &c. (Luke 21:34). 1 Kings 16:11-20. Zimri, King, (a) His way to the throne: Treachery, cunning, murder. He shunned no means to gain his end. That is the way of the ungodly; but without their knowledge or will they are compelled to be scourges and whips in the hand of the Lord (Isaiah 10:5). (b) His end: a speedy and fearful one. Only seven days did the dominion which he so coveted, and attained through such villany, last. Lightly come, lightly go. The ungodly are like the chaff, &c. (Psalms 1:4; Psalms 1:6). He gave himself up to death, in flames of fire. The ungodly are utterly consumed, &c. (Psalms 73:19). As he had lived, so he died. 1 Kings 16:18. The doom of despair is the end of a life given over to sin, which has lost sight of the living God, and can never again find Him. Frequently, what the world regards as heroism and contempt of death is simply cowardice and crime in the sight of God. The Lord has no pleasure, &c. (Ezekiel 18:23). It requires more courage and bravery to bear the merited punishment of one’s sins than to escape from it by suicide. 1 Kings 16:21-28. The King Omri. (a) How he became king. When the king is chosen by the people instead of receiving the crown from the hand of God by right of inheritance, which is by the grace of God, factions are sure to arise, which wage bloody conflicts, and waste the best strength of the people, until, at length, the stronger party conquers the weaker by violence. The curse of party spirit, (b) How he reigned. He built Samaria, making it the strong centre of the kingdom, but he walked in all the sins of Jeroboam, and “did worse” than all who went before him. A man may be skilful and useful to himself and others, in all material and worldly things, whilst in spiritual and divine things he works only mischief and destruction. What, without religion, is so-called civilization? 1 Kings 16:29-34. The King Ahab. (a) His union with Jezebel—a marriage contracted not in obedience to God’s holy will, but merely upon worldly grounds and political considerations, and was therefore the source of great mischief to himself and to his people. (b) The uplifting of idolatry over the religion of the country. The calf-worship was merged in the Baal worship. The greatest tyranny is the tyranny over conscience, which pretends to rule also over belief. The worst rule is that which, instead of demanding recognition of the truth, substitutes lies and errors, and exercises its power in aid of unbelief and of superstition, (c) The rebuilding of Jericho. By means of “faith” the walls of Jericho fell (Hebrews 11:30). Idolatry will build them up again, but the curse rests upon them. He who builds up what the Lord has destroyed, falls under his judgment. 2 Chronicles 13:12 : Fight ye not, &c. Julian, who rebuilt the heathen temple, and the Jews, who rebuilt the temple of Jerusalem, were confounded and brought to shame. Footnotes: 1 Kings 16:8.—[The Vat. Sept. omits the preceding comparative date. 1 Kings 16:11.—[The Vat. Sept. omits the latter half of 1 Kings 16:11 and the first of 1 Kings 16:12. 1 Kings 16:11.—[βֹּֽ ?ΰֲ ?μָ ?ιε = his kinsman who might avenge his death. The full force of the word βֹּ ?ΰִ ?μ as the avenger of blood can hardly be conveyed by any single English word. 1 Kings 16:15.—[The Vat. Sept. here again omits the comparative date. 1 Kings 16:18.—[The division of verses breaks the connection, and obscures the dependence of 1 Kings 16:19 upon the word “died.” 1 Kings 16:22.—[The Sept. adds, “and Joram his brother at that time.” 1 Kings 16:27.—[Many MSS. and editions, followed by the Sept. and the Syr., insert εְ ?λָ ?μ before ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψςָ ?ωָׂ ?δ = “his might and all that he did,” thus assimilating the expression to that used in regard to some other kings, cf. 1 Kings 16:14; 1 Kings 15:7; 1 Kings 15:23; 1 Kings 15:31, &c., although the expression of this text is also used elsewhere. 1 Kings 16:28.—[The Vat. Sept. here inserts (with some chronological variations) the account of the reign of Jehoshaphat from 1 Kings 22:41-50, again repeating that account (without those variations) in its proper place. The insertion was evidently made to avoid the chronological difficulty between verses 23 and 29, for the explanation of which see the Exeg. Com. Accordingly in 1 Kings 16:29 instead of the 38th year of Asa the Vat. Sept. has “in the second year of Jehoshaphat.” The Alex. Sept. follows the Hebrew.—F. G.] [Of course our readers will estimate at their value these stiff monarchial sentiments. The present Editor, here as elsewhere, prefers to translate in this work rather than omit them, because it is due to the author to give his work fairly in a translation. But here he enters a mild caveat, and avails himself of the opportunity to say that his task is not that of a reviewer, and consequently he has allowed many things to pass without comment, from which he differs widely and thoroughly.—E. H.] SECOND AHAB TO SECTION The Prophet Elijah During Ahab’s Reign 1 Kings 17, 18, 19A.—Elijah before Ahab, at the brook Cherith, and in Zarephath1 Kings 17:1-241 And Elijah the Tishbite, who was of the inhabitants of Gilead, said unto Ahab, As the Lord [Jehovah] God of Israel liveth, before whom I stand, there shall not be dew nor rain these years, but according to my word.2And the word of the Lord [Jehovah] came unto him, saying, Get thee hence, 3and turn thee eastward, and hide thyself by the brook Cherith, that is before Jordan. 4And it shall be, that thou shalt drink of the brook; and I have commanded the ravens to feed thee there. 5So he went and did according unto the word of the Lord [Jehovah]: for he went and dwelt by the brook Cherith, that is before Jordan. 6And the ravens brought him bread and flesh in the morning, and bread and flesh in the evening; and he drank of the brook. 7And it came to pass after a while, that the brook dried up, because there hadbeen no rain in the land. 8And the word of the Lord [Jehovah] came unto him saying, 9Arise, get thee to Zarephath, which belongeth to Zidon, and dwell there: behold, I have commanded a widow woman there to sustain thee. 10So he arose and went to Zarephath. And when he came to the gate of the city, behold, the widow woman was there gathering of sticks: and he called to her, and said,Fetch me, I pray thee, a little water in a vessel, that I may drink. 11And as she was going to fetch it, he called to her, and said, Bring me, I pray thee, a morselof bread in thine hand. 12And she said, As the Lord [Jehovah] thy God liveth, I have not a cake, but a handful of meal in a barrel, and a little oil in a cruse: and,behold, I am gathering two sticks, that I may go in and dress it for me and my Song of Solomon , 8 that we may eat it, and die. 13And Elijah said unto her, Fear not; go and do as thou hast said: but make me thereof a little cake first, and bring it unto me, and after make for thee and for thy son. 14For thus saith the Lord [Jehovah] God of Israel, The barrel of meal shall not waste, neither shall the cruse of oil fail, until the day that the Lord [Jehovah] sendeth rain upon the earth. 15And she went and did according to the saying of Elijah: and she, and Hebrews , 10 and her 16house, did eat many days. And the barrel of meal wasted not, neither did the cruse of oil fail, according to the word of the Lord [Jehovah], which he spake by Elijah. 17And it came to pass after these things, that the son of the woman, the mistress of the house, fell sick; and his sickness was so sore, that there was no breath left in him. 18And she said unto Elijah, What have I to do with thee, O thou man of God? art thou come unto me to call my sin to remembrance, and to slay my son? 19And he said unto her, Give me thy son. And he took him out of her bosom, and carried him up into a loft, where he abode, and laid him upon his own bed. 20And he cried unto the Lord [Jehovah], and said, O Lord [Jehovah] my God, hast thou also brought evil upon the widow with whom I sojourn, by slaying her son? 21And he stretched himself upon the child three times, and cried unto the Lord [Jehovah], and said, O Lord [Jehovah] my God, I pray thee, let this child’s soul come into him again. 22And the Lord [Jehovah] heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived.23And Elijah took the child, and brought him down out of the chamber into the house, and delivered him unto his mother: and Elijah said, See, thy son liveth.24And the woman said to Elijah, Now by this I know that thou art a man of God, and that the word of the Lord [Jehovah] in thy mouth is truth. PreliminaryThe history of the prophet Elijah, which begins with the chapter now before us, is continued in chapters 18, 19, 21, 2 Kings 1, and is brought to a conclusion in 2 Kings 2, belongs, as is known, not only to the weightiest portions of our own, but of the Old Testament historical books generally. Hence it has been the object frequently, both of special theological inquiry and also of devotional consideration. In this respect we name here: Eichhorn: Ueber die Prophetensagen aus dem Reiche Israel (in der allgem. Bibliothek der bibl. Literatur iv. 2 s. 193 sq.). Niemeyer: Charakteristik der Bibel V. s. 257 sq. Knobel: Der Prophetismus der Hebrδer ii. s. 73 sq. Rφdiger: In der Hall. Encyclopδdie Bd. 33 s. 320. Kφster: Die Propheten des Alten und Neuen Testaments, s. 70 sq. Winer: R.- W.-B. I. s. 317 sq. Ewald: Geschichte Israels iii. s. 485 sq. und 533 sq. Kurtz, in Herzog’s R.-E. iii. s. 754 sq. Sartorius: Elias und Elisa, 3. Heft der Vortrδge όber die Propheten, Basel, 1862. Menken: Christliche Homilien όber die Geschichte des Propheten Elias, 2 Bd. der gesammelten Schriften, Bremen, 1858. (These 1798 homilies are, as the preface rightly remarks, “a complete ascetic commentary.” They are to this day unsurpassed, and belong to what is best that has ever been said and written upon Elijah.) Fr. W. Krummacher: Elias der Thisbiter, 4. Ausg. Elberf., 1851. K. M. Wirth: Das Leben des Propheten Elias, Predigten, Bern, 1863. F. Bender: Alttestamentliche Lebensbilder in Predigten, 3. Bδndchen: Die Propheten Elias und Elisa, Stuttgart, 1858. [See also Dean Stanley: Jewish Church, Lecture 30. F. D. Maurice: Prophets and Kings of the Old Testament, Sermon viii. Bp. Hall: Contemplations, &c., Book 1 Kings 17:6, 7, 8. F. W. Robertson: Sermons, Second Series, vi.—E. H.] Besides the sections in our books just referred to, we have no further accounts of the history of Elijah. As his activity was limited to the kingdom of Israel, the Chronicles, which are occupied specially with the kingdom of Judah, furnish no parallel accounts. They make no mention of Elijah, except that he wrote a letter to king Joram (2 Chronicles 21:12 sq.), of which, however, we find nothing in our books. Elsewhere in the Old Testament, Elijah is mentioned but once (Malachi 4:5). How high he stood in the estimation of the later Jews may be learned from the praise of him in the Wisdom of Solomon (1 Kings 48:1–12). In the New Testament no prophet is mentioned and extolled so frequently as Elijah: whence certainly it follows that in the time of Christ and of the Apostles generally, a high significance was attached to him in the sphere of the history of redemption. Rabbinical tradition supplements indeed the history of the prophets, but its statements are so marvellous, and in part so absurd (Cf. Schφttgen, Hor. heb. II., p. 533; Eisenmenger, Entdecktes Judenthum II. s. 401 sq.), that not the slightest historical value can be conceded to them. They certainly show, however, the extraordinary estimation in which then and always Elijah stood amongst the Jews. Origen, Jerome, and Eusebius mention apocryphal accounts of Elijah, and even the Mohammedans have their fables about him (See Winer s. 320 and Ewald s. 548). In respect now of the narrations in our books, as to form and contents, they are so unmistakably distinguishable from the chapters which precede, and which are inserted amongst them (15, 16, 20, and 22), as to place it beyond doubt that they belong to another documentary source, the work assuredly of some prophet, and probably incorporated into the great historical collection in the hands of our author (see Introd. § 2). Lately, distinctions between the different accounts have been made; and it has been maintained that they are the product of different periods. According to Ewald, chap. 21. is the most ancient, and 2 Kings 1 Kings 1:2-17 the latest section (so Thenius also in respect of the latter); but that the main portion, (chaps, 17, 18, 19, 2 Kings 2:1-18) was written by one person, who lived at the close of the eighth or the beginning of the seventh century, i.e., some two hundred years after Elijah. This view rests, however, upon a completely unjustifiable perversion of the history, by virtue of which the punishment of Naboth (chap, 21) decided the whole turn of affairs in Israel. When the author of the main portion of the narrative lived cannot be determined. That “he cannot have lived before the end of the eighth or the first half of the seventh century,” is an assumption which rests only upon the undemonstrated opinion of the unhistorical character of the story of Elijah in general, but which does not necessarily follow from this. Who in that period, far from being an insignificant one, could have been the author? Recent criticism, on account of the “accumulation of the miraculous” in the expositions of the life and work of Elijah contained in our books, pronounces it more or less unhistorical. At first the attempt was made to explain this miraculous element away by giving to the events concerned a merely natural coloring (cf. Exeget. Handbuch des Alt. Testaments, 8 and 9; St. Bauer, Hebr. Mythologie II. s. 156 sq. and Gesch. der hebr. Nation II. s. 406 sq.; Ausfόhrliche Erklδrung der Wunder II. s. 148), but, as Winer mildly expresses it, “not with a very felicitous result,” examples of which shall be cited below. Subsequently this was entirely abandoned. The view now current takes this form: we have before us here, “not history strictly speaking, but a tradition-sketch;” the entire delineation wears often “a wholly fabulous character” (Thenius), and is hence full of “the marvellous” (Winer), and yet “the fabulous is so closely connected with the historical that it is scarcely possible to separate the one from the other in all particulars” (Rφdiger, Knobel). The latest way of looking at the matter goes still farther, claiming that the documentary source employed by our author “is a poetico-prophetic work of a later age, in which the image of such an extraordinary phenomenon as Elijah had gradually become stronger and more colossal,” that in this work, still further, “older narratives and treatises were manifestly made use of,” only “the author, conceiving of everything with poetic loftiness, lifted up the reader even to a height often dizzy, has formed anew the whole history of Elijah and of his time.” It is “a wonderful, creative representation of the sublimest prophetic truths,” and “is freed besides of every fetter of prosaic historical material” (Ewald, l.c., s. 534 sq., whose words Eisenlohr, as usual, repeats). Bunsen has expressed this view in the sharpest way (Bibelwerk fόr die Gemeinde V. 2, s. 540. sq.): “The whole narration of the life of Elijah is a firmly welded popular epic in its execution, from the beginning to end … for the wonderful power of this spirit and for his astonishing manifestations our poem serves better than a dry narration of the actual occurrences. It is the fruit of an inspiration which he, like some superhuman being as it were, awakened in his disciples. Nothing but boundless ignorance, or, where historical criticism has not died out, only an hierarchical-dilettanti reaction, foolhardy hypocrisy or weak-headed fanaticism, would wish to demand the faith of the Christian community in the historic truth of these miracles as if they had actually taken place.” Reserving details for the particular statements, we remark as follows, in a general way, upon these various modes of view of the new criticism. (a) In respect of “the accumulation of the miraculous,” from which the new criticism generally, in disputing the historical character of the account about Elijah, proceeds, Kurtz says—”It must be confessed that these miracles, partly at least, are surprising through their outwardness, and that, were we justified in supposing that mythical embellishments entered into the biblical history at all, here (and in Elisha’s story) more than anywhere else would they be found.” If indeed it be presupposed that a miracle is an impossibility, and is to be relegated, consequently, to the sphere of legend or of fiction, the history of Elijah must appear certainly as legendary and unhistorical. But if this be not presupposed, the frequent manifestation of the miraculous in this history cannot surprise us. The entire history (Heilsgeschichte) of the Old and New Testament, as the actual revelation of the living, holy God, who is infinitely above all natural, finite being, is a great continuous miracle, and is likewise the soil in which all miracles, in particular, are rooted. But as it has, like every other history, its main epochs, which form the gathering-points of its development, so it is agreeable to its nature, that just at these very points the miraculous should appear stronger, more distinctly and more frequently, and the appearance of any person who stands at the apex of a new epoch should be accompanied by miracles. The concentration of revelation leads, in the nature of the case, to a concentration of the miraculous, and moreover, in a way which corresponds with the steps in the development of the people, and the position of the person who leads them. Such was the case with Moses, the founder of the Covenant, and with Christ its finisher, and it would be surprising if in the case of Elijah, the restorer of the Covenant (see below, Historical and Ethical), miracle should not be present. Ewald confesses this when (s. 510) he says: “The sphere of religion is always that of wonder, while that of strong faith in the being and agency of heavenly powers is in action as well as experience; where also there is the strongest intensity of true religion, there will such wonders in part actually take place through the activity of the believing spirit, and in part will be experienced, at least, by believing hearts … In so far were the days of Elijah and of Elisha, then, when the true religion was compelled to maintain itself most stringently against its internal foes, as rich in wonders as of old the days of Moses and of Joshua had been.” Sartorius also justly remarks: “The activity of these prophets of an older time did not consist in testimonies simply by word of mouth, in long speeches and extended discourses, like those of the later prophets, but in deeds laid upon them by God, wrought by them in the strength of God, which they taught people rightly to understand only, in brief statement, as a sign from the Lord.…Especially was the falling away at that time at such a pass that the conversion of souls could not be accomplished by words simply, but by demonstrations of the power of the living God, and these we see now in the miracles of Elijah.” What Christ says in John 5:36 of His works, is true, mutatis mutandis, of Elijah. They were signs and witnesses, and there can be no discussion here of a surprising “outwardness” in any particular. They have all a spiritual kernel, and often speak deeper and louder than words. The proof of this devolves upon the exegesis. If the legendary be so cemented with the historical, as the new criticism confesses, that it is “impossible” to separate them, the accounts generally can have no historic worth, and it would be more consistent, critically, to explain them as fiction. For the rest, supposing that tradition has added this or that, it by no means follows, as has been assumed, that all the miraculous belongs to the legendary only, and is unhistorical. The miraculous which the Jewish tradition has grafted upon the biblical accounts is of the sort which can be readily distinguished from that which in the Bible itself is explained away as legendary. But never would a tradition, running out into what is irregular and extraordinary, have been formed, had Elijah’s appearing been without any miracle. (b) The notion that the accounts of Elijah are portions of a larger poetical work, in fact a national epic, does away readily with many difficulties, but at the same time is involved in irreconcilable contradictions. No one can deny that the author of our books wished to write an historical work. Had he regarded the history of Elijah, as contained in his documentary sources, not as history but as “fiction,” he would not have incorporated it into his work, and have placed it side by side with the other documents to which he appealed. Least of all would he have done this in a main portion, in the history of the prophet who makes an epoch in the history of the monarchy, yea, of the theocracy of the Old Covenant. Of course, if he held that to be history which he incorporated into his own work he would have claimed in its behalf acceptance upon the part of his readers. If, finally, it were “fiction,” that objection of “unlimited ignorance,” absence of “historic sense,” “foolhardy hypocrisy,” or “weak-headed fanaticism” would before all strike him, and he would, at the same time, disclaim for his whole history all trustworthiness and credibility. If the documentary source belonged to the end of the eighth or the beginning of the seventh century, then for the space of two hundred years, down to the days of our author, no one remarked that it did not contain history, but was only a fiction. The history of Israel was likewise the history of the divine revelation, and consequently a matter not for the poets but for the prophets (see Introd. § 2), and nothing can be more certain than that the prophet who composed the documentary source, did not mean to write a popular epic, but history. But apart from every other consideration, the narratives about Elijah, notwithstanding their peculiar coloring, are not related to the remaining portions of our books as poetry to prose. The extreme simplicity and directness of the narratives (cf. Thenius, Comment. s. 218), the pregnancy of expression, the frequent designation of places, the many individual characteristico-psychological traits impart to the whole an historical impress so unmistakable, that the events narrated cannot possibly be regarded as a poetic costume and “representation of the sublimest prophetic truths” and general religious ideas. Ewald’s view, that the author of the documentary source had gathered together everything with poetic elevation, and has lifted his readers up to a height which is often giddy, contradicts flatly his own previous assertion: “How grand everything said of him (Elijah) may be, still all accounts can be but a feeble image of the original grandeur, and the all-conquering might of this great prophetic hero of the ten tribes.” If the appearing of Elijah were originally so grand—and “there can be no doubt actually of the marvellousness of his prophetic activity”—if he achieved the “incredible miracle of a complete alteration in the condition of the ten tribes at that time,” we see no reason why the author of the documentary source could or would have been moved “to form anew the whole history of Elijah and of his time,” “to make an entire new thing,” and to “get rid of every fetter in the way of a lower historical material.” When Bunsen says, “we have legends, not myths,” but adds, “the historical character of the life and of the personality is not at all imperilled thereby,” this is simply a contradiction. For legends are no history, and in the way of history all that remains is that once an Elijah lived and did great things; all besides is insecure and uncertain, is in fact legend presented in a poetic garment. Exegetical and Critical1 Kings 17:1. And Elijah the Tishhite. When under Ahab the falling away from Jehovah in Israel reached a degree never hitherto known (1 Kings 16:30-34), then the prophet Elijah appeared and announced to the king, &c. Thenius is of the opinion that the proper opening of the history of Elijah here is missing, and that the manner of his appearance presupposes an activity in the past. Von Gerlach also says, “the history has a great gap here, at its beginning,” for Elijah appears as one in connection with whom extraordinary occurrences were known for a long time. But this view is not necessary. It is in the highest degree probable that Elijah lived, up to that moment, in retirement, that his prophetic activity first began with his encounter with Ahab, and that then his history, strictly speaking, began, like that of Mark and Matthew, and of John the Baptist his copy. This sudden coming forth corresponds well with the peculiarity of his appearing, hence also Jesus Sirach (Sir 48:1-12) begins his eulogy upon Elijah with the words: “Then stood up Elias the prophet as fire, and his word burned like a lamp. He brought a sore famine upon them,” &c. The name ΰֵ ?μִ ?ιָּ ?δεּ or ΰֵ ?μִ ?ιָּ ?δ (2 Kings 1:3 sq.), i.e., not, according to the old interpreters: My strength is Jehovah, but: My God is Jehovah, refers to the life’s calling of the prophet, which was to bear witness against Jehovah as the one true God over against Baal. It is not at all likely that he gave this significant name to himself (Thenius). In 1 Kings 21:17 he is called the Tishbite without any addition. In Tob 1:2 only, is θίσβη, a place, mentioned, “which is at the right hand of that city which is called properly Naphtali, in Galilee above Aser.” As there is no mention anywhere of a place of that name, this must be the Thisbe. The addition ξִ ?ϊּ ?ωָׁ ?αֵ ?ιβִ ?μְ ?ςָ ?γ says that Elijah of Thisbe was born in Galilee, but was living in Gilead, in the land lying over against Ephraim, on the other side of Jordan. Instead of ξִ ?ϊּ ?ωָׁ ?αֵ ?ι Ewald, Thenius, and Kurtz wish, after the Sept. (ὁ θεσβίτηςὁ ἐκθεσσεβῶντῆςΓαλαάδ), to read ξִ ?ϊִּ ?ωְׁ ?αִּ ?ι, so that the sense would be, the Tishbite, namely, of the Thisbe which is in Gilead, but which is not the Thisbe in Galilee, mentioned in Tob 1:2. But there is no proof that there was a Thisbe in Gilead. Even ϊּ ?εֹ ?ωָׁ ?α does not force us to this reading: for it does not designate a stranger, i.e., a non-Israelite, but one who had wandered off into another tribe, and was dwelling there, like the still stronger βַּ ?ψ in Judges 17:7 of the Levite who was of Bethlehem in Judah, and had settled himself in Ephraim. That the generally plene written ϊּ ?εֹ ?ωָׁ ?α stands here without ε makes nothing against the Masoretic punctuation (Keil on the place). Whether Elijah came from the unknown Thisbe in Galilee, or from the equally unknown Thisbe in Gilead, is a matter of no moment, but it is certain that he came over into Samaria from the country east of the Jordan. Said unto Ahab, &c. It is often maintained that the words of Elijah are the conclusion of a longer conference with Ahab, and the Talmud (Sanhed. 1 Kings 22:1) states the occasion and the contents of the same, but most arbitrarily. The prophet surely entered into no dispute with Ahab. According to his constantly observed plan, he appeared before the backslider with a short but incisive word, which he understood well enough without any extended reasoning. As the Lord God of Israel liveth is the usual form of an oath, which here at the same time places Jehovah, the only living God, in contrast with Baal, the dead idol. The addition also, the God of Israel, stands out in its full meaning: the true living God is He also who had chosen Israel and made a covenant with them, which was now shamefully broken by idolatry. With the words, before whom I stand (1 Kings 1:2; 1 Kings 10:5; 1 Kings 10:8), Elijah designates himself to the king as the servant and ambassador of Jehovah, and that as such he stands before him and announces the impending punishment. This punishment, that there should be no dew nor rain, was not arbitrary and prejudiced, but was threatened in the law for the sin of falling away, and suited the especial circumstances. The fruitful land of Canaan was promised to the people, after their exodus from Egypt, on the condition that they would keep the covenant of Jehovah, and not serve other gods. But in the event of a falling away it was threatened that the heavens should become brass, and the earth iron, i.e., that it should become unfruitful; and this, for an agricultural people, was the direst evil (Leviticus 26:19 sq.;Deuteronomy 11:16 sq.;1 Kings 28:23 sq.; cf.1 Kings 1 Kings 8:35; Amos 4:7 sq.). Never hitherto had the covenant been broken, and idolatry been formally introduced, as under Ahab; if ever at all, now must the threatening be carried into execution. Such a punishment was at the same time an evidence against the Baal-worship; for since Baal was worshipped conspicuously as the generating Nature-power, so was the impending drought and barrenness a tangible proof of the impotence and nullity of this idol. It is not to be overlooked that Elijah, while he announces the coming of the punishment threatened by Moses, and in a certain degree executes it, places himself, at the outset, in the direct position of a mediator and founder of the covenant, as another Moses, i. e., as the restorer of the covenant. The prophet announces the continuance of the drought only in a general way, because it would depend upon the conduct of the king and of the people. He therefore adds, but according to my word, perhaps “in opposition to others, particularly the prophets of Baal” (Keil), certainly for the humiliation of the haughty king, who had set himself up above Jehovah and his commandment, and now must feel himself dependent upon the word of a man whom he despised, one of his subjects, but who, nevertheless, “was standing before Jehovah.” 1 Kings 17:2-3. And the word of the Lord came unto him, &c. How Ahab received the announcement of the prophet, whether angrily or indifferently, is not stated. Certainly he did not lay hands upon him, who seems to have disappeared as unexpectedly as he came. From the more general direction eastward, which is followed by the more especial ςַ ?μΞτְּ ?πֵ ?ι of Jordan, Thenius justly concludes that the brook Cherith flowed easterly from Jordan (Genesis 16:12; Genesis 23:19; Joshua 18:14), in opposition to the tradition which locates it this side the same river (see Keil). What recent writers deliver in respect of its situation are, after all, uncertain guesses, and nothing can be gathered concerning it from its name λְּ ?ψִ ?ιϊ, i.e., separation. The assertion that the “brook” was called Cherith, i. e., drying up, because it used to dry up (Krummacher) much sooner than all others, is a sort of lucus a non lucendo. For it seems, on the other hand, to have belonged to the class of perennial fountains, and upon that account to have been pointed out to the prophet in the time of drought. Certainly the prophet was not concealed “in order to get out of the way of importunate prayers for the removal of the punishment” (Keil), for a man of such inflexible will would not find it necessary to get out of the way of such prayers. We surmise rather that his design was to be safe from the persecution of Ahab and Jezebel; for he would be able the more readily to fly into the neighboring kingdom of Judah. It was also requisite, after that great declaration, that he should again retire into the obscurity from which he had emerged, and not appear again “until men were convinced of the truth of his word by the results thereof, and would feel their need of him and of his God, and he could labor mightily and decisively against the idol-worship” (Menken). Since God had appointed him to an extraordinary task, it was necessary, after he had begun it with the announcement of the judicial punishment, to retire into obscurity, in order to prepare for all that his calling brought with it, both great and grievous. The sojourn in the desert was “the time when he grappled and wrestled in prayer for his people, and was himself purified and strengthened for his future deeds” (Von Gerlach). “Most of the saints and great men lived, before their entrance upon their public career, in profound obscurity: so Moses, so Jesus himself, so Paul, who spent three years in Arabia after his conversion. God receives His people first in silence in his school, until He can use them openly (Calwer Bib.). The second Elijah, John the Baptist (Matthew 11:14; Matthew 17:12), was in the wilderness when the command of God came to him to appear openly (Luke 1:80; Luke 3:2). 1 Kings 17:4-6. I have commanded the ravens, &c. To command means “as much as to make use of them in the execution of his purposes” (Berleb. Bibel). As the God who hath made heaven and earth and all that therein is, hath “commanded” the serpents (Amos 9:3), and the clouds (Isaiah 5:6; Psalms 78:23), the sea also (Job 38:11), so likewise the ravens. By means of these the supply of the prophet with food is promised, not “against their own voracity, because subject to the will of God” (Thenius), but because they have their habitat, and are found in wild and desolate places (Isaiah 34:11; Zephaniah 2:14). As the raven, according to Leviticus 11:15; Deuteronomy 14:14, belongs to the unclean class of birds, Kimchi and other rabbins, referring to Ezekiel 27:27, explain ςֹ ?ψְ ?αִ ?ιν as merchants. But apart from the consideration that ςֹ ?ψֵ ?α by itself never means merchant, Elijah was not to eat the ravens, and the eating only of unclean creatures was forbidden. It is even still worse to read ςַ ?ψְ ?αִ ?ιν, i.e., Arabians (1 Chronicles 21:16), or to suppose that the inhabitants of the unknown city Orbo, or of the rock Oreb (Judges 7:25), are meant (cf. on the other hand Bochart, Hieroz. II. i. 2). Gumpach is altogether out of the way when he translates 1 Kings 17:6,—and the ravens coming to him were bread and meat; for then Elijah would have, been compelled to eat, in order to be nourished, unclean creatures forbidden by the law. 1 Kings 17:7-12. And it came to pass after a while, &c. Not after the course of a year, but after some time; for ιָ ?ξִ ?ιν can only be understood of the space of a year when the connection necessarily requires it, as in Judges 11:40; Judges 17:10; Leviticus 25:29. Luther’s translation: after several days, is also incorrect. Zarephath lay between Tyre and Sidon, also in the native land of Jezebel. There is still extant a village named Surafend with remains of an ancient date (Robinson’s Palestine, vol. II. p. 474–475). The “commanding” here is the same as in 1 Kings 17:4.—The widow woman, &c., 1 Kings 17:10. From the fact that she was gathering sticks it is evident that the woman was poor and forsaken. To test whether she were the person who was to provide for him, wearied by his journey in the heat of the sun, he begs her first of all for a drink of water (by λְּ ?μִ ?ι a drinking-cup which he had brought from the brook Cherith is to be understood). As she readily complied with his request he went further, and asked for a mouthful of bread, and observes from her reply, in which she speaks only of her son, and not of her husband, that she was a widow, and also that she knew Jehovah, the God of Israel. Then he was no longer in doubt that she was the person who was to care for him. αְּ ?ιָ ?γֶ ?κְ at the conclusion of 1 Kings 17:11 is not to be connected with μִ ?χְ ?ηִ ?ι but with τַּ ?ϊΞμֶ ?ηֶ ?ν: a bit of bread which thou hast (Sep. ψωμὸνἄρτουτοῦ ἐντῆ χειρίσου). From the oath by “Jehovah,” and the addition “thy God” it is obvious that the woman recognized in the man thus asking of her an Israelitish prophet, which, indeed, his dress proclaimed (2 Kings 1:8), and likewise that she also knew of Jehovah the God of Israel. The supposition that she knew only the name of this God, and then, “so much the more to secure confidence” (Thenius), swore not by her own, but by the God of Elijah, makes her simply a hypocrite; for no one swears by a God whom he does not honor and recognize as a God. She indeed names Jehovah the God of the prophet, but while she swears by this God she gives it to be understood that the God of the prophet is also her God. In any event she was not a worshipper of the Ph�nician Baal and Astarte, otherwise an Elijah would not have been directed to her. How and where she learned to know the God of Israel, we do not ascertain. But it is certain that she knew him. It is not impossible that she was an Israelite by birth, who had been married to a Ph�nician. To dwell in a foreign land, with an Israelitish widow, seems entirely suitable to the prophet’s situation. The passage in Luke 4:25 does not suggest that she was a heathen and worshipper of idols, but that she was not in the native land of the prophet. By ξָ ?ςεֹ ?β “the smallest-sized bread in the form of cake is to be understood (Thenius). It is baked in hot ashes; the Sept. has ἐγκρυφίας (cf.Ps. 1 Kings 35:16). λַּ ?γ is a little vessel for holding meal. Oil was used in baking. The woman was collecting the wood to have her last “baking,” for she saw before her death from starvation. 1 Kings 17:13-16. And Elijah said unto her, Fear not, &c. The prophet attaches to his word of consolation a demand which was, for the woman, a severe test of her faith. Never would he have made the demand, and still less would she have paid any attention to it (1 Kings 17:15), had she been a heathen and worshipped idols. That at the word of Jehovah, the God of Israel (1 Kings 17:14), she did what the prophet bade her, certainly shows a faith which could scarcely be found in Israel. ϊϊο is the infinitive ϊֵּ ?ϊ with the syllable ϊֵ ?ο repeated as in 1 Kings 6:19. The addition, and her house, 1 Kings 17:15, while in 1 Kings 17:12-13 her son only is mentioned, means that there was so much meat and oil that even her poor relations came to partake thereof. The Sept. in 1 Kings 17:12-13, without any authority, has τοῖςτέκνοις, and in 1 Kings 17:15, τὰ τέκνα, and Thenius would like to make the text to conform to this. The same author, without reason, wishes, with the Vulgate (et ex illa die), to refer ιָ ?ξִ ?ιν to the following verse: and from that time the barrel wasted not. It means simply a long while, like Genesis 40:4; Numbers 9:22. 1 Kings 17:17-18. And it came to pass after these things, &c. It went so far with the sick son that “there was no breath left in him.” The same expression occurs also in Daniel 10:17 (cf.1 Kings 1 Kings 10:5), but where it does not, however, at all describe death (i.e., being in a state of death). It would be a mistake to maintain that these words can mean only that he died. We must rather conclude, that as the text does not say εַ ?ιָּ ?ξֹ ?ϊ it did not mean to say it. 1 Kings 17:18; 1 Kings 17:20 likewise do not compel us to think of a being in a state of death, and Josephus, who certainly was not afraid of the miraculous, gives our words thus—“ὡςκαὶ τὴςψυχὴνἀφεῖναικαὶ δόξαινεκρόν. The illness was certainly mortal, and the boy would have remained in a breathless and lifeless condition, had not Elijah rescued him from death. The action of the prophet is hence miraculous, which he did not perform by his own human power, but which the God who doeth wonders achieved through him. The formula ξַ ?δΞμִּ ?ιεָ ?μָ ?κְ (cf.2 Sam. 1 Kings 16:10; Judges 11:12; 2 Kings 3:13; Matthew 8:29; John 2:4) has, according to the connection, a somewhat different sense. Here it expresses, as the respectful form of address, “Man of God,” shows, not strong dislike, or “the breaking up of outward fellowship and a demand for his departure” (Thenius), but distress and lamentation: Is this the result of my association with thee? Must such sorrow befall me because thou art with me? The words immediately following are to be connected therewith; αָּ ?ΰϊָ, &c., which do not convey a positive accusation or objection, but, with the Sept., Vulgate, Thenius, and others, are to be understood interrogatively: Was it necessary for thee to come to me, &c. As mothers, at the loss of a beloved child, often seek for the reason of it in some definite occasion, so here the troubled woman has the thought that the death of her son is a punishment for her sin, which first becomes known properly before God through the man of God, who, as such, is in a special intercourse with God. We can scarcely find “the presumption” in this thought, that “the appearance of a higher being brings undoubtedly death to the person to whom it happens” (Menken after Hess), but rather the erroneous supposition that by intercourse with the holy man of God, and in contrast with him, her sinful nature first becomes clear and known to the holy God. As in contrast with the holy will of God revealed in the law, man in his sinfulness knows himself, the same is true also in contrast with such men as walk before the holy God, and within whom His holy will lives and works (Luke 5:8). The error lay in this—that the woman supposed that in the degree in which she had come to the knowledge and the feeling of her sin, God also was then taking cognizance of it, and punishing her. “Folly indeed in the thought, but in this folly what truth of feeling and humility” (Krummacher). This error the prophet sets aside, not by means of a long didactic reply, but by a rescuing action which must have convinced her that the distress did not overtake her on account of her special sin, but ὑπὲρτὴςδόξηςτοῦ θεοῦ, and that “the works of God might be manifest thereby” (John 9:3; John 11:4). 1 Kings 17:19-23. And he took him out of her bosom, &c. He goes “into his lonely chamber in order to be alone with his God, and to be able to pray all the more freely. Here he pours out his heart, inwardly moved by sympathy at the grief of the mother, and much distressed at the incomprehensibleness and unexpectedness of this divine providence, in humble trustfulness before his God” (Menken). Cf.Acts 1 Kings 9:40; 2 Kings 4:33. In the question to God (1 Kings 17:20) there is no cavil; it is rather the expression of a man wrestling in prayer with God, who does not doubt that God will hear him (James 1:6).—And he laid him, &c. How this was done is more fully stated in 2 Kings 4:34. Like Christ, the prophet of all prophets, when he healed the dumb, and the blind, and the blind from his birth (Mark 7:33; Mark 8:23; John 9:6-7), so Elijah proceeded in this case. He employs rational means for warming and re-vivifying, not with the hope that of themselves they would prove effectual, but in the sure confidence that God, in answer to his weeping supplication, would impart supernatural, divine, i.e., life-giving, force to the natural human instruments, and this happened.—Three times Elijah stretched himself upon the child, calling upon God, not so much because everything to be thoroughly and completely done must be done thrice (three are the true unit), as rather because the calling upon the name of Jehovah in the old covenant was a threefold act (Psalms 55:18; Daniel 6:10); thrice in the high-priestly benediction was the name of Jehovah laid upon Israel (Numbers 6:22); thrice did the seraphim before the throne of Jehovah cry out holy (Isaiah 6:3). 1 Kings 17:24. And the woman said, &c. The sense of her words is not that she had doubted hitherto whether Elijah were actually a man of God, but that now she knew it; for she names him such in 1 Kings 17:18, and as such regards him as the cause of her grievous visitation. Rather she explains, now (ςַ ?ϊּ ?δζֶ ?δRth 2:7; 2 Kings 5:22), she is convinced anew and most assuredly about it. ΰֱ ?ξֶ ?ϊ at the end is not to be taken adverbially: that thou art truly a prophet and speakest the word of Jehovah, but as a substantive: that which thou, in the name of Jehovah, speakest as His word is truth, upon which one can entirely repose. The experience in 1 Kings 17:14 is confirmed here to its fullest extent. Menken is incorrect here in understanding by γְּ ?αַ ?ψΞιְ ?δεָֹ ?δ “the whole announcement of the truth, all taken together, which Elijah had said and taught during his stay in her house, concerning truth and error, the worship of idols and the worship of God,” &c. The expression never means this, but always simply the word of Jehovah which He Himself speaks or has spoken. Historical and Ethical1. The first coming forth of Elijah is in the highest degree characteristic, and, as it were, the superscription, in the way of action, to his entire appearing; for it throws light, at the outset, upon the peculiarity both of his personality and of his public activity. Living until then in the greatest obscurity and entirely unknown, he stands suddenly there “like one fallen from the clouds, to be compared with the lightning of God, like a lighted fire-brand hurled by the hand of Jehovah” (Krummacher), and after he had spoken his word, which “burned like a torch” (Ecclesiast. 1 Kings 48:1), he again disappears, and no one knew whither he had gone (1 Kings 18:10; cf. 2 Kings 2:16-18; 1 Kings 9:3; 1 Kings 9:8). Wholly alone, without any power or influence behind him, he encountered the mighty king fearlessly and courageously, not like a suppliant, but threatening and punishing (cf. chap, 1 Kings 18:15; 1 Kings 21:20; 2 Kings 2:15 sq.). His speech is brief and pithy, firm and definite. He delivers no elaborated address; the word he speaks is like a deed. “There is something great, majestic, divine, in the coming forth of this prophet” (Menken). No less striking is the substance of his first utterance. He announces to the chief of the kingdom of the ten tribes, carried over into formal idolatry by the sin of Jeroboam, and now completely cut loose from the covenant (1 Kings 19:10), the punishment which was threatened in the covenant (=law), that he may forsake his evil ways and turn unto the God of his fathers. But in this he does not bring to light merely one side of his prophetic calling, but the core and heart thereof. The peculiar, specific place which he occupied in the economy of grace was to raise up and restore the covenant which had been communicated and established by Moses, but had become violated. As restorer and reformer he stands in immediate relation to Moses, the founder of this covenant. Hence we shall see, not only in the course of his history is there much that is analogous with the history of Moses, but he appears also together with Moses at the transfiguration of the Lord (Luke 9:28-35), and both speak “of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem.” They both represent the Old-Testament economy in contrast with Him who, by his “decease,” carries it to its end and fulfilment. As another, second Moses, Elijah’s entire personality and work in his calling bears also supremely an historical character. And as the restoring and rehabilitation of the covenant demanded, necessarily, an overthrowing and removal of the idol-worship, already deeply rooted and powerful, not only must glowing zeal and impartial strictness be combined in this character so devoted to the law, but also a judicial activity itself. Hence his acts often have the appearance of hardness and violence. The period of his appearing was, for the covenant-breaking, idolatrous generation, a day of divine judgment, a time of visitation and chastening. But in so far as the restoration of the covenant did not concern outward, political relations, but the ethico-religious relation to Jehovah, the Holy One, and aimed to “turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers” (Malachi 4:6), Elijah was properly the prophet of repentance. This, indeed, he announced by his dress (2 Kings 1:8), which thereafter was the official dress of the prophets and preachers of repentance (1 Kings 19:19; 2 Kings 2:13; Zechariah 13:4), and in which he appeared, of whom the Lord said, “and if ye will receive it, this is Elias which was for to come” (Matthew 3:4; Matthew 11:14; Matthew 17:11). And what was his first word but a call to repentance? Kurtz is somewhat one-sided in his judgment on Elijah’s position in the divine economy. He says: “In his official position the absolute one-sidedness of the exhibition of law, and the limit of his vision and of his activity to the present, which is therewith connected, characterizes him.…for the understanding of this, his one-sided position as prophet, having to deal neither with hopes nor with promises, we should not lose sight of the fact that he wrought and lived in the kingdom of Israel, not in the kingdom of Judah. Only there, not here, is the coming of a prophet like Elijah comprehensible. In the kingdom of Judah a prophet like Elijah would certainly have taken a different course.… there, all would have worked upon him and would have made something else out of him.” If this were so, it is not easy to explain why he, in preference to all other prophets, should have appeared, along with Moses, at the transfiguration of Christ, and why the Lord, in the passages already cited, should attribute to him such high significance for the Messianic age, just as the prophet Malachi had already done (1 Kings 4:5, 6). It was not Elijah’s calling to refer to the Messiah in words and discourses, he had to do only with the rehabilitation of the broken covenant, and Messianic predictions could follow only upon this. Under existing circumstances, this could be brought about only by great, mighty actions. Elijah, hence, was, as we have already remarked, a prophet of action, “the great hero-prophet of the kingdom of the ten tribes” (Ewald). His whole career was active. His person was a living prophecy of him who appeared before the day of the Lord, the day of judgment, so also of grace (cf. Hengstenberg, Christologie III. s. 441 sq.) 2. The three wonderful occurrences which follow upon the first coming forth of Elijah are in immediate relation to the time in which they took place, and which was a period of general distress in consequence of the drought, and it was also a time of preparation for the coming activity of the prophet. And the transactions here brought together lose in this way the appearance of being only accidental and arbitrary, which might have happened just as suitably at any other time. Far from being mere “miracles,” and from calling up and favoring an unworthy representation of the nature (being) of God, they are signs and witnesses of the living, personal God over against the apotheosis of Nature, and the dead idols which have mouths and speak not, eyes and see not, ears and hear not, hands and handle not (Psalms 115:4-7). All that is grand and glorious about this God, which the Scripture teaches, stands here before us in deeds. The God who has made heaven and earth and all that therein is, and given to the world its laws, does not stand beneath but above it, so that “leaves and grass, rain and drought, fruitful and unfruitful years, food and drink, health and sickness, wealth and poverty, and all things, do not come to us hap-hazard, but from His fatherly hand” (Heidel. Katech.). He does not lack the means to deliver out of all distress and even death itself (Psalms 68:21): He is near unto all who call upon Him. He does for all who call upon Him earnestly what they who fear God desire. He hears their cry and helps them (Psalms 145:18 sq.). He often leads them by dark paths, but “they are mercy and truth unto such as keep His covenant and His testimonies” (Psalms 25:10). For Elijah, indeed, the necessary experiences of this period of preparation for his great career, were both a trial and a strengthening of his faith. When in the most fruitful district itself, where there was scarcity, he is remanded first to a desert in which there is an absence of all food, and only a brook which at any moment might dry up, and then in a foreign land to a widow almost at death’s door from starvation. But here a calamity befell, out of which no deliverance seemed possible. He acts, nevertheless, in firm faith and asks no question, like the people in the wilderness (Psalms 78:19 sq.), and the more his faith is proved and exercised, so much the more is it strengthened, so much the more gloriously is the power and fidelity of the living God verified unto him. Thus disciplined and strengthened, he first properly becomes an instrument to destroy the heathen abominations and to bear the name of his God before the Gentiles and before the kings and before the children of Israel (chap. 18). 3. Elijah’s subsistence in the desert is and remains, according to the simple, clear sense of the narrative, miraculous. “It is almost laughable,” as Winer rightly says, when many ancient and recent expositors, even Rabbins, make the ravens to be Arabs or merchants; but it is not much better when J. D. Michaelis supposes that Elijah had a hunting-ground for ravens, as well also as young hares, rats, and mice, which they would carry to their nests, or had trained them as hawks for the hunt. Others, like Knobel, perceiving the preposterousness of such explanations, have referred to “the like cases amongst profane writers:” “Semiramis, exposed as a newly-born infant, was nourished by doves; a bitch gave suck to Cyrus, a shewolf to Romulus and Remus; the same is narrated by Ζlian, v. 12, 42, of hinds, mares, bears, goats” (Prophet. der Hebr. II. s. 84; cf. Rφdiger, Allg. Encyklop. Bd. 33, s. 322). All these myths of children-nursing animals have grown up upon the soil of nature-religion, and are consequently specifically heathen. Their sense is that the power of nature, revealing itself in the suckling animals, is transferred to the child, or they explain how this or that person, remarkable by a special power, has obtained it by the same being the distinguishing trait of some animal (ζῶον). What has this remote resemblance to do with the fact that the God who holds in His hand all creatures, provided the necessary nourishment for his prophet in the wilderness by the occupants of this wilderness, the ravens. Quite apart from their sense and meaning, not even in their outward form do these myths allow of a comparison with our narrative. That which has been adduced in the way of parallel is equally inappropriate. When Jerome (Opp. i. p. 239) states that the hermit Paul was fed daily by a raven provided with a half loaf for the period of sixty years, this obviously is but an exaggerated imitation of our story. Hess (Gesch. der Kφn. Isr. I. s. 99) refers to the “credible accounts that exposed children, exiles, fugitives have been sustained for a long time by animals,” and remarks thereupon: “Such narrations are rarely questioned, except when they are adduced by the writers of the Bible, as proofs of a special divine providence;” but he adds, that in the case before us much remains that is “inexplicable.” 4. The sojourn of Elijah with the widow of Sarepta, considered quite apart from the fact that it served as a preparation for his public activity, constitutes a weighty moment in his history, because it shows us one side of the prophet which is thrown into the back-ground in his public career, but which, nevertheless, belongs essentially to a complete portraiture of the great man of God. While over against the fallen, covenant-breaking, idol-serving generation he was inexorable and uncomprising, denouncing and judging, threatening and punishing, to the poor widow he was sympathizing and friendly only, full of fellow-feeling and compassion, comforting, blessing, and helping. He there, for the first time, appears great and wonderful, for it is manifest that that harshness and severity was not characteristic, not inborn, but was founded in the special place which he was destined to occupy in the economy of grace. Never would he have; fulfilled his calling to put an end to the crime of a ruinous idolatry, and to be a second Moses, if he had shown the same traits to Ahab and Jezebel which he did to the widow of Sarepta. Elijah had to make good, first of all, obedience and resignation to the will of God at the brook Cherith, compassion and love at Sarepta, then it was that he appeared in the sight of God furnished with iron-severity to judge and to punish. “Now since thou hast learned sympathy, go hence and preach, and speak to the people:” these are the words to him which Chrysostom puts into the mouth of God (Opp. vi. p. 109). 5. The narrative represents the fact, that the meal in the barrel and the oil in the cruse did not fail, to have been quite as much an extraordinary act of God as the previous support by means of the ravens. The grossest prejudice alone can say: “Here there is not a syllable that this was done by miracle: God gave his blessing so, that by the labor of her hands, assisted perhaps by the prophet, she secured for herself the necessaries of life” (Dinter, Schull. Bib. on the place). In that case Elijah’s promise, 1 Kings 17:14, was nothing more than an exhortation to industry, but no prophet was needed for this. Knobel is equally unsatisfactory (as above s. 81), when in the whole narrative he finds nothing more than “the view that the blessing of God rests where men of God are.” The words of the Lord, in Luke 4:25, do not at all authorize us to think that this was simply an ordinary act of divine providence. Hess (as above s. 104) says: “As for myself, I find the narrative so beautiful and as suitable to God as anything, and place confidence in the old author, when, without fear of any wisdom, whether of that time or of to-day, he continues, She went and did as Elijah bade her, &c.” Menken: This whole history glorifies God, whom the Scripture teaches us to know in His unapproachable greatness and in His affable mercy and condescension. A God such as the human heart in the needs of this present life needs always and desires; the all-governing Ruler, the alone-independent, the free master over all nature, who gives dew and rain, and punishing lands and peoples, withholds and takes away bread and water. But the individual man is not forgotten of Him; no, not even the beggar on the highways. He beholds not only the whole, but the single parts: He looks not only into the palace of kings, but into the huts of poverty. The need and misery of a poor widow are not too insignificant for Him; he observes her sighs and tears, and her silent desolate cabin is for Him a place worthy of the revelation of His glory and goodness (Isaiah 57:15; Isaiah 66:1 sq.). 6. The revivifying of the child, on account of the prophet’s mode of procedure, has been explained as a physician’s act. The narrative has, so Knobel supposes, its foundation “in the circumstance that the prophets exercised also the function of physicians.” The boy, in consequence of frequent convulsions, suffered a severe fainting-fit, and was brought back again to life by pressure, animal warmth, and applied restoratives (Meyer in Berthold’s Theol. Journal iv. 230). According to Ennemoser (Magnetism. s. 422) this was a case of animal magnetism (Winer, R.- W.- B. I. s. 319). But nothing is more certain than that the text adduces no proof of the medical skill of the prophet, nor says anything of a human medical act of healing: it sets forth an act of God done by means of the prophet. Before he stretches himself upon the boy the prophet calls once and again imploringly upon Him who can both kill and make alive (Deuteronomy 32:29; 1 Samuel 2:6; 2 Kings 5:7): Let the soul of this child come to it again! “and Jehovah hearkened to the voice of Elijah.” The revivifying is like an answer to prayer. It is not the prophet, as a “thaumaturgist” or as a physician employing natural means, but Jehovah who hears the prayer of His servant and delivers from death. If in addition to praying he stretches himself upon the child, he did this after the genuine prophetic way; the visible human deed served as substratum for the divine, and this divine deed is affirmed and attested in the prophet’s. The deeds of the prophets are signs (ΰεֹ ?ϊ) which represent what God does or will do by means of them, and are more or less symbolical actions (see above). The outward action was, in the case, the sign of that which God alone could do; it is not the delivering, quickening might and power, but only the medium denoting it. Homiletical and Practical1 Kings 17:1. The first appearing of the prophet Elijah. (a) The time when; (b) the message with which he appeared. The prophet Elijah, (a) his name—my God is Jehovah; (b) his origin: Thisbe, an insignificant, unknown place, like Bethlehem and Nazareth; (c) his condition and calling: he stands before the Lord, the God of Israel. General distresses, like hunger and famine, sicknesses and epidemics, are not mere natural events, but they are the judgments of God upon the godless and the God-forgetting; they are the trials of the pious, and to all they cry: repent and be converted!—Menken: Men in general have never been willing to recognize, and are still unwilling to recognize, the fact that need and misery upon earth stand in the closest relation to their conduct towards God; that through their need they may be called back to Him whom they have forsaken, and feel what it is when God withdraws His hand, when they are left to themselves, when the Almighty withholds His gifts and blessings, and sends His punishments and plagues. The God of Israel is the living God because He has spoken to Israel and has, through His word, revealed Himself to them (Psalms 147:19-20). God has spoken to us by His Son, the image of His Being (Hebrews 1:2), and has revealed Himself in Him much more gloriously to us; therefore Christendom knows no other living God than the father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Who can venture to say that he stands before God? He who, like Elijah, has firm faith, is unconditionally obedient to the word of God, and fearlessly and courageously pursues the path God has prescribed for him (Isaiah 41:10).—Krummacher: It is the way of our God from of old that he takes people, by whom He will accomplish something great, from the dust rather than from thrones, so that it may be manifest how all things happen according to His purpose, how that flesh and blood have not done this and that, but that to him alone belongs the glory. 1 Kings 17:2-9. Bender: Elijah at the brook in the wilderness. (a) How his faith was tried, and (b) how it was crowned.—Wirth: Elijah at the brook Cherith. How the Lord protects and conceals him; how He leads him into the wilderness; and how He cares for him. Elijah in the wilderness. (a) Why the Lord sends him thither; (b) what he suffered him to experience there. 1 Kings 17:3. Go away and hide thyself. (a) Go away. A hard word for a heroic man like Elijah, who has threatened the king and the whole people, and must now flee and expose himself to scorn and contempt. Going away often requires more self-denial than remaining. For the testimony to the truth, the command at one time is, remain and fear not (Acts 18:9 sq.), at another, go from that city, &c. (Matthew 10:14; Matthew 10:23 sq.); they “must, like their Lord, often appear in the form of a servant, and can wear upon earth no other crown than a crown of thorns, and if at any time their power is so great that they can give or take away dew and rain upon earth, and can punish kings and peoples, at another time they must bow and bend, suffer and be silent, and in the eye of the world appear weak and powerless, so that they and others may thereby know all the more profoundly, that the superabundant might is of God, and not of themselves” (Menken). But to every true Christian also the command often comes, go hence, remain not where men are serving the world and Baal, where the word of the Lord is despised, and the fear of the holy and righteous Lord has disappeared. [See The Hermits of the Rev. Charles Kingsley.—E. H.] (b) Hide thyself. In order to be able to achieve his great, severe, and holy task and to be fitted for it, Elijah had to go into retirement, where he was alone with his God and learned to say, Lord whom have I, &c. (Psalms 73:25 sq.). Every man who has done anything great in the kingdom of God has passed a long time in retirement and solitude. But to every faithful Christian also the command has come, hide thyself, go into the stillness and solitude. The hidden man of the heart, with soft, still spirit (1 Peter 3:4), does not thrive in the perpetual tumult and babbling noise of the world. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ B.—Elijah at Mount Carmel1 Kings 18:1-461 And it came to pass after many days, that the word of the Lord [Jehovah] came to Elijah in the third year, saying, Go, shew thyself unto Ahab; and I will send rain upon the earth. 2And Elijah went to shew himself unto Ahab. And there was a sore famine in Samaria. 3And Ahab called Obadiah, which was the governor of his house. (Now Obadiah feared the Lord [Jehovah] greatly: 4for it was so, when Jezebel cut off the prophets of the Lord [Jehovah], that Obadiah took an hundred prophets, and hid them by fifty in a cave, and fed them with bread and water.) 5And Ahab said unto Obadiah, Go into the land, unto all fountains of water, and unto all brooks: peradventure we may find grass to save the horses and mules alive, that we lose not all the beasts. 6So they divided the land between them to pass throughout it: Ahab went one way by himself, and Obadiah went another way by himself. 7And as Obadiah was in the way, behold, Elijah met him: and he knew him, and fell on his face, and said, Art thou that my lord Elijah? 8And he answered him, I am: go, tell thy lord, Behold, Elijah is here. 9And he said, What have I sinned, that thou wouldest deliver thy servant into the hand of Ahab, to slay 10me? As the Lord [Jehovah] thy God liveth, there is no nation or kingdom, whither my lord hath not sent to seek thee: and when they said, He is not there; 11he took an oath of the kingdom and nation, that they found thee not. And now thou sayest, Go, tell thy lord, Behold, Elijah is here. 12And it shall come to pass, as soon as I am gone from thee, that the Spirit of the Lord [Jehovah] shall carry thee whither I know not; and so when I come and tell Ahab, and he cannot find thee, he shall slay me: but I thy servant fear the Lord [Jehovah] from my youth. 13Was it not told my lord what I did when Jezebel slew the prophets of the Lord [Jehovah], how I hid a hundred men of the Lord’s [Jehovah] prophets by fifty in a cave, and fed them with bread and water? 14And now thou sayest, Go, tell thy lord, Behold, Elijah is here: and he shall slay me. 15And Elijah said, As the Lord [Jehovah] of hosts liveth, before whom I stand, I will surely shew myself unto him to-day. 16So Obadiah went to meet Ahab, and told him: and Ahab went to meet Elijah. 17And it came to pass, when Ahab saw Elijah, that Ahab said unto him, Art thou he that troubleth Israel? 18And he answered, I have not troubled Israel; but thou, and thy father’s house, in that ye have forsaken the commandments of the Lord [Jehovah], and thou hast followed Baalim. 19Now therefore send, and gather to me all Israel unto Mount Carmel, and the prophets of Baal four hundred and fifty, and the prophets of the groves four hundred, which eat at Jezebel’s table. 20So Ahab sent unto all the children of Israel, and gathered the prophets together unto Mount Carmel. 21And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the Lord [Jehovah] be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word. 22Then said Elijah unto the people, I, even I only, remain a prophet of the Lord [Jehovah]; but Baal’s prophets are four hundred and fifty men. 23Let them therefore give us two bullocks; and let them choose one bullock for themselves, and cut it in pieces, and lay it on wood, and put no fire under: and I will dress the other 24bullock, and lay it on wood, and put no fire under: and call ye on the name of your gods, and I will call on the name of the Lord [Jehovah]: and the God that answereth by fire, let him be God. And all the people answered and said, It is well spoken. 25And Elijah said unto the prophets of Baal, Choose you one bullock for yourselves, and dress it first; for ye are many; and call on the name of your gods, but put no fire under. 26And they took the bullock which was given them, and they dressed it, and called on the name of Baal from morning even until noon, saying, O Baal, hear us. But there was no voice, nor any that answered. And they leaped upon the altar which was made. 27And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked. 28And they cried aloud, and cut themselves after their manner with knives [swords] and lancets, till the blood gushed out upon them. 29And it came to pass, when midday was past, and they prophesied until the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice, that there was neither voice, nor any to answer, nor any that regarded.30And Elijah said unto all the people, Come near unto me. And all the people came near unto him. And he repaired the altar of the Lord [Jehovah] that was broken down. 31And Elijah took twelve stones, according to the number of the tribes of the sons of Jacob, unto whom the word of the Lord [Jehovah] came, saying, Israel shall be thy name: 32and with the stones he built an altar in the name of the Lord [Jehovah]: and he made a trench about the altar, as great as would contain two measures of seed. 33And he put the wood in order, and cut the bullock in pieces, and laid him on the wood, and said, Fill four barrels with water, and pour it on the burnt sacrifice, and on the wood. And he said, Do it the second time. And they did it the second time. 34And he said, Do it the third time. And they did it the third time. 35And the water ran around about the altar; and he filled the trench also with water. 36And it came to pass at the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice, that Elijah the prophet came near, and said, Lord [Jehovah] God of Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel, let it be known this day that thou art God in Israel, and that I am thy servant, and that I have done all these things at thy word. 37Hear me, O Lord [Jehovah], hear me, that this people may know that thou art the Lord [Jehovah] God, and that thou hast turned their heart back again. 38Then the fire of the Lord [Jehovah] fell, and consumed the burnt sacrifice, and the wood, and the stones, and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench. 39And when all the people saw it, they fell on their faces: and they said, The Lord [Jehovah], he is the God; the Lord [Jehovah], he is the God. 40And Elijah said unto them, Take the prophets of Baal; let not one of them escape. And they took them: and Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon, and slew them there. 41And Elijah said unto Ahab, Get thee up, eat and drink; for there is a sound of abundance of rain. 42So Ahab went up to eat and to drink. And Elijah went up to the top of Carmel; and he cast himself down upon the earth, and put his face between his knees, 43and said to his servant, Go up now, look toward the sea. And he went up, and looked, and said, There is nothing. And he said, Go again seven times. 44And it came to pass at the seventh time, that he said, Behold, there ariseth a little cloud out of the sea, like a man’s hand. And he said, Go up, say unto Ahab, Prepare thy chariot, and get thee down, that the rain stop thee not. 45And it came to pass in the mean while, that the heaven was black with clouds and wind, and there was a great rain. And Ahab rode, and went to Jezreel. 46And the hand of the Lord [Jehovah] was on Elijah; and he girded up his loins, and ran before Ahab to the entrance of Jezreel. Exegetical and Critical1 Kings 18:1. And it came to pass, &c., &c. The whole of the eighteenth chapter is distributed in three sections; the middle one of which is the chief (1 Kings 18:21-40); the first (1 Kings 18:1-20) is introductory to the second (1 Kings 18:21-40), and the last (1 Kings 18:41-46) forms the sequel to the transaction narrated in the second. The first verse refers distinctly to 1 Kings 17:1. It states when and how the drought announced by Elijah came to an end. The statement in Luke 4:25, and in James 5:17, according to which it did not rain for the space of three years and six months, seems to contradict the words in the third year. The same statement occurs also in the tractate Jalkut Schimoni; hence several interpreters (Schmidt, Michaelis, Keil) adopt the rabbinical conjecture that Elijah was a year at the brook Cherith, and that he remained two years in Sarepta, and that in the third year Jehovah’s command came to him to show himself unto Ahab. But it is very improbable that Elijah remained a whole year (ξִ ?χֵּ ?υιָ ?ξִ ?ιν, 1 Kings 17:7, cannot mean this) at Cherith, and that the reckoning should be made from the sojourn at Sarepta to the date of his reappearing, and not from his announcement of the drought, to which the text refers so explicitly. Benson regards the New Testament statement as a complete settlement of the Jewish tradition. As in each year there are two rainy seasons, so the six months before the prediction (1 Kings 17:1), in which it did not rain, are taken into the account, while, in our passage, the reckoning is from the second rainy season. According to Lange (on James 5:17), the equalization lies in this, that in the account in 1 Kings 18. the exact period of the famine is stated; but it is very natural that the famine should have begun a year after the prediction of the drought, i. e., after the failure of the early and of the latter rain. In this first year the people still lived on the harvest of the preceding year. The εְ in εְ ?ΰֶ ?ϊְּ ?πָ ?δ is not = that (Luther, Vulg.) nor = for, but, as in Genesis 17:20; Deuteronomy 15:6 = and then. When Ewald says that after another year of drought “Ahab himself at last called Elijah back,” he is in direct contradiction with the words, Go hence and show thyself to Ahab, as also with 1 Kings 18:9 sq.1 Kings 18:2-6. And there was a sore famine in Samaria. From here to 1 Kings 18:6 there is a parenthetical remark, for “an explanation of the circumstances which brought about the meeting between Elijah and Ahab” (Keil). Even in the residence in Samaria the famine was so pressing during the drought that the king himself, with his “palace-master” (see on 1 Kings 4:6)—“the governor of his house”—traversed the land to find food for his horses and mules. “Entirely without reference to the Old Testament, Menandros (Joseph. Antiq.8, 13, 2) makes mention of a severe drought of a year under the Syrian king Ithobal, a contemporary of Ahab” (Ewald). The name Obadiah is a proper name of frequent occurrence in the Old Testament (1 Chronicles 3:21; 1 Chronicles 7:3; 1 Chronicles 8:38; 1 Chronicles 9:16; 2 Chronicles 17:7; 2 Chronicles 34:12; Ezra 8:9, &c.), and does not here, on account of 1 Kings 18:4, mean, as Thenius supposes, “chosen.” The prophets who are mentioned in 1 Kings 18:4 were, for the most part, “prophet-scholars,” i. e., members of the association of the prophets (Prophetenvereine), cf. on 2 Kings 2. If Obadiah alone delivered a hundred, their number must have been considerable. Their persecution and extermination was the work of the fanatical, idolatrous Jezebel, whom Ahab allowed to rule and manage. Hess and Menken suppose that she was incited thereto by her idolatrous priests, who represented to her that the public calamity would not end until the prophets, from the secret influence of whom it proceeded, were put out of the way. This conjecture, however, is not necessary, on account of the character of Jezebel, who, from the start, was bent upon the abolition of the Jehovah-worship. The caverns in which Obadiah concealed the prophets were certainly not near Samaria, but were, perhaps, on Mount Carmel, “which is full of clefts and grottoes” (Winer, R.-W.-B. I. s. 212). 1 Kings 18:7-16. And as Obadiah was in the way, &c. He recognized the prophet at once by his peculiar clothing (cf. 2 Kings 1:7-8). The profound reverence which he showed to him allows us to conclude that there was a personal acquaintance, and, in any event, it is an evidence of the high consideration in which even then Elijah was held, at least upon the part of the worshippers of Jehovah, which could scarcely be accounted for only on the ground of his prediction of the drought (1 Kings 17:1). The words δַ ?ΰַ ?ϊָּ ?δζֶ ?δ cannot be translated, Art thou not my lord Elijah? (Luther), or with the Sept., εἰ σὺ εἶ αὐτόςκύριέμου ’Ηλία; for he had already recognized him, and had fallen on his face before him. It is rather a question of wonder: Art thou, who hast been looked for everywhere in vain, here? (1 Kings 18:10). The reply of Obadiah in 1 Kings 18:9 is explained by 1 Kings 18:12. The statement in 1 Kings 18:10, that Ahab had set on foot inquiries after the prophet in every kingdom, is “an hyperbole prompted by inward excitement and fear” (Keil), but which, nevertheless, is an evidence of the great bitterness and hatred of Ahab. From the anxiety of Obadiah lest the spirit of Jehovah should suddenly carry the prophet away, it has been concluded that something like it had previously occurred, but which has not been related to us (Von Gerlach, Seb. Schmidt, and others). Keil remarks, on the other hand: Elijah was not snatched away after the prediction of the drought, and there is no more reason for supposing a case of this kind during the interval, when he was concealed from his enemies. Obadiah certainly had not in his mind a simple going away, nor does the expression suggest “a wind-storm” (Dereser), nor a mere inward movement from above (Olshaus., Acts viii. 39), but divine power. The concluding statement in 1 Kings 18:12 does not mean he has not as “a God-fearing man and a protector of the prophets any special favor to expect at the hands of Ahab” (Keil), but rather he believes that, as a true servant of Jehovah, for his own and for the sake of the prophet, he deserves, least of all, death. He does not express a doubt of the truthfulness of Elijah, but he supposes that “he will be exposed to a danger from which God will rescue him by an abreption, while he himself will thereby be placed in the greatest peril in respect of Ahab” (Menken). By the expression in 1 Kings 18:13, he seeks to justify his refusal to fulfil Elijah’s commission, and to say that he will suffer a death he does not merit, but he does not mean to boast of his action, or to claim any reward. The φְ ?αָ ?ΰεֹ ?ϊ with ιְ ?δεָֹ ?δ (see Keil on 1 Samuel 1:3), elevates the solemnity of the oath (cf. on 1 Kings 17:1). δַ ?ιּ ?εֹ ?ν means here: at this time, now (1 Samuel 14:33; 2 Kings 4:8), not to-day (Luther, De Wette). 1 Kings 18:17-20. And it came to pass when Ahab saw Elijah, &c. As Ahab went, at Obadiah’s instigation, to meet the prophet, and not the prophet to meet him, Ahab’s query does not mean “Dost thou dare to appear before me?” (Thenius), but, rather, Do I meet thee at last, thou bringer of trouble? ςָ ?λַ ?ψ does not, as in Genesis 34:30; Joshua 6:18; Joshua 7:25, mean here, to perplex, as Luther translates. Ahab lays all the blame of the famine upon Elijah, not merely because he had predicted the drought, but he had added that it would come to an end only at his word, without thinking that the prophet had done this only in the name and at the command of Jehovah. In the reply of Elijah (1 Kings 18:18) the plural form αְּ ?ςָ ?μִ ?ιν is not, with Gesenius, to be understood of images or statues of Baal, but of the various surnames of Baal according to their special signification—Baal-Berith, Baal-Zebul (Winer, R- W.-B. I. s. 120). Elijah’s desire (in 1 Kings 18:19) probably admits of a closer explanation in respect of its ground and purpose; it was not so much on account of Ahab as to influence the whole people to another course—it was to bring all Israel to a decision. That was the right point of time when the longing for deliverance from the famine was universal. Elijah appointed Carmel as the place of assemblage, probably because its situation was central, and it was also near the sea, from which quarter rain-clouds came. There was, moreover, an altar to Jehovah there, as on other conspicuous high places, but which, like other such altars, had been thrown down in consequence of the introduction of the Baal-worship (cf. 1 Kings 18:30 and 1 Kings 19:10). The whole of Israel, i. e., the heads of the tribes and families, and the elders as the representatives of the people (1 Kings 8:1-62). The prophets of Baal (cf. 1 Kings 18:26 sq.) are the priests of Baal, who were likewise the god’s soothsayers and foretellers. As the male divinity, Baal had more priests than the female. That the Astarte-priests ate at Jezebel’s table, i. e., were entirely supported by her (see 1 Kings 2:7), is expressly remarked, because therein her blind, fanatical passion for the worship of idols is shown over against the prophets of Jehovah, whom she persecuted and murdered (1 Kings 18:4). When, according to 1 Kings 18:20, the enraged and excited king at once acceded to the demand of Elijah, this is quite in harmony with his character as he often exhibited it subsequently. He bowed before the spiritual supremacy of the prophet, which impressed him. Notwithstanding his apparent scorn, he had a secret fear of Elijah since the prediction of the drought had been verified (1 Kings 17:1), and all the sacrifices of the priests of Baal to avert the famine had been in vain. 1 Kings 18:21. And Elijah came, &c. Ewald, whom Thenius follows on the ground of the Septuag., translates the question of the prophet to the people: “How long will ye go limping on both hocks, i. e., always staggering about hither and thither insecurely between truth and falsehood, Jahve and Baal?” But ρςτιν is never used in the sense of ἰγνύαι, i. e., hocks, which translation Schleusner properly pronounces a mera conjectura. The root ρָ ?ςַ ?σ means to divide, to dissever, and all the derivatives point back to this signification. The ρֵ ?ςֲ ?τִ ?ιν, Psalms 119:113, are those which are divided within themselves, the double-minded or ambiguous. In Ezekiel 31:6 : ρְ ?ςַ ?τּ ?εֹ ?ϊ means branches, because these are the divided tree, and in Isaiah 2:21; Isaiah 57:5, the clefts of the rocks are named ρְ ?ςִ ?τֵ ?ιδַ ?ρְּ ?μָ ?ςִ ?ιν. The Vulg. hence translates rightly, Usquequo claudicatis in duas partes? Keil, “up to the two parties (Jehovah and Baal).” This agrees perfectly with the word τָ ?ρַ ?η, i. e., to go over from one to another, and ςμ is here with τρη, as in 1 Kings 18:26, where it cannot possibly mean “to the.” But when Keil remarks further: The people were wishing to harmonize the Jehovah worship and that of Baal, not to stand, by means of the Baal worship, in hostile opposition to Jehovah, he is evidently mistaken. The people rather were divided between the two forms of worship, that of Jehovah and that of Baal; to the latter belonged also the Astarte-cultus, which it was impossible to identify or reconcile with the Jehovah-worship. The persecution and extermination of the Jehovah prophets by Jezebel must have shown the people, most explicitly, that between the two religions the most decisive antagonism existed. Jeroboam’s calf-worship might still seem to be Jehovah-worship, but the Baal and Astarte worship, never. The large number of the “sons of the prophets” shows that, in spite of Ahab and Jezebel, the people were divided into two parties. 1 Kings 18:22-25. It by no means follows from the μְ ?αַ ?γִּ ?ι “that those also who had been concealed by Obadiah were discovered and destroyed” (Thenius). cf. 2 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 2:5. Elijah means to say: All the other prophets have been murdered, or are reduced to a state of inactivity: I stand here alone over against four hundred and fifty priests of Baal; what, humanly speaking, can one do against so many? Be this as it may, the issue will decide all the more certainly with whom rests the Right ιָ ?ϊַ ?ψ as in Gen. 32:35; Joshua 18:2. To the four hundred and fifty Baal priests the Sept. adds: καὶ οἱ προφῆται, τοῦ ἄλσουςτετρακόσιοι, which Thenius holds to be original, but is here evidently filled out from 1 Kings 18:19. In 1 Kings 18:25 and in 1 Kings 18:40, moreover, the priests of Baal only are named. A thrice repeated omission of the Astarte-priests cannot be explained by the rule, a potiori fit, etc., least of all in 1 Kings 18:40; they might indeed have been summoned, but under the protection of Jezebel they might have been able to escape the requisition of Ahab (Keil). As the issue was a decision between the worship of Jehovah and that of Baal, Elijah employed, in connection with it, an act of sacrifice, because both amongst the Jews and also the heathen, sacrifice was the explicit expression of all worship. The significance of fire in sacrifice was the reason why he suspended the decision upon the fire which should consume the offering; it wafts the sacrifice upwards, and, as it were, presents it to the deity. Should the latter send the fire, this would be a sign not only of power, but also that the sacrifice was accepted and well-pleasing. Besides this, fire, especially that which came from heaven, was the general symbol of deity. Baal also was the God of heaven, of the sun, and of fire (heaven-fire-sun-god). If he could not consume the offering, that would show him to be no God. The cutting in pieces, 1 Kings 18:23; 1 Kings 18:33, belongs, according to Leviticus 1:6, to the proper dressing of every burnt-offering. After the people had signified their agreement to the proposition of Elijah he proceeded further (1 Kings 18:25); and, to avoid all appearance of encroachment or of partisanship, he allowed the priests of Baal a choice between the two “bullocks,” as also precedence in the act of sacrifice, giving as a reason: for ye are many.This was scarcely said “somewhat scoffingly” in the sense of “the crowd shall have the precedence! You are the prevailing religious party in Israel” (Menken), but wholly in earnest; he, only one, will take no advantage of the many; they shall not feel themselves slighted. When, too, as he himself knew in advance, the vanity, the nothingness of Baal became manifest, the impression produced by his offering would be all the greater, while inversely the priests of Baal, under every kind of pretext, would have wholly omitted the sacrifice. 1 Kings 18:26-29. And they took the bullock, &c. By εַ ?ιְ ?τַ ?ρְּ ?ηεּ the dance customary at heathen sacrifices is indeed suggested to us (see with Keil the passage from Herodian Hist. v. 3). The view prevails that limping, “in derision of the unaided sacrificial dance of the Baal priests,” stands here for dancing (Gesenius); but neither here nor in 1 Kings 18:21 does it denote ridicule. It expresses only the reeling to and fro; “the dance, as we may infer from its climax in 1 Kings 18:28-29, may have had somewhat of the bacchantic, reeling way about it” (Thenius); the Sept. has διέτρεχον, the Vulgate transiliebant, and here ridicule disappears. This first follows in 1 Kings 18:27; here we are simply informed of what actually happened. Elijah is not the subject in ςָ ?ωָ ?δ; it is impersonal. Nearly all the versions seem to have read, with many MSS., ςָ ?ωׂ ?εּ. In 1 Kings 18:27 Elijah urges the Baal priests to cry louder, and gives as his chief reason: in your opinion he is the real, true God; he must be hindered in some way, so that, as yet, he has not heard you. The thrice repeated λִּ ?ι heightens the effect of the discourse. ωִׂ ?ιηַ means neither loquitur (Vulg.), nor: he imagines (Luther), nor: ἀδολεσχίαἀυτῷ ἐστίν (Sept.); but it denotes turning within one’s self, reflection, meditatio, and then, also, sadness (1 Samuel 1:16; Psalms 142:3). Thenius: his head is full; perhaps, better yet: he is out of humor. ωִׂ ?ιβ the Vulg. wrongly gives: in diversario est; it means secessio (from ωׂ ?εּ ?β to withdraw, 2 Samuel 1:22), euphemistic expression for: he is easing himself. Everything that Elijah here derisively attributes to Baal must not, with Movers (Rel. der Phφniz. s. 386), be regarded as that which the Baal priests actually believed of him as the sun-god (his journeys, labors, sleeping), for it had ceased to be a matter of sport. They cried louder (1 Kings 18:28), so that Baal, by hearing, might stultify the derision. By εַ ?ιִּ ?ϊְ ?βֹּ ?γְ ?γεּ, we must not understand a mere “nicking with knives and punches” (Luther); for ηֶ ?ψֶ ?α means sword, and ψֹ ?ξַ ?η the lance belonging to heavy armor (Ezekiel 39:9; Jeremiah 46:4). The τָּ ?ρַ ?η, 1 Kings 18:26, changed into a weapon-dance, which custom many ancient writers mention (cf. Doughty, Analect. Sacr. p. 176), and Movers (as cited s. 682), after them, describes more particularly. This custom assuredly has not, as Movers supposes, its reason in the consciousness of “committed sins,” but in the superstition that blood, especially the blood of priests, has a special virtue, moving, even compelling the divinity (Plutarch De superstit.: Bellon� sacerdotes suo cruore sacrificant, cf. Symbol. des Mosais. Kultus II. s. 223, 262). In 1 Kings 18:29, εַ ?ιִּ ?ϊְ ?πַ ?αְּ ?ΰεּ is commonly translated: and they raved; in the sense: their behavior reached to a sort of mania. But 1 Samuel 18:10; Jeremiah 29:26, places to which an appeal is made, cannot prove that παΰ means, in itself, μαίνεσθαι; the Sept. never translating it so. The Baal priests are constantly called here πְ ?αִ ?ΰִ ?ιν, and as such, they prepared the sacrifice, danced around the altar, called upon Baal, wounded themselves; all that they then did, and the time they consumed, is summed up when it is said that ιִ ?ϊְ ?πַ ?αְּ ?ΰεּ; this word does not refer to anything besides. Piscator: fuit vero quum pr�teriisset meridies, ut prophetas agerent, &c. They went on with their various functions until past noon, yet without any result. ξִ ?πְ ?ηָ ?δ is here not specially food (vegetable) offering (Luther), but it denotes offering generally (Genesis 4:3-5), and here the usual daily evening sacrifice, which, nevertheless, as is to be seen from 1 Kings 18:36; 1 Kings 18:40 sq., was not offered first at dusk, but before it (Numbers 28:4). The Sept. adds to 1 Kings 18:29 : “And Elijah the Tishbite said to the prophets of the idols, Stand back! I will now make ready my offering. And they stood back and went away,” an addition which does not at all “bear the unmistakable stamp of genuineness” (Thenius), but is plainly a supplementary gloss. 1 Kings 18:30-32. And Elijah said unto all the people, &c. Elijah did not, designedly, build a new altar, but repaired the old one (see above on 1 Kings 18:19), and meant thereby to show that the issue of the day was the restoration of the ancient Jehovah-worship, for cultus is expressed synecdochice per altare (Petr. Martyr). He shows, moreover, still more explicitly the object of the restoration and renewal of the broken covenant (1 Kings 19:10), in that, as Moses had once done at the conclusion of the covenant (Exodus 24:4), in like manner he repaired the altar “with twelve stones, according to the number of the tribes of the children of Israel.” This was a declaration in act, that the twelve tribes together constituted one people, that they had one God in common, and that Jehovah’s covenant was not concluded with two or with ten, but with the unit of the twelve tribes. Since the kingdom of the ten tribes named itself “Israel,” over against the other tribes, it is expressly remarked that Jacob, the one progenitor of the entire people, had received from Jehovah the name “Israel,” i. e., God’s soldier, because he commanded his entire house: Put away from you the strange gods (Genesis 35:2; Genesis 35:10 sq.). Only the people who did as he did had a claim to this name. In 1 Kings 18:32 the αְּ ?ωֵׁ ?νιְ ?δεָֹ ?δ is not to be connected with the remote ιִ ?αְ ?πֶ ?δ; he built in the name, i. e., by the command, of Jehovah (for everything that he did, he did no less by the command of Jehovah), but with the immediately preceding ξִ ?ζְ ?αֵּ ?ηַ; he built this that Jehovah might reveal and authenticate himself; as inversely, according to Exodus 20:24, an altar was to be built where Jehovah had revealed and authenticated himself. The ditch was not designed as a hedge, “so that the people might not press too much upon the altar” (Starke); it was made rather to receive the water (1 Kings 18:34-35), ϊְּ ?ςָ ?μָ ?ηas , 2 Kings 20:20; Isaiah 7:3; Isaiah 22:9; Isaiah 36:2; Ezekiel 31:4, means properly aqueduct. Not only was the altar to be soaked, but it was to be surrounded with water, so as to remove all suspicion about the burning of the sacrifice. Impostures of this kind occurred certainly in later heathendom. The author of the Orat. in Eliam (I. p. 765), attributed to Chrysostom, says: “I speak as an eye-witness. In the altars of the idols, there are beneath the altar channels, and underneath a concealed pit; the deceivers enter these, and blow up a fire from beneath upon the altar, by which many are deceived, and believe that the fire comes from heaven.” The words λְּ ?αֵ ?ιϊρָ ?ΰϊַ ?ιִ ?νζֶ ?ψַ ?ς are not altogether clear. Keil and Thenius translate: like the space whereon one can sow two seahs of grain. But αιϊ never signifies a superficies measure, but that which holds something; and one does not measure a ditch by a superficial space which it covers, but according to its capacity for holding; hence Gesenius here: a ditch which could hold two seahs. The ditch, then, was about as deep as the grain-measure containing two seahs. The seah is the third part of an ephah; according to Thenius, two Dresden pecks; according to Bertheau=661.92, according to Bunsen 338.13 Paris cubic inches. Without doubt the ditch was so near the altar that the water poured upon it flowed into it and remained there. Elijah took upon himself the preparation of the sacrifice, jure prophetico, minoribus legibus exsolutus, ut majores servaret (Grotius). The levitical priest was no longer in the kingdom of Israel (2 Chronicles 11:13; 2 Chronicles 13:9). 1 Kings 18:33-35. And said, Fill four barrels (cad) &c., &c. λַּ ?γ is a pail (Genesis 24:14) without definite measure. The solemnity and the emphasis with which the prophet commands the soaking with water stamp this act as prophetic, i. e., as a significant religious act, done for some other than the merely negative purpose “of cutting away all ground of suspicion of the possibility of some cheat” (Keil). The form of the transaction shows this. For when the prophet orders thrice four cads of water poured upon an altar composed of thrice four stones, the intention—i. e., the significance of this combination of numbers—is unmistakable. The numbers three and four, as well singly as in their combination with each other, in seven and twelve, meet us constantly in the cultus, where the significance is beyond all question. (See above. Cf. my Symbol. des Mos. Kultus I. s. 150, 169, 193, 205.) But we can conclude nothing definitely, with full certainty, respecting the meaning of the prophetic act. Perhaps the abundant soaking of the altar bearing the sign-number of the Covenant people with 3Χ4 cads of water expresses what is promised in Deuteronomy 28:12 to the Covenant people if they observe the covenant: “Jehovah shall open unto thee his good treasure, the heaven, to give rain unto thy land in his season;” after, on account of the breach of the covenant, “thy heaven over thy head was brass, and the earth under thee was iron” (Deuteronomy 28:23). Elijah is not the subject to ξִ ?μֵּ ?ΰ 1 Kings 18:35 (“he caused the trench to be filled with water,” as De Wette and Keil translate); but ξָ ?ιִ ?ν, which also is elsewhere construed with the singular (Numbers 20:2; Numbers 24:7; Numbers 33:14; Genesis 9:15); Luther: and the trench also was full of water. There was so much water that it ran over the altar and filled likewise the trench. The question, whence so much water could have been obtained, in such a drought, cannot shake the trustworthiness of the narrative. It is plain, from 1 Kings 18:40, that the brook Kishon was near, and was not dried up. Its supply of water was very abundant. Cf. Judges 5:21, and the passage from Brocard (in Winer, R.- W.-B. Bd. I. s. 660): Cison colligit plures aquas, quia a monte Ephraim et a locis Samari� propinquioribus atque a toto campo Esdrelon confluunt plurim� aqu� et recipiuntur in hunc unum torrentem. (Cf. also Robinson, Palest. III. p. 114, 116.) Carmel, moreover, was full of grottoes and caves (Winer, “some say 2,000”); if there were water anywhere, it would be there. Van de Velde (in Keil on the place) has proved that the place where the sacrifice was offered is at the ruin El Mohraka, and that here is a covered spring: “under a dark, vaulted roof, the water in such a spring is always cool, and the atmosphere cannot evaporate it. I can understand perfectly that while all other springs were dried up, here there continued to be an abundance of water, which Elijah poured so bountifully upon the altar.”—[Really this is very unsatisfactory, and not to the purpose.—E. H.] 1 Kings 18:36-37. And at the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice, &c.—The time of day was that appointed for the daily sacrifice. In his prayer Elijah calls Jehovah, not his God, as in 1 Kings 17:20 sq., but the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Israel (i. e., Jacob, 1 Kings 18:31, with unmistakable reference to Exodus 3:15). This designation of God points to him as the God who had concluded the covenant of promise with the progenitors of the entire people, and brings to mind the proofs of the grace which Israel had shared from the first. Here where the broken covenant was to be renewed and cemented afresh in this designation, both the assurance and the entreaty are expressed that the God who had declared himself to the patriarchs would now, as to these, so also to his whole people, declare himself. In Israel, i. e., that thou alone art God, and as such wilt be recognized and honored in Israel. And I am thy servant, i. e., that I do not speak and act in my own cause and in human strength, but in thy cause (Septuag. διάσε), and in thy name, as well in respect of what has happened hitherto as what shall happen hereafter. The δֲ ?ρִ ?αֹּ ?ϊָ in 1 Kings 18:37 does not depend upon αִּ ?ι, and is not to be translated, “so turn thou their heart around” (De Wette), but “that that which shall happen is ordained by thee for their conversion” (Thenius). 1 Kings 18:38-40. Then the fire of the Lord fell, &c., i. e., a fire effected, produced by Jehovah. The text certainly does not say, as is commonly thought, a stroke of lightning from heaven; and Keil remarks, as against this opinion, a natural stroke “could not have produced such an effect.” We can conclude nothing definite of the how of the wonder. To give full expression to the intensity of the fire it is stated that even the stones and the ground were burned, i. e., according to Le Clerc, in calcem redegit. Usually it is supposed that the earth means that which was thrown up in the building of the altar, but it can also be that with which the altar, built of twelve stones, was filled up (Exodus 20:24). The impression which the event produced upon the people was overpowering, and must have filled them all with contempt and wrath against the priests of Baal, so that Ahab, even had he desired it, could not have prevented their destruction. That Elijah did not slaughter them in his own person is self-evident; he demanded it on the ground of the law (Deuteronomy 13:9). Josephus, ἀπέκτειναντοὺςπροφήτας ’Ηλιάτοῦτοπαραινέσαντος. It is more than rash when Menzel maintains that the people seized the Baal priests (we must remember that there were 450 of them), and “delivered them to the prophet to be slain by his own hand.” The Kishon empties itself at the foot of Carmel into the sea. Not where the sacrifice was offered were the Baal priests to be put to death, but by the stream which could carry their blood and corpses from the land and lose them in the sea. 1 Kings 18:41-45. And Elijah said unto Ahab, &c. From the words, Get thee up, it follows that Ahab had gone to Kishon, and was present at the execution of his Baal priests; but he had scarcely joined in the shout of the people (1 Kings 18:39). Whether the words “eat and drink” are to be interpreted as derisive (Krummacher, Thenius) is very doubtful. The prophet may well have derided the dead idol Baal; but that he should have mocked the king, whom he wished to win over, is scarcely credible, and does not agree with what is mentioned in 1 Kings 18:46. According to Ewald, Elijah invited him “to eat of the sacrifice offered to Jehovah, and thereby to strengthen himself;” but the offering, apart from the consideration that it was a burnt-offering, of which nothing was eaten, was entirely consumed (1 Kings 18:39). Others think that the king had eaten nothing during the suspense of the issue of the contest, from the morning until the evening; hence Elijah advised him to return quickly, before the coming storm hindered him, to the place of the sacrifice, where preparation had been made for his needs (Keil, Calw. Bib.). But the sense of the words of the prophet was, Be of good heart (Luke 12:19). Israel has turned back again to his God, soon the famine will come to an end; already I hear (in spirit) the rain rushing. ψֹ ?ΰωׁ (1 Kings 18:42) does not mean here top, summit, but it denotes the outermost promontory towards the sea. Both Elijah and Ahab went from Kishon “up;” the former betook himself to the promontory, which was not so high as the place where the altar stood, and Ahab had his tent. Hence Elijah could say to his servant: Go up and say to Ahab, &c. To the promontory, however, Elijah betook himself, because thence one could look far across the sea, and first be assured when rain-clouds were forming in the distance. Here he bowed himself down and concealed his face, to abstract his eyes from everything outward and visible, and to turn himself wholly and completely to what was inward. It was the natural, involuntary expression of sinking into the most earnest, wrestling prayer; and there is no reason why, with Keil, we should refer to the dervishes, amongst whom Shaw and Chardin have found similar prayer-postures. Elijah did not wish, in order to be alone in prayer, and so to strengthen himself, to look at the sea; he commissioned his servant with that. Probably he promised to give him information in a very short time; and when the servant, at the outset, saw nothing, he said to him, Go again seven times, i. e., make no mistake, though it be a matter of seven times. Seven times is here as in Matthew 18:21; cf. Psalms 119:164; Psalms 12:7; Proverbs 24:16. Elijah wished also to be informed of the first appearing of a cloud before any one else observed it, to notify Ahab, and to convince him that the rain, as he had predicted in 1 Kings 17:1, would be the consequence of his prophetic word (prayer). Thenius remarks on 1 Kings 18:44 : “A very little cloud on the farthest horizon is, according to sea accounts, often the herald of stormy weather.” The doubled ςַ ?γΞλֹּ ?δ in 1 Kings 18:45, according to Maurer and others, means: until so and so far, and is a form of speech borrowed from the quick moving of the hand also: before a man turns his hand. But the rain did not come so swiftly. According to Exodus 7:16, and Isaiah 17:14, ςַ ?γΞλֹּ ?δ means: until now, up to this moment. Gesenius: in the mean while; so also De Wette and Winer. 1 Kings 18:45. And ran before Ahab, &c. [But Ahab went towards Jezreel.] He had there a summer palace (1 Kings 21:2). The city was situated in the tribe Issachar (Isaiah 19:18), in the elevated plane of the same name, about from five to six miles (seventeen to twenty Eng.) distant from Carmel. He betook himself thither, because Jezebel was then at this summer residence, and he wished to let her know the news (1 Kings 19:1). The form of expression, the hand of Jehovah, &c., 1 Kings 18:46, occurs also in 2 Kings 3:15; Ezekiel 1:3; Ezekiel 3:14; Ezekiel 3:22; Ezekiel 8:1; Ezekiel 33:22; Ezekiel 37:1; and as in all these places it denotes an inward impulse excited by God, so there is no reason why here it should be understood of a wonderful accession of natural bodily strength, which enabled him, as the older interpreters thought, to run in advance of the royal chariot, as it required the swiftest course (J. Lange, Calmet, and others). Over and above the ordinary use of the form of expression, what makes against it is, that it does not stand before εַ ?ιָּ ?ψָ ?υ, but before εַ ?ιְ ?ωַׁ ?πֵּ ?ν; but for the girding of the loins no extraordinary strength was requisite. The prophet concluded, from a higher divine impulse, to accompany Ahab, and made himself ready. The object and motive was neither to bring the king unharmed to his residence (S. Schmidt), nor “to furnish him a proof of his humility” (Keil), or “to serve him in this fashion as a courier” (Berleb. Bib.); rather he went before him “as his warning conscience” (Sartorius), as “a living tablet, reminding him of all the great things which the God of Israel had done by his prophets” (Krummacher). There “was reason for supposing that he (Ahab) would cast off the yoke of his scandalous wife, and give himself thenceforth wholly to Jehovah. The prophet wished to stand by his side, counselling and helping him in his resolution, and to miss no opportunity when the king, left to himself, might become a victim to the corrupting influence of Jezebel” (Von Gerlach). The servant whom Elijah had with him on Carmel (1 Kings 18:43), and whom, on the flight from Jezreel into the wilderness, he left at Beersheba (1 Kings 19:3), must have been with him on the road from Carmel to Jezreel; so much the less can we suppose that a miracle carried the prophet thither. Historical and Ethical1. The day on Carmel was the central-point and climax in the public career of the prophet Elijah. If his peculiar calling and his place in the history of redemption were, essentially, to restore the broken covenant with Jehovah, and to lead Israel back again from idolatry to the recognition of Jehovah (see Hist. and Ethic. on chap. 17), it was necessary that there should be a decisive action in the matter; and for this no moment was more appropriate than after Ahab as well as the whole people had become bowed down and humiliated in consequence of the famine of several years, which the Baal-priests were not able to remedy. This decision took place on Carmel; and in the most solemn way, before king and people. It was a day of judgment, and of the most splendid triumph over the Baal-worship, which received a blow from which it never again recovered. On this account, too, this day has great meaning for the entire Old Testament history, and marks an epoch in the divine economy of redemption. A just comprehension of all the particulars narrated can be gained only from this stand-point, which must be kept steadily in sight. 2. The decision whether Baal or Jehovah be the true God was not brought about in the way of indoctrination, or by a warning and threatening discourse; it is connected rather with an actual declaration of Jehovah’s, prayed for from him. This mode of decision was not chosen accidentally or arbitrarily, but was founded in the nature of the Old Testament economy, and corresponded with the special relations there prevailing. The Old Testament religion recognizes Him only as the true, living God, who declares and reveals himself as such. The gods of the heathen, who serve the creature instead of the Creator (Romans 1:25), are deified nature-forces and world-powers. Over against these, the God who can create as He wills, who has made heaven and earth and all that therein is, reveals and declares Himself thereby, in that He proclaims His absolute power over all created things, and his infinite exaltation above nature and the world. Such declarations (authentications) are, in Scripture language, “wonders.” Jehovah as the only true and living God is hence so often designated as the God “who alone doeth wonders” (Psalms 72:18; Psalms 77:15; Psalms 86:10; Psalms 98:1; Psalms 136:4); He is not bound up in the laws and forces of nature, but is absolutely independent of it, both as its Creator and also its sovereign. By the “wonder” it is that He stands above all the gods of the heathen, which, over against Him, are but deified nature-powers, absolutely without (personal) power, and can do no “wonders.” The conception of the self-declaring and of the revelation of God is connected, in the God-consciousness of the Israelites, with the conception of the wonder, and every extraordinary declaration is accompanied, more or less, by wonders; as the choice to be a peculiar people, the exodus from Egypt, the giving of the law on Sinai, which were prized as tangible witnesses of the true, living God, and were placed beside the creation. As now the decision was to be made upon Carmel, whether Jehovah or Baal (i. e. deified human nature-force) were the true living God, so here there was a self-declaration of Jehovah as of the God who is lifted up above the world and all that is in it, i. e., who doeth wonders. It was a nature-wonder which brought the people (especially Israel, inclined to nature-life, see above) to the confession: Jehovah, He is the God! and as here the matter involved was a devotion and prayer, this wonder was connected with sacrifice, the palpable expression and centre of all prayer. It is well worth our while to notice the difference between the Israelitish God-consciousness and that of the modern deistic or rationalistic. The latter knows nothing of “the wonder” and pronounces it absolutely impossible. To it, the just true God is He who doeth no wonders, i. e., who is bound up with the laws of nature and of the world, and, consequently, cannot declare and reveal himself in his absolute being above the world, and in His creative omnipotence. According to the Israelitish conception of God, such a God is not the living, but a dead, powerless god, because he is not lifted absolutely above the world. That God works wonders, and through them announces and reveals Himself, does not rest upon a false, low notion of the divine being, but, on the contrary, presupposes the loftiest conception of God. 3. The prophet Elijah appears, in the present portion of his history, both at the acme of his activity as the restorer of the broken covenant, and also in his whole personal grandeur as the peculiar and true hero amongst the prophets of the Old Testament. All that he said and did gives evidence of a courage and strength of faith which is scarcely paralleled in the entire history of the divine economy. To the call: Go show thyself to Ahab, he is obedient, without questioning and objections about the consequences, being assured that not a hair can fall from his head without the will of God. While Obadiah himself, who still retained the favor of the king, trembled before his wrath, and was afraid of his life, Elijah goes fearlessly to meet his angry, powerful foe, who had already sought for him everywhere in vain, and who had permitted the murder of so many prophets; and when Ahab meets him in a stern and threatening way, he is not terrified, he does not bow down, but declares boldly to his face: Thou art the cause of all the misery of Israel. Alone, and without any human protection, he went to Carmel to meet all Israel and the 450 Baal-priests, his bitterest enemies. He does not flatter the people, but puts to their conscience the cutting question, How long halt ye upon both sides? and with the army of priests he undertakes to do battle alone. He ridicules their idols and their whole conduct. The only weapon he employs in the contest is prayer; before the vast assemblage he calls upon his Lord and God, as humbly, so equally confidently. He is assured of an answer. After the decision from on high is obtained, and all the people returned to the God of their fathers, he hands over, resolutely, the propagators of the idolatry to judgment, and his heavy task is done. Then first he beseeches Jehovah, in the solitude, that He will be gracious again to the repentant people, and will relieve them from their distress. When the longed-for rain comes on, he advises the departure of the king, and in joyful hope of further fruits of this fought-for victory, refreshed and quickened, he runs before him to the residence in Jezreel, where Jezebel the murderess of the prophets was sojourning. Independent now as Elijah appears in everything, there are analogies with the history of him to whom, as the founder of the covenant, its restorer naturally points. Like Elijah, Moses also dwelt for a long time amongst strangers, and in retirement receives the call: Go hence, I will send thee to Pharaoh, &c. (Exed. 1 Kings 3:11); he concludes the covenant before and with the people collected at Mount Sinai; he builds an altar with twelve stones and offers there a sacrifice; the whole people, with one voice, answer him: All the words which Jehovah hath spoken will we do, &c. (Exodus 24:3 sq.); as by the erection of the golden calf the covenant was broken, he caused the Levites, who had polluted themselves by the worship of the calf, to be punished; but then he earnestly beseeches Jehovah to turn away the punishment from the people, and again to be gracious unto them (Exodus 32). 4. That Elijah ridiculed the calling upon Baal might seem unworthy of a prophet and man of God, from whom rather sympathy with error might be expected. But this ridicule did not proceed at all from a frivolous sentiment; it was rather the expression of the gravest religious resoluteness and of the profoundest earnestness. Over against the one God, to whom only true being appertains (ιδιδ), all other gods are not, to all of whom, in common, the conception of nothingness belongs, and who are to be designated with various expressions as not being, cf. ΰֱ ?μִ ?ιμִ ?ν, Leviticus 19:4; Leviticus 26:4; ΰָ ?εֶ ?ο ,ΰַ ?ιִ ?ο, Isaiah 41:24; Isaiah 41:29; ηֶ ?αֶ ?μ, Deuteronomy 32:21; Jeremiah 2:5; Jeremiah 8:19, &c. The most resolute contempt and rejection of idolatry is thus expressed, which consists in this, viz., that man makes what is nothing, the not-existing, his highest and best—his God. If now it be the calling and task of the prophets and men of God to do battle with idolatry, and to represent it in its thorough perverseness and blameworthiness, it is quite proper to hold it up to contempt; this is done by ridicule, which, when reasons and proofs are unavailing, is the most effective instrument. The prophets have a divine right of ridicule of idolatry, which they often employ (cf. Isaiah 40:17 sq.; Isaiah 41:7; Isaiah 44:8-22; Isaiah 46:5-11; Jeremiah 10:7 sq.) in the sense in which it is said by the holy God Himself that he mocks and ridicules the ungodly (Psalms 2:4; Psalms 37:13; Psalms 59:9). As, in the time of Ahab, idolatry was so strong and powerful that it threatened to overwhelm the worship of the true God, so in the moment when a choice was to be made between Baal and Jehovah, the opportunity was at hand to make by ridicule the worship of idols contemptible. Krummacher remarks very appositely upon this: “What a free, undaunted courage does it presuppose, what inward repose and elevation, what an assured confidence of the genuineness and truth of his cause, and what a firm certainty that he will win,—that at his momentous appearance upon Mount Carmel Elijah can employ ridicule!” 5. The slaughter of the priests of Baal is in many ways adduced as a serious objection against the prophet, and is characterized as “fanatical hardness and cruelty” (Winer, R.-W.-B. I. s. 318). But it appears otherwise if instead of taking the stand-point of the New Testament or of modern humanitarianism, we occupy that of the Old Testament and of the prophet. The first and supremest command of the Israelitish covenant declares: I am Jehovah, thy God; thou shalt have none other gods before me: upon it rest the choice and the separation from all peoples, the independent existence of the nation; with it stands and falls its world-historical destiny. The actual rejection of this command carried with it per se exclusion from the peculiar and covenant people, and was hence punished with death (Exodus 22:19; Deuteronomy 13:5-18; Deuteronomy 17:2-5). But idolatry had never been so rampant in Israel as under Ahab. It was not merely tolerated, but had become the State-religion and threatened to overwhelm the adoration of the one true God, and so at the same time to destroy the covenant, and to take from Israel its character as the chosen, peculiar people. Elijah was called to restore the broken covenant, and to put an end to idolatry. Through the extraordinary, wonderful assistance of God, he had in fierce battle achieved this result—that the people turned again to Jehovah their God. To make this permanent, it was necessary that an effectual bar should be placed against any further activity of the foreign supporters and representatives of the idolatry. Now, if ever, the attestation of Jehovah ought not to be fruitless; satisfaction should be made to the law, and execution take place. The restoration of the covenant, without the slaughter of the Baal-priests, was but half accomplished. As every ἀποκατάστασις is in its nature more or less a κρίσις (Malachi 4:5 sq.), so also was the day upon Carmel a day of judgment. Elijah there stood, not as a private person, nor as a leader of a popular party, but as the second Moses, as an executor of the theocratic law. The objection about hardness and fanaticism falls not upon him, but upon the law, the consequences of which he executed; and he who blames him must object to the whole Mosaic institution as hard and fanatical. When even he who was gentle and lowly of heart says: “But those mine enemies which would not that I should reign over them, bring them hither, and slay them before me” (Luke 19:27), certainly still less can it be concluded from the slaughter of the Baal-priests that Elijah was a cruel, blood-thirsty man, especially when proofs to the contrary are at hand (1 Kings 17:9-24). According to these, we must rather think “how hard, how terribly hard this procedure must have been to a man like Elijah; how powerfully it must have gone .… against his whole natural feeling” (Menken). When Knobel (as above s. 77) maintains that Elijah returned to Israel “chiefly to revenge the murder of the prophets by the slaughter of the Baal-and-Astarte-priests,” this is a gross slander upon the prophet, whom not thoughts of murder and of revenge, but the calling of his God, whose behests he fulfilled in spite of the attending danger, carried to Carmel. It is quite beside the mark to explain Elijah’s conduct by the “retaliation-right” (Michaelis, Dereser, and others); for that Jezebel had murdered the prophets at the instigation of the Baal-priests is an unproved assumption. For the rest, Keil very properly observes: “From this act of Elijah’s to desire to deduce the right of the bloody persecution of heretics would be not only an entire misunderstanding of the difference between heathen idolaters and Christian heretics, but also a morally wrong confounding of the New Testament, evangelical stand-point with the Old Testament, legal (stand-point), which Christ, in Luke 9:55, blamed in his own disciples.” Very truly does the Berleburg. Bib. say, on this place, “The economy of the new covenant does not allow one to imitate Elijah.” 6. King Ahab, in the present section, appears indeed as saying and doing but little, yet even here the traits of his character, which become more prominent in the subsequent course of the history, can be plainly recognized. The period of the famine, which Elijah had announced to him as a retributive judgment, did not bring him to reflection, still less to repentance. He is very anxious about his cattle, but not about his people. He does not himself murder the prophets, but nevertheless he permits his wife. He looks about for Elijah, in the foolish fancy that he, and not God, is the cause of the famine, and with the preposterous intention of forcing him to make it rain. His highest official, Obadiah, to whom he intrusted his horses and mules, cannot trust him, and is compelled to fear that he may be unrighteously put to death by him. He carries himself with all severity and anger towards the prophet, who freely encounters him, as one who has the power of life and death; nevertheless he does not venture to seize him: he rather bows before him, as the latter encounters him reprovingly with his brave message, and he does at once what Elijah bids him. He was present upon Carmel with the great assemblage; but that which there made an affecting impression upon the whole people left him, as it seems, unmoved. He witnessed the slaughter of his Baal priests, and in no way hindered it. We hear nothing of him than that “he went up from the brook Kishon to eat and drink.” In respect of the news that rain was coming, what to him was most important, he started thereupon to get back to his summer residence, and to tell everything that had happened to his wife. When we sum up all these things, it is evident that he was a man utterly without character, at one time highflying and impetuous, at another feeble and without power of resistance, occupied only with what is on the surface, without moral pose, without receptivity for religious and higher things. 7. Obadiah’s meeting with Elijah, which forms the introduction to the day upon Carmel, affords us a glimpse into the condition of things which preceded this day. The thing which especially strikes us is not so much the great general misery in consequence of the long drought, as the fact rather, that in this time when the prophets were driven from the court, and their extermination was a settled matter, at the court itself there should have been a man of the highest official station who feared Jehovah so much that he ventured upon the risk of hiding not less than a hundred prophets, and of supplying them with food during the general distress. The Calw. Bibel says justly: “We are at a loss at which to wonder the most—the God-fearing man at the court, or at the king who tolerated him there;” and Menken observes very truly: “So we see in this history that even in the most corrupt times there are some who are free from the general corruption, who remain in their faith in God, in their fear of God, oftentimes even where one would least of all suspect and look for such.” It is characteristic of the biblical history that it brings out such cases into prominence, as in this instance, with unmistakable design. But it must no less strike one, that in that period of the deepest religious apostasy and of bloody persecution, the number of the prophets was so great that Obadiah alone secured the safety and cared for a hundred of them. A long time gone, under Jeroboam, the ordained supporters of the Jehovah-worship, the priests and levites, had departed from all Israel into Judah (2 Chronicles 11:13); and now that, under Ahab, a formal idolatry had spread, the number of the prophets so increased that Jezebel was not able to destroy them all; they were a silent, hidden power, which defied all the outward power of the idol-serving fanaticism. Who does not recognize therein the wonderful ways of the fidelity of God in the guiding of His people? 8. The recent criticism explains the statement now in hand, chiefly on account of the miracle narrated in it, as fabulous or poetical. “As a matter of fact,” says Thenius (on 1 Kings 18:46), “it can be seen that, in answer to Elijah’s prayer, rain followed after a long drought, and that the people, convinced afresh on this occasion of the power of Jehovah, prepared a great blood-bath from amongst the idolatrous priests.” According to Bunsen (Bibelwerk V. 2. s. 539), it appertained to Elijah “to go through the land as the prophet of the Eternal, and as the awakening leader of the people.… In the presence of the Baal-party he inspires and rouses the people, who, before the living spirit which is in man, recognize the nothingness and the moral baseness of the masquerade and legerdemain, and of the incomprehensible solemnities of the Baal-worship, and at the word of Elijah the 450 Baal-priests were slaughtered at the brook Kishon.” Ewald (as above s. 539) finds in the delineation of the contest “of the great champion of Jehovah and of the Baal-prophets, as it were the antithesis of the beginning of the one and of the other religion, represented not without earnest raillery. They who in their mind and work do not sacrifice to the true God, build the altar, and prepare the sacrifice, and call loudly upon their god and worry themselves, the more vain their trouble, so much the more vehement and senseless it becomes, as if somehow by dint of importunity the thing desired might come from heaven: but nevertheless with all their trouble and with all their excitement they cannot bring down from Heaven the fire which they seek, and which alone would repay them for their trouble. Elijah otherwise.” The whole is also a prophetico-poetic garment of a general religious truth. Eisenlohr, as usual, agrees with this (as above, s. 177). He explains the consuming of the sacrifice by fire from heaven as “a beautiful image for the burning eternal power which is imparted from above to every truth, over against the death which everything fabricated, false, lying, bears within itself;” that “no voice, nor answer, nor heed was there,” is “the inimitable delineation of the emptiness and vanity of heathenism, which is overladen with every species of superstition, and is vanquished by self-torture.” In respect of these various views we refer generally to our preliminary remarks upon chap. 17; in details, however, the following comes into the account. The whole account, excepting 1 Kings 18:38, contains nothing which can with any reason be objected to as unhistorical. This portion of the history of Elijah especially bears completely the impress of the usual simple Hebrew way of historical composition, and it would not occur to any one to regard it as legendary did it not contain 1 Kings 18:38. The miracle here narrated is not such as could be wanting without detriment to the whole, and to the further historical development about the famine, as may be maintained in respect of this or of the other miracle; it is not subordinate, is not a side-matter, but the chief criticism acknowledges that at the day on Carmel “there was a noticeable sudden decision,” and that “a mighty upturning of things took place” (Eisenlohr); that “here a victory was won which, at that day, could not have been greater and more beneficial” (Ewald). But this victory was the immediate effect of that miracle, and as generally the day upon Carmel forms the central point and climax of Elijah’s activity, so again this day culminates in “the fire of Jehovah,” which consumed the sacrifice. All that is said before and after refers to this fact; he who lowers it takes the heart out of the body of the whole narration, and then nothing is left but either to interpret it as a fraud, or to look upon the whole as fiction. The view that Elijah “alone and by nothing but the power of his spirit and word achieved the prodigious wonder of a complete alteration of the then posture of the ten tribes” (Ewald) is most emphatically contradicted by the day upon Carmel. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ C.—Elijah in the Wilderness and upon Horeb; his Successor1 Kings 19:1-211 And Ahab told Jezebel all that Elijah had done, and withal how he had slain all the prophets with the sword. 2Then Jezebel sent a messenger unto Elijah, saying, So let the gods do to me, and more also, if I make not thy life as the life of one of them by to-morrow about this time. 3And when he saw that, he arose, and went for his life, and came to Beer-sheba, which belongeth to Judah, and left his servant there. 4But he himself went a day’s journey into the wilderness, and came and sat down under a juniper-tree [broom plant]: and he requested for himself that he might die; and said, It is enough; now, O Lord 5[Jehovah], take away my life; for I am not better than my fathers. And as he lay and slept under a juniper-tree [broom plant], behold, then an angel touched him, and said unto him, Arise and eat. 6And he looked, and behold, there was a cake baken on the coals, and a cruse of water at his head. And he did eat and drink, and laid him down again. 7And the angel of the Lord [Jehovah] came again the second time, and touched him, and said, Arise and eat; because the journey is too great for thee. 8And he arose, and did eat and drink, and went in the strength of that meat forty days and forty nights unto Horeb the mount of God. 9And he came thither unto a [the] cave, and lodged there; and behold, the word of the Lord [Jehovah] came to him, and he said unto him, What doest thou here, Elijah? 10And he said, I have been very jealous for the Lord [Jehovah] God of hosts: for the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, thrown down thine altars, and slain thy prophets with the sword; and I, even I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away. 11And he said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the Lord [Jehovah]. And behold, the Lord [Jehovah] passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the Lord [Jehovah]; but the Lord [Jehovah] was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the Lord [Jehovah] was not in the earthquake: 12and after the earthquake a fire; but the Lord [Jehovah] was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice. 13And it was so, when Elijah heard it, that he wrapped his face in his mantle, and went out, and stood in the entering in of the cave. And behold, there came a voice unto him, and said, What doest thou here, Elijah? 14And he said, I have been very jealous for the Lord [Jehovah] God of hosts: because the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, thrown down thine altars, and slain thy prophets with the sword; and I, even I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away. 15And the Lord [Jehovah] said unto him, Go, return on thy way to the wilderness of Damascus: and when thou comest, anoint Hazael to be king over Syria: 16and Jehu the son of Nimshi shalt thou anoint to be king over Israel: and Elisha the son of Shaphat of Abel-meholah 17shalt thou anoint to be prophet in thy room. And it shalt come to pass, that him that escapeth the sword of Hazael shall Jehu slay: and him that escapeth from the sword of Jehu shall Elisha slay. 18Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him. 19So he departed thence, and found Elisha the son of Shaphat, who was ploughing with twelve yoke of oxen before him, and he with the twelfth: and Elijahpassed by him, and cast his mantle upon him. 20And he left the oxen, and ran after Elijah, and said, Let me, I pray thee, kiss my father and my mother, and then I will follow thee. And he said unto him, Go back again: for what haveI done to thee? 21And he returned back from him, and took a yoke of oxen, and slew them, and boiled their flesh with the instruments of the oxen, and gave unto the people, and they did eat. Then he arose, and went after Elijah, and ministered unto him. Exegetical and CriticalVers.1–2. Then Jezebel sent, &c. She could hardly have done this without the knowledge of her husband, who was too weak-minded to prevent it, and so drew upon himself new guilt. Older commentators held that Jezebel was so lost to all discretion that, instead of keeping her purpose secret, or carrying it out at once, she made it known to the prophet, without considering that he might in the mean time escape. But the sense of the message is evidently this: “If thou art still here to-morrow at this time and hast not betaken thyself out of the kingdom, the same thing shall be done to thee as thou hast done to my priests.” To have him killed without further ceremony did not seem to her advisable, for the impression which he had made on the people was still too fresh in their minds; but she was determined to have him out of the way as soon as possible, in order at least to prevent all further influence on the people and the king, and so, under cover of a threat of death, she gave him time for flight. For the expression, So let the gods do to me, cf. on 1 Kings 2:23. 1 Kings 19:3. And when he saw that, he arose,&c. The Sept. translates εַ ?ιַּ ?ψְ ?ΰ by καὶ ἐφοβήθη; the Vulgate, timuit ergo; they read therefore εַ ?ιִּ ?ιψָ ?ΰ, which Thenius explains as undoubtedly correct, because ψΰδ is used of mental vision only when a simple conclusion from outward circumstances is referred to. But this is exactly the case here, as the Targum also renders it by ηζΰ. From the (outward) circumstance of the message, Elijah saw clearly how matters stood; he perceived that he could no longer remain here, as he had wished and hoped, and that he could not carry his work of reformation through to the end. Since he did not as on a former occasion (chap, 1 Kings 18:1) receive a divine command to hazard his life, i. e., to remain in spite of the threat, he arose and left the kingdom, as he had done once before. ψָ ?ΰָ ?δ is therefore used here just as in 2 Kings 5:7; if εָ ?ιִּ ?ψָ ?ΰ were the true expression, the person of whom he was afraid would have to stand in connection with it, as in 1 Samuel 18:12; 1 Samuel 21:13. Moreover, how should the man who had just been standing all alone over against the whole people, the king, and 450 priests of Baal (chap, 1 Kings 18:22), who especially appears as an unequalled prophetic hero in the history of Israel, have become all at once afraid of a bad woman?—ΰֶ ?μΞπַ ?τְ ?ωׁ ?εֹ is used here just as in 2 Kings 7:7, and can only mean: in consideration of his soul, i. e., for the preservation of his (threatened) life; this meaning, moreover, is demanded by the connection with 1 Kings 5:2, and we can hardly find expressed here the thought: “in order to care for his soul in the way indicated in 1 Kings 5:4, i. e., to commend his soul or his life in the loneliness of the desert to God the Lord, as he should determine concerning him” (Keil). Decidedly incorrect is the translation of the Vulgate (quocumque eum ferebat voluntas), which Luther follows: “Whithersoever he would,” which has led to the erroneous conception that Elijah tied in his own will and strength, without awaiting an intimation from the Lord. Equally incorrect is the explanation of Gerlach: without end or aim, and certainly that of Krummacher: He was only travelling off haphazard.—Beer-sheba lay on the border of the wilderness. Since it belonged to the tribe of Simeon (Joshua 19:2), the clause: which μִ ?ιδεּ ?γָ ?δ, must mean that he betook himself out of the kingdom of Israel into the kingdom of Judah, to which at that time the tribe of Simeon also belonged.—His servant he left behind in Beer-sheba, not perchance through fear of being betrayed by him, nor because “he expected to have no further need of him” (Thenius), nor because the wilderness afforded no sustenance, but: “he wished now to be entirely alone, as men often do in times of sorrow or discouragement; therefore he sought the wilderness.” (Calw. B.) 1 Kings 19:4. But he himself went a day’s journey into the wilderness, namely, the Arabian, through which the people had once been compelled to wander. ψֹ ?ϊֶ ?ν is not juniper-tree (Luther), but “a kind of broom plant, that is the most longed-for and most welcome bush of the desert, abundant in beds of streams, and valleys where spots for camping are selected, and men sit down and sleep, in order to be protected against wind and sun” (Robinson, Palestine I. p. 203). The words: It is enough, &c, do not mean: “I must, as a human being, fall a victim to death some time, and I wish to die now” (Thenius), nor: “I have already endured tribulations enough here below” (Keil), but: I have now lived long enough. This is imperatively demanded by the sentence: for I am not better than my fathers, which forms the ground of his request: Jehovah, take away my soul (life). Long life, old age, is looked on, under the old covenant, as a special gift of God (Psalms 61:7; Psalms 102:25; Proverbs 3:2; Proverbs 4:10; Proverbs 9:11; Proverbs 10:27); Elijah, therefore, means to say: for I do not deserve nor desire to be distinguished and favored above my fathers by a specially long life. It is an entirely mistaken view which supposes that Elijah made this request “from a weak-minded weariness of life” (Thenius), or “with a murmuring heart” (Krummacher). In that case he would have deserved a reproof or a correction; but instead of this the Lord sends a heavenly messenger, who strengthens and refreshes him, and speaks to him only animating, encouraging words. Elijah’s whole life and labor had no other aim than to bring Israel back to their God; to this end were directed all the toils and privations to which he subjected himself. When he believed himself to have finally reached this end on Carmel, suddenly there came an incomprehensible turn of events; he saw himself deceived in his holiest and most blessed hopes, king and people abandoned him, the labor and struggle of a lifetime appeared to him fruitless and vain; the deepest, most bitter sorrow pervaded his soul. In this frame of mind he began the journey into the wilderness, and as he now sits down there wearied and exhausted by the journey, bowed down by sorrow and grief, what was more natural and human than for this man, who besides was already well-stricken in years, to pray his Lord and God to take from him the heavy burden and let him come to the longed-for rest; “it was a holy sorrow and sadness, such as no common man is capable of, which filled him at that time and brought to his lips the prayer: It is enough,” &c. (Menken.) 1 Kings 19:5-9. An angel touched him. Although ξַ ?μְ ?ΰָ ?κְ in verse 2 is used of the messenger of Jezebel, yet here it denotes no human messenger, but a messenger of Jehovah (1 Kings 5:7). The Sept. has in all three places ἄγγελος.—ςֻ ?βָּ ?δ is a thin cake baked on a stone plate by means of hot ashes laid over it (chap, 1 Kings 18:13. Winer, R.-W.-B. 1, p. 95).—After the first awakening Elijah had eaten only a very little, on account of his great weariness, and had fallen asleep again.—The closing words of verse 7 Keil explains, after Vatablus: iter est majus, quam pro viribus tuis; but since ξִ ?ξְּ ?κָ (cf. 1 Samuel 20:21) is not = μκָ, we may better follow the Sept.: ὂτιπολλὴ ἀπὸ σοῦ ἡ ὁδὸς, or the Vulgate: grandis enim tibi restat via. This moreover presupposes that Elijah had already determined to go to Horeb: for that he is not to be considered “as in a manner summoned thither” (Thenius) is shown by the question of verse 1 Kings 9 : What doest thou here?—Horeb (=Sinai) is here designated as “the mount of God,” because God declared, and revealed himself upon it in a special manner as the God of Israel; it was here that he appeared to Moses in the fiery bush and called him to bring forth Israel out of Egypt (Exodus 3:1-15); it was here also that he made the covenant with the chosen people, “talked” with them, and gave them through Moses the law, the testimony of the covenant, the foundation on which all further divine revelations rest. Horeb is the place of the loftiest and weightiest revelation for Israel (Deuteronomy 1:6; Deuteronomy 4:10-15; Deuteronomy 5:2; 1 Kings 8:9; Malachi 4:4). Elijah wished to go thither in the hope that in that spot Jehovah would grant a disclosure to him also, as he had once to his servant Moses, and make known to him what further he had to do.—The cave into which Elijah went was, according to most commentators, that in which Moses once tarried while the Lord passed by (Exodus 33:22); this view is favored also by the definite article. According to Ewald it must have been the cave “in which at that time wanderers to Sinai commonly rested.” 1 Kings 19:8. Forty days and forty nights. Since Horeb is not more than 40 geographical miles from Beer-sheba (according to Deuteronomy 1:2. there are only eleven days journey from Kadesh Barnea, situated somewhat to the south, to Horeb), older commentators have assumed that Elijah, because old and weak, spent 19 or 20 days on this journey, remained 1 day on Horeb, and accomplished the journey back again in 19 or 20 days. But the text says very plainly that he went 40 days and 40 nights “unto Horeb.” According to Thenius, “the legend” leaves the actual relations of space out of sight here, for by this reckoning Elijah would have accomplished in each 24 hours’ time only 2 hours’ distance. But even the legend could not arbitrarily make a distance which every one knew and had before his eyes, three or four times too great; in any case the actual distance was not unknown to the author of our books. The text is not intended to make prominent the idea that Elijah kept on 40 days and 40 nights uninterruptedly, in order to reach Horeb, but that he was wonderfully preserved during this time which he spent in the wilderness before his arrival at Horeb. We must not overlook in this connection the reference to the 40 days and nights during which Moses was on Sinai without eating bread or drinking water (Exodus 34:28; cf. Exodus 24:18; Deuteronomy 9:9; Deuteronomy 9:18; Deuteronomy 9:25; Deuteronomy 10:10), and the indirect reference to the 40 years which Israel spent in the wilderness, where the Lord fed the people, when they had no bread, with manna, to make it known that man does not live by bread alone. 1 Kings 19:9. And behold, the word of the Lord, &c. These words do not, as is commonly supposed, begin a new paragraph, but are rather to be connected with the immediately preceding portion of the same verse, “while he was spending the night in that spot, behold, the word of Jehovah came unto him.” It cannot be maintained from 1 Kings 19:13 that μεּ ?π here means not: to spend the night, but: to remain, as the Vulgate has it: cumque illuc venisset, mansit in spelunca. The question ξַ ?δΞμְ ?κָ τֹ ?δ is, after the example of Josephus (τίπαρεὶη, καταλελοιπὼςτήνπόλιν, ἐκεῖσε): often taken as implying a censure, quasi Deus diceret, nihil esse Eli� negotii in solitudine, sed potius in locis habitatis, ut illic homines ad veri Dei cultum adduceret (Le Clerc); also Thenius considers it intended “to remind Elijah how he, a prophet whom God would everywhere protect, and who in the service of God must endure everything, had not waited for a divine intimation, but from fear of man had fled to save his life, and then, in weak-minded weariness of life, had been able to wish himself dead.” This conception is radically false, and leads to an erroneous understanding of the entire passage. For, if a censure were to be inflicted on Elijah, it would not have been delayed until now, but would have been given when he had fled a day’s journey into the wilderness (1 Kings 19:4), and longed to die; but instead of this he was even tenderly encouraged by an angel and wonderfully strengthened, in order to be able to continue the journey still farther. Why does not the angel say to him there, what does not follow till 1 Kings 19:15? Elijah had indeed no divine command to flee into the wilderness, but still less had he any command to remain in Jezreel and bid defiance to Jezebel, as formerly (chap. 18) he had the command to show himself to the irritated king. When now during his journey, weary in body and soul, bowed down with grief and sorrow, he prayed that his end might come, but this prayer was not listened to, he longed so much the more “for a revelation and disclosure of what might be God’s will now, whither he should turn, what begin, whether and how God would employ him yet further in the service of Israel” (Menken). This drove him to the “mount of God,” i. e., to the place where, once before, his prototype Moses, the founder of the covenant, beheld the Lord and received comfort and strength; to the place where the Lord had spoken to his people and made with them the now broken covenant. If now he is asked: What doest thou here? What desire has driven thee hither? this was “a question of tender kindness, to relieve the full, burdened heart of the prophet, that he, to whom the great privilege of being able to complain of his sorrow had so long been denied, might be moved to reveal his desire, to pour out his whole heart before the Lord. So the Lord, after his resurrection, asked Mary, as she stood at the grave and wept: Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou, that thou mayst change thy sorrow into joy” (Menken). So also this is connected with the question Revelation 7:13. 1 Kings 19:10. I have been very jealous, &c. As the question is not to be considered a censure or rebuke as against Elijah, so also his answer is not to be considered a justification or a reproach as against Jehovah; entirely mistaken is the assertion that there is expressed in tins answer “only the greatest despondency concerning his fate” (Thenius), and “a carnal zeal that would at once call down the vengeance of the Almighty on all idolaters” (Keil), or that it bears witness to an “internal strife and murmuring” (Krummacher); it is rather, as the Apostle expressly declares, an indictment of Israel (Romans 11:2 : ἐντυγχάνειτῷ θεῷκατὰ τοῦ ’Ισραήλ). “The prophet lays the facts, whose weight had fallen upon him with such fearful power, before the Lord, that He might see how they appear, and he leaves the riddle which is therein presented to Him, for Him to explain” (Gerlach). He brings forward for weighty accusations; (1) they have fallen away from the covenant relation; (2) they have thrown down the altars still remaining here and there, dedicated to thee; (3) instead of listening to thy servants who admonished and warned them, they have slain them; (4) as for myself, the last one who has openly appeared and been zealous for thee, they are seeking my life. The words: I have been very jealous, form the introduction to this fourfold accusation: I have used every means, but all in vain; what then is now to be done, what will and should be brought about? The complaint of the prophet was at the same time again a question to the Lord, to which he then receives a twofold answer (with signs, 1 Kings 19:11-12, and with words, 1 Kings 19:14-18). He speaks of his zeal, moreover, not in order to boast or bother himself about his fate: “God’s honor and Israel’s welfare were of far greater value to him than his own honor or welfare; he mentions his own person and his own need only in so far as they stood in necessary and most intimate connection with the cause of God and the truth, and so his complaint was a holy one, as all his sorrow and sadness were holy” (Menken). He mentions his zeal in order thereby to confirm and strengthen his accusation against Israel. 1 Kings 19:11. And he said, Go forth, &c. It is common to translate with Luther: “Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the Lord. And behold, the Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind … before the Lord.” According to this Elijah must have gone out of the cave before the wind, &c. But according to 1 Kings 19:13 he did not go forth till he heard the gentle breeze; it is therefore absolutely necessary to consider the words εְ ?δִ ?πֵּ ?διְ ?δεָֹ ?δςֹ ?αֵ ?ψ as connected with the address to Elijah, and to begin the narrative portion withεְ ?ψεַּ ?η. That is, the participle ςֹ ?αֵ ?ψ is not preterit, but, as usual when it stands for the verbum finitum, present: Jehovah passes by, i. e., he is on the point of doing it; cf. Isaiah 5:5; Isaiah 7:14; Isaiah 10:23 (Gesenius, Gram. (Conant) p. 240). The Sept. translates: ’Εξελεύσῃ αὔριονκαὶ στήσῃ ἐνώπιονκυρίουἐντῷ ὄρει· ίδοὺ παρελεύσεταικύριος. Καὶ ἰδοὺ πνεῡμαμέγακ. τ. λ. This division of the sentences is entirely correct, only αὔριον, which is not found in a single manuscript, is an unauthorized addition borrowed from Exodus 34:2. The narrative in that place, moreover, serves in several ways to explain the one before us: especially the expression ιְ ?δεָֹ ?δςֹ ?αֵ ?ψ gives clear and definite evidence. Moses desires to see the glory (λָּ ?αεֹ ?γ, see above p. 76) of Jehovah, whereupon he receives the answer: “I will make all my goodness (θεּ ?αִ ?ι) pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of Jehovah” (i. e., what he is), and farther: “while my glory passeth by … I will cover thee with my hand, until I have passed by;” then follows “And Jehovah passed by before him and proclaimed, Jehovah, Jehovah is a God merciful and gracious, long-suffering and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but that will by no means clear,” &c. (Exodus 33:18-19; Exodus 33:22; Exodus 34:6). The expression ςαψ is nowhere else used of Jehovah, and doubtless marks this highest revelation as one that is possible only for a moment, in distinction from a permanent, abiding revelation, for which (ωְׁ ?λִ ?ιπָ ?δ) ωָׁ ?λַ ?οis used. When now Elijah complains here of Israel that they have broken the covenant, as they did once in the wilderness through the golden calf, and desires a disclosure concerning the dealings of Jehovah, which are dark and incomprehensible to him, the answer thereupon imparted to him: Behold! ιְ ?δεֹ ?δָ ςֹ ?αֵ ?ψ, is designed to express the idea: Jehovah will reveal himself to thee as he did once to Moses, and show thee what he is in his essence, and with this thou shalt receive the desired disclosure. 1 Kings 19:11. And a great and strong wind, &c. Tempest, earthquake, and fire, as awe-inspiring natural phenomena, are in the Old Testament especially signs and attestations not only of the absolute power of God, but particularly of His anger, i. e., of His penal justice against His enemies, the ungodly. Thus they appear in connection with one another Isaiah 29:5 sq. and Psalms 18:8-18, and they have the same significance here also. But since they occur here separately, one after the other in regular succession, they plainly indicate a succession of punishments differing in degree and kind. The tempest points to the rending, scattering, and turning to dust (Isaiah 17:13; Isaiah 40:24; Isaiah 57:13), the earthquake to the shaking of the foundations and the falling down (Isaiah 24:18 sq.;Psalms 18:8; Psalms 18:16; Jeremiah 10:10), the fire to the complete consuming (Isaiah 66:15 sq.;Psalms 18:9; Psalms 97:3). In none of these three now was Jehovah, only out of the gentle whispering does He speak, i. e., the punishments come indeed from Him, pass before Him and bear witness of Him; but He Himself, that which he is, his essence (name) is not to be discerned in them; to this corresponds, rather in contrast with those destructive phenomena of nature, the gentle, soothing, refreshing, revivifying breeze after the storm. The word γְּ ?ξָ ?ξָ ?δ from γָּ ?ξַ ?ν to be silent, in Poel to silence (Psalms 131:2), means properly stilling, and is used in both the other places where it appears, of the rest and refreshing which have followed pain, distress, and terror (Psalms 107:29; Job 4:16). When now Jehovah “passes by” here in this, the same thing is expressed symbolically which Moses there heard in words, as Jehovah passed by; Jehovah is a God merciful and gracious, &c. The significance of the whole phenomenon is accordingly this: Jehovah, the God of Israel, will indeed display His punishing, destroying might to His despisers and enemies, but His own true and innermost essence is grace, rescuing, preserving, and quickening love, and though the people have broken the covenant of grace, yet He maintains this covenant, and remains faithful and gracious as He promised. For the bowed down and accusing prophet this was the well-attested divine answer, which contained comfort and consolation as well as incitement to carry on His begun work, and not to despair of Israel, nor allow Himself to be wearied out or led into error by the apparent fruitlessness of His efforts thus far. According to Ewald (loc. cit. p. 542) the words before us can “in the first place be rightly conceived of only as describing how Jahve will here appear to Elijah, and how He will talk to him. His passing by announces itself first in the most distant way by the fiercest storm; but that is not He Himself; then more subtle and near by thunder and earthquake; but this also is not He Himself; then in the most, subtle way by fire (as in the tempest, according to Psalms 18:18 (16), Habakkuk 3:4); but this is not He Himself; only in the soft whispering that then follows, in the most subtile spiritual voice does He reveal Himself, and to this attention is to be given (as Job 4:16; Job 26:4 in like manner)!” Also Thenius says: “It is the most incorporeal object possible for the illustration of the presence of the divine being, such as Job has selected, 1 Kings 4:16.” This conception is in itself very unnatural: for why should thunder and earthquakes be regarded as “more subtile” (i. e., more immaterial) than a stormy wind, and the all-consuming tire “more subtile” than an earthquake? The gradation is rather just the reverse, from the weaker destroying element to the most powerful, and not from the grossly material to the most immaterial possible. But in general, the entire context is adverse to this conception; for by no means is the revelation to be made here to Elijah, that God’s essence is spiritual and that He is incorporeal (Elijah needed no revelation for that), but that Jehovah in His own innermost being is not a destroying, annihilating God, who only punishes, but rather a quickening, saving and preserving, a gracious and faithful God. 1 Kings 19:13. When Elijah heard it, &c. During the storm of wind, the earthquake, and the fire, then Elijah was still in the cave, and he came out of it only at the soft whispering, in obedience to the command, 1 Kings 19:11.—He wrapped his face in his mantle, although Jehovah did not pass by in visible shape, “from awe before the unapproachable one” (Then.), as Moses did once when the Lord appeared to him in the fiery bush, “for he was afraid to look upon God” (Exodus 3:6; cf. Exodus 33:20; cf. Exodus 33:22). Even the Seraphim stand with covered faces before the throne of the Holy One (Isaiah 6:2). The question already addressed to Elijah before the significant phenomenon and now repeated after it; ξδΞμְּ ?κָ τη, has this sense: Hast thou now any further reason for lingering here? Elijah’s repetition of his complaint expressed in 1 Kings 19:10 can have only this reason, that he does not yet feel satisfied with what has happened to him (1 Kings 19:11-13), because it is not clear to him what this is intended to signify. He therefore receives now a reply in definite words (1 Kings 19:15-18); and it appears from other cases also that revelations are made to the prophets first in sensible signs (symbols) and then in definite words (cf. Jeremiah 19:1-13; Jeremiah 24:1-10; Ezekiel 5:1-12; Ezekiel 12:1-12; Ezekiel 15:1-8; Ezekiel 37:1-14). But in this case the verbal revelation is constantly not merely an explanation or interpretation of the symbolical revelation, but it carries the latter out still further by showing how that which the phenomenon attested rather in a general way concerning the being of Jehovah, is to be historically verified in the special case under consideration. 1 Kings 19:15-18. And Jehovah said unto him, &c. This address has always been a source of great trouble to commentators, because in respect to that which is here laid upon Elijah and predicted of him the succeeding history makes known nothing or something entirely different. Elijah anointed neither Hazael nor Jehu; the former was not anointed at all. not even by Elisha (2 Kings 8:11 sq.), the latter was anointed long after the departure of Elijah by a disciple of the prophets, and therefore certainly not by Elisha, and Elisha himself was indeed summoned to be the successor of Elijah, yet not by being anointed, but by being covered with the prophet’s mantle (1 Kings 19:19). Still less does the history know anything of the fact that Elisha, whose life and work are nevertheless related so minutely, ever slew any one, to say nothing of an equal number with Hazael and Jehu. The older, ordinary solution of the difficulties is best presented by Gerlach, who says: “Still it is to be supposed that Elijah executed literally what the Lord commanded him, since he was expressly told to go to Damascus for the purpose of anointing Hazael. For reasons which are not known to us, this anointing may have been kept secret, as was the first anointing of David by Samuel (1 Samuel 16), and, just as in the case of this king, the anointing of Jehu may have been repeated at a later date by Elisha, when the moment for Joram’s downfall had come. That prophets were anointed appears, apart from this passage, only figuratively in the prophecy Isaiah 61:1; the more this office now became the mightiest in the falling kingdom of Israel, the more natural was it to bring it, by means of the symbolical consecration, into conformity with the royal and priestly officers.” This forced artificial explanation is seen at once to be a makeshift and to rest on untenable assumptions. The more recent criticism has made easy work of it: this affirms: Out of the whole of Elijah’s history, as contained in the original manuscript, the author of the books before us has everywhere taken only so much as served his purpose; here now, after 1 Kings 19:18, he has left out the account of the execution of the commission which had been received in regard to Hazael and Jehu, because the other original manuscripts, from which he composed the history of Hazael and Jehu, cannot be reconciled with it (Thenius, followed by Menzel). But how can we attribute to our author the carelessness or unskilfulness of having wholly failed to observe the inconsistency between 1 Kings 19:15-18, and his own reports concerning Hazael and Jehu (2 Kings 8, 9)? If he had considered them irreconcilable, he would not have stopped with the pretended omission of the account concerning the execution of the commission, but would naturally also have omitted either the verses before us, 15–18, or the reports concerning Hazael and Jehu which cannot be harmonized with these. In order to remove the difficulty we must take a wholly different course. In the beginning it is well to observe that the address of Jehovah, 1 Kings 19:15-18, is a reply to Elijah’s repeated severe accusation of Israel, and therefore already bears the character of a divine judicial sentence, which at once contains a prophecy, and is in the fullest sense a divine oracle. As now is generally the case with such oracular sayings, so also here the tone is evidently lofty and solemn, and the form is sententious, axiomatic; what Ewald (The Prophets of the O. T. I. p. 49) observes in reference to the strophic rhythm of the prophetic oracles, that the triple rhythm comes in with great force, especially when the language possesses a certain stately elevation, fits the present case completely. The tripartite character of the whole passage is sharply defined; 1 Kings 19:15-16 are the first strophe, 1 Kings 19:17 the second, 1 Kings 19:18 the third; and each of these three strophes has in turn three members. But in such an oracle a strictly literal understanding of the individual expressions is the less necessary, when, as is here the case, it stands opposed to plain statements that follow. This is eminently true of the expression “anoint,” which is not to be taken literally, because then the immediately succeeding 1 Kings 19:19, according to which Elisha is not really anointed, would contradict it. To “anoint” a person or thing means simply to bring them into the service of God. Thus not only kings and priests, but also implements of worship (Exodus 29:36; Exodus 30:26 sq.), yes, even stones (Genesis 28:18) were anointed, because they were to serve for the fulfilment of the divine will. Here too the word is used in this sense; it signifies not the actual outward anointing, but what the anointing means, just as in Judges 9:8. All three, Hazael, Jehu, and Elisha, are to serve for the execution of God’s will and counsel, and each, indeed, in a different way. By Hazael, the foreign Syrian king, Israel was continually hard pressed from without (2 Kings 8:12; 2 Kings 8:29; 2 Kings 10:32; 2 Kings 13:3; 2 Kings 13:7); he was the rod of correction in the hand of Jehovah, the instrument of his anger, i. e., of his punishment (cf. Isaiah 10:5). By Jehu the kingdom of Israel was shaken within; he put an end to the house of Ahab, from which the idolatry proceeded and was kept up (2 Kings 9:24; 2 Kings 9:33; 2 Kings 10:1-28), and was the divine rod of correction for the idolatrous within Israel. By Elisha, as successor of Elijah, who strove with fiery zeal against all idolatry, the reformatory work of the latter was to be continued, and he also served as God’s instrument in correcting and punishing Israel, if not by means of the sword, yet through his whole prophetic activity. Since now Elijah, immediately after receiving his commission to anoint, still did not anoint Elisha, easily as he might have done this, but summoned him to be his successor, by covering him with the prophet’s mantle, we have here the clearest evidence that he did not understand the anointing literally in the case of Hazael and Jehu, any more than in that of Elisha. He took the whole oracle in general as a divine revelation of what was soon to happen in Israel. In connection with the words: Go and anoint, it is to be remembered that in other cases also of oracular sayings the prophets are commanded to do something (symbolically), which (in reality) is to be brought to pass by the Lord (cf. Jeremiah 19:1 sq.; Jeremiah 27:2; Jeremiah 28:10 sq.;Ezekiel 5:1-12; Ezekiel 12:3 sq.). The disciple of the prophets, who anointed Jehu under the direction of Elisha, was obliged to begin this action with the words: “Thus saith Jehovah: I have anointed thee king over Israel” (2 Kings 9:3); the real anointing was performed, therefore, by Jehovah himself. 1 Kings 19:15-17. Go, return on thy way, &c. The words ξִ ?γְ ?αַּ ?ψָ ?δγַ ?ξֶּ ?ωֶׂ ?χ are not to be translated, per desertum in Damascum (Vulgate, Luther), nor hardly “into the wilderness of Damascus” (Keil after Le Clerc), but “to the wilderness (through which he had come after 1 Kings 19:4) to Damascus” (Thenius). This command cannot be taken literally with any more safety than the following: Anoint; it merely indicates whence the divine punishment is to break in upon Israel. For details concerning Hazael and Jehu, vide on 2 Kings 8:9-10. Of the expression “slay,” used of Elisha 1 Kings 19:17. the same thing is true as of “anoint;” for that Elisha did not actually slay, our author knew as well as we do now, and indeed our knowledge comes only from his own reports concerning him. He cannot possibly, therefore, have understood the word literally, but only in the prophetic sense in which it is used of the Messiah in the oracle Isaiah 11:4; “he shall smite the earth (the land) with the rod (i. e., the rod of correction) of his mouth and with the breath (ιָ ?ξִ ?ιϊ) of his lips shall he slay (ψεּ ?ηַ as in the passage before us) the godless.” Cf. Isaiah 49:2; where the month of the prophet is called “a sharp sword,” into which the Lord has made it; just so Revelation 1:16; Revelation 2:16; Revelation 19:15. The fundamental and main thought of the oracle is in general this, that the judgment of Jehovah will come, but the judging and dividing will be brought about by the sword, now with the actual sword, now with the sword of the ψεּ ?ηַ of God (Job 4:9); so far could Elisha very well be joined with Hazael and Jehu in the otherwise very much contracted oracle. 1 Kings 19:18. Yet I have left, &c. In the three strophes of this passage also the symbolical mode of expression is continued. For the number seven thousand is no more to be taken arithmetically than the number an hundred and forty and four thousand (twelve times 12,000) in the Apocalypse (Revelation 7:4; Revelation 14:1-5). Seven is the symbolical numeral sign of holiness, the covenant and ceremonial number (cf. Symbol des Mos. Kult. I. s. 193); and it marks those who are left as a holy company, faithful to the covenant, as the “holy seed” of the covenant people (Isaiah 6:13; cf. Isaiah 4:2; Romans 11:7). In like manner the expressions, all the knees, etc., and every mouth, etc., are a figurative rhetorical description of those faithful to Jehovah. The kissing is not to be understood of kisses thrown with the hand (Gesenius), but of kissing the feet of the image which stands on a pedestal (Hosea 13:2; Cicero in Verr. 4, 1Kings 43: Quod in precious et gratulationibus non solum id sc. simulacrum venerari, verum etiam osculari solent). Menken has a striking observation on 1 Kings 19:18 : “Now the prophet understood why the still, small voice was preceded by the desolating storm, the devouring earthquake, and the consuming fire; and beyond all, the anxiety, terror, bloodshed, destruction which were contained therein for Israel. His heart received abundant consolation from the further revelation of the Lord; for this gave him now, in addition to the still, small voice of the Spirit of Life, a disclosure touching the mercy of the Lord to Israel, that infinitely surpassed all his hopes and expectations: and if the revelation of the wants and plagues which were to come upon Israel produced in him the same feeling as the destruction and ruin of threatening storms, still by this disclosure he felt himself encouraged and quickened, as in the refreshing blessed coolness after the storm.” In the Return (1 Kings 5:15) there is contained therefore anything rather than a rebuke for the prophet; but it is the expression of comfort and encouragement. 1 Kings 19:19. So he departed thence, &c. The city Abel Meholah, where, according to 1 Kings 19:16, Elisha lived, lay in the valley of the Jordan, about three German miles from Beth Shean, in the tribe of Manasseh (Judges 7:22; 1 Kings 4:12). Though he may indeed have been already known to Elijah, yet he hardly belongs with the “sons of the prophets,” among whom Ewald wrongly places him; adding, at the same time, “He had just ploughed round his twelve yoke of land, being at work on the twelfth and last.” But φֶ ?ξֶּ ?γ, as appears from 1 Kings 19:21, and as μְ ?λָּ ?πָ ?ιε also demands, is not a yoke of land, but a yoke (pair) of oxen. One ploughman belonged with each yoke. Elisha was with the last, the others all “before him.” The conjecture that the “twelve yoke of cattle represented the twelve tribes” (Hengstenberg, von Gerlach), like the twelve stones of the altar on Carmel (1 Kings 18:31), has very little in its favor. The number appears to be mentioned only to show that Elisha was a man in good circumstances, who, nevertheless, left his property in order to follow the call of Elijah. ΰַ ?γֶּ ?ψֶ ?ϊ is here the prophetic official garment (Bech. 1 Kings 13:4; 2 Kings 1:8; 2 Kings 2:13). The throwing it over Elisha was a symbolical act, which denoted the summons to become a prophet (the investiture); and was intelligible to Elisha, even without any words. Elijah seems to have withdrawn at once; he wished, indeed, to leave the doubtless astonished Elisha some time for making up his mind; yet the latter did not meditate long, but hastened (ιָ ?ψָ ?υ, he ran; not he followed) after him, and declared his purpose to accept the summons, only he wished first to take leave of his father and mother (cf. Genesis 31:28). Elijah’s answer, μֵ ?κְ ωׁ ?εּ ?α, is not to be translated with Luther: Go (to thy parents) and come (then) again; but just as in 1 Kings 19:15, where both words together express only one conception—Return, namely, to thy parents, as thou wishest. The following sentence, For what have I done to thee? should, according to Keil, have the meaning, “I have not wished to coerce thee, but I leave the decision concerning the prophetic call to thy free will.” In a similar manner Ewald: “As if indignant at this reawakening of desire for the world, Elijah gave him permission to return altogether if he wished.” This does not agree with the fact that, according to the Divine will (cf. 1 Kings 19:16), Elisha was destined to be the successor of Elijah, and Elijah, therefore, certainly did not leave the acceptance of the summons wholly to his free will. Had he given over to him the decision of the matter he would not have first thrown the prophetic mantle over him, but would have waited till Elisha decided. When Elisha prays that he may be permitted to take leave of his parents, his idea is that he is ready to follow Elijah, and he only wishes first to satisfy a natural filial obligation, not that he prefers to remain with his parents. That Elijah was unwilling for him to fulfil this filial duty is therefore not to be imagined. Thenius translates: “Go, return! yet! what have I done to thee?” and observes: “He gives the permission, but recalls the lofty meaning of the symbolical action which had just been performed on him, by which he had been devoted to the service of the Lord.” This gives indeed a good meaning, only it is very questionable whether λִּ ?ι can have here, where no contrast is expressed, the signification, yet! The fundamental idea: for, is never entirely lost: Go, take leave of thy parents, for what have I done to thee? I have summoned thee to the prophetic service; thine abode is henceforth no more with thy parents: thou art to follow me.1 Kings 19:21. And he returned back from him, &c. Elisha had run after him (ιָ ?ψָ ?υ, 1 Kings 19:20), and now returned to take a formal leave of his people. He took (not “a” yoke, as Luther has it, but) the yoke of cattle, viz., that with which he himself had been ploughing (1 Kings 19:19), which was his in an especial sense. These he slew for a farewell feast (ζαָ ?ηַ, as in Chron. 1 Kings 18:2; 1 Samuel 28:24; Ezekiel 39:17), not, he offered it (as a thank-offering), for the whole context shows that the reference is not to a religious, priestly act, for which also an altar would have been necessary. To offer is here the equivalent of to dispense, to give up (Keil), and is not to be understood in its strict sense. The instruments of the oxen, i. e., the yoke and the frame of the plough, he applied not forsooth as would necessarily be expected, if a sacrifice were the matter in hand, to the burning of them up, but to the boiling of the flesh; certainly not because there was no other wood at hand (1 Samuel 6:14; 2 Samuel 24:22), but rather in order to indicate that he gave up for ever his previous calling. The people that took part in the feast can hardly be “the inhabitants of his place” (Thenius), but those who up to this point were laboring in common with him in the field, and of them he now took leave as of his parents. The conjecture that this farewell feast occurred immediately in the field where Elijah met him, and that he withdrew from it to take leave of his parents (Calw. B.), is as groundless as it is unnecessary. So far as the words are concerned, the Lord, in Luke 9:61, may very likely have been thinking of this passage, but the sense and meaning are very different. “Elisha did not wish first to bury his father and mother, i. e., wait until they were dead, but only to take leave of them; moreover, when he wished this, he had not already put his hand to the plough, like the man in Luke 9:61-62, for he had not presented himself to succeed Elijah (Calw. B.). There the Lord is expressing censure, whereas what is here related should not prove a reproach to Elisha, but rather an honor and praise. There can, accordingly, be no talk of a “close affinity” between the two places (Thenius). Krummacher represents the matter thus: Elisha gave the feast to his parents at once, became thereby their “host,” and appeared “here already as a prophet, supplying and blessing,” &c. This is pure fancy, and has an incorrect explanation of the text for its basis. Historical and Ethical1. With Elijah’s arrival in Jezreel the life of the great prophet enters upon a new stage. From the height of the victory which he had won, with God’s wonderful help, on Carmel, he is led down now into the dark depths of temptation, in order to come forth from them with only the greater glory. “The smelter of Israel must be content to go down now himself into the crucible” (Krummacher). As the “servant of God,” which he was in a special sense (1 Kings 18:36; 2 Kings 9:36; 2 Kings 10:10), he is led the way which, in accordance with the Divine economy, is the way of all true servants of God. For in the great historical idea of the “servant of God,” which is actually realized under the old dispensation only in disjectis membris, but under the new dispensation, in its complete fulness in Christ, there is contained the thought that every servant of God is made perfect through trial and temptation, through suffering and tribulation, and in that which he suffers he learns obedience (Hebrews 2:10; Hebrews 5:8; Luke 24:26; Isaiah 53; Acts 2:23-24; Acts 3:13; Acts 4:27). All the great men who, as servants of God, occupy an integrant position in the history of salvation, have had to go through this experience; and the life even of an Elijah or a Moses would lack an essential element of that which belongs to a “servant of God,” if he had remained untempted and untried, free from suffering and tribulation. From this standpoint, must be contemplated and estimated what the section before us announces concerning him. He stands now, not as before, acting and giving, commanding and judging, but enduring, suffering, and receiving. It is the Lord who is purifying him through suffering; the temptation becomes for him the way to the most glorious revelation of God. 2. The removal from Jezreel into the wilderness should not, as is so often done, be looked on as properly a “flight,” a lack of faith, courage, and firmness (Krummacher: “Faith, to remain was wanting in him this time”). The text has no more knowledge of a flight (αָּ ?ψַ ?η), like that, e. g., in the case of Jonah (Jonah 1:2-3), than of his being afraid. He recognized in the threat of Jezebel a providential admonition, which, however dark and hard it might appear to him, he did not believe himself at liberty to resist, since no higher direction to remain had come to him. For him, the strong man, firm as a rock, heroic in temper, it was an infinitely more difficult and humiliating duty to give up to the anger of a godless, wicked woman, than to bid her defiance, and make trial of the Lord. He bowed beneath the inscrutable decree, as becomes a true servant of God; and so his going away was an act of faith no less than his appearing before the persecuting Ahab (1 Kings 18:15 sq.). “To force martyrdom upon himself, of his own choice, without necessity, he did not consider a part of his calling, nor did he regard it a great and holy act, nor has this ever been the ease with the prophets and apostles. In behalf of the truth and the glory of God’s name the prophet would have given up his life with joy; but at the present crisis this end would not have been attained through his death; it would have been a triumph for Jezebel” (Menken). There is no greater mistake than to suppose that Elijah withdrew from Jezreel “through fear of man,” and that then, because he had arbitrarily relinquished the prosecution of his prophetic calling, he was “summoned, so to speak,” to an account and justification of himself on Horeb (Thenius). It was just there that he was favored with the most glorious revelation. 3. The state of mind into which Elijah fell in the wilderness has nothing to do with the common “weak-minded weariness of life” (Thenius). His righteous and holy sorrow over the fruitlessness of all that God had done, through him, to save His people from ruin and destruction, overpowered him, being as he was, according to the apostle’s expression, ὁμοιοπαθὴςἡμῖν (James 5:17; cf. Acts 14:15); so that he was subject to the frailty and weakness of human nature, from which no mortal is free, so long as he lives in the body. Even he, this mighty hero, was obliged to go through this experience for himself, and pay his tribute to it. Similar States of mind appear even in lives of the firmest and strongest men of God. Thus, in the case of that other Elijah, John the Baptist in the prison, who believed, in like manner, that he must give up all hope, and sent, in the hard hour of temptation, to inquire of the Lord, “Art thou He that should come,” &c.; yet at that time the Lord testifies of him that he is no reed which the wind blows to and fro. And the Author and Finisher of faith himself, in the days of his flesh (John 1:14), offered up prayers and supplication with strong crying and tears (Hebrews 5:7), and called out: “My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death” (Matthew 26:38). As here Elijah, so there the Lord in Gethsemane was strengthened by angel—a clear token that his condition was one indeed of severe temptation, but not of guilt or sin, such as would merit censure or reproof, or even a summons before the tribunal of God. 4. Elijah’s spending forty days and forty nights in the wilderness before reaching Horeb, while he might have attained his end in a much shorter time, was anything rather than accidental or meaningless; concerning Moses the fact is made prominent, not once merely, but repeatedly, with a certain emphasis, that he, before receiving on Horeb the highest revelation from Jehovah, spent forty days and forty nights without eating or drinking (Exodus 24:18; Exodus 34:28; Deut. 9:9; 18:25; 10:10). Since, now, the same thing took place in the case of Elijah also, and in that of no other servant of God, this very fact marks him out as the other, the second Moses; but it follows at once from this that the season of forty days and forty nights had the same significance for Elijah, the restorer of the covenant (vide above on chap. 17.), as for Moses its founder. It was a season of preparation for the highest possible revelation of God that can be given to a mortal, but, as such, a season of abstinence from all earthly enjoyment, of absorption in God and a higher world, of contemplation and prayer. This significance is impressed upon it by the number forty, which is in the Scriptures generally the measure of every season of abstinence, of purification and trial, of conflict and correction, and so also of expectation (Genesis 7:4-17; Deuteronomy 8:2-3; Deuteronomy 29:4-6; Jonah 3:4; Ezekiel 4:6; Ezekiel 29:11-13; Matthew 4:2). Elijah now spent this time, not like Moses upon the mountain itself, but in the wilderness lying before it, which was just the most appropriate locality for him. “Here the whole wonderful history of the old fathers passed in review before him.… With every step which he took forward into the silent desert, new pictures and scenes came before his gaze out of that wonderful past” (Krummacher), he was most vividly reminded “how even in this wilderness God the Lord had manifested Himself to His servants and to His people in the most varied and most glorious manner.… and so he was gradually prepared for the revelations and consolations which awaited him in this wilderness” (Menken). 5. The revelation which Elijah received on Horeb furnishes, indeed, an unmistakable parallel to that which once fell to the lot of Moses, but the account of it is in no wise copied by our narrator from that earlier one, as more recent commentators suppose. (Thenius thinks that he surpasses his model almost.) The common characteristic of the two revelations consists in this, that Jehovah here, as there, “passes by,” which designates, as observed above, the highest state of revelation under the old dispensation. When now Elijah is favored with the same revelation, such as fell to the lot of Moses only and of no other servant of God beside Moses under the old dispensation, he is thereby placed over against Moses; in fact, to a certain degree, on the same line with him; and this is owing to the position which he holds in sacred history as the restorer of the broken covenant, the other, the second Moses. The nature and method of the “passing by” were, on the contrary, very different; the accompanying natural phenomena are wholly wanting in the earlier instance, and are in the Ingest degree peculiar, for they have reference to the special relations and circumstances in which Elijah found himself, as is moreover expressly attested by the explanatory language of God (1 Kings 19:15 sq.). The whole of this revelation bears in general a predominantly prophetic character, referring, that is, to the future, while this element is almost entirely absent from the revelation to Moses. However, it is a matter of greater importance that here, as there, Jehovah reveals saving grace as His most real and inmost essence, and that this revelation fell to the lot of just these two, Moses and Elijah, i. e., the founder and the restorer of the covenant, the representatives of the law and of the prophets, and so of the Old Testament economy in general (Matthew 17:3; Luke 9:30). This fact is the best refutation of the common assertion that the God of the Old Testament is entirely different from the God of the New Testament—an angry, despotic, national God, not the God who, under the new dispensation, has revealed Himself as “Love.” That which became evident to all, Jews and Gentiles, when the time was fulfilled, was already disclosed by the Lord to the two representatives of the old dispensation, although with “veiled countenance,” for it was just they who, in their higher historical position, needed to take a deeper look into the essence of God, and so into the counsel of His mercy and love. 6. The whole transaction on Horeb may indeed be designated a “vision” (Niemeyer, Herder, Von Gerlach. Keil), only by this must not be meant that it was merely a transaction within the prophet, a pure vision which he had during sleep, perhaps “in a dream” (Thenius). The expression in 1 Kings 19:9 : “And behold the word of Jehovah came to him,” which is constantly used of an inner revelation, points doubtless to the fact that Elijah found himself in a visionary condition, into which he seems to have been brought already, more or less, during the forty days and nights (1 Kings 19:8); but the account certainly does not mean to designate the natural phenomenon, the medium of the theophany, as an object of purely internal perception, but as an object of external experience, as appears from the fact that Elijah went out from the cave and veiled his face with his mantle. Yet this does not remove the visionary condition, for the theophanies are, as Lange (on Genesis 3:8) observes, “universally effected by means of visionary frames of mind.” We have before us here a theophany which is not, as in 1 Kings 22:17 or Ezekiel 1, a mere vision, still less as in Psalms 18:7 sq., only poetry, but which, like that in Exodus 3:2 sq., has an occurrence in nature for its substratum. This kind of theophany has, as even Knobel (Prophet. der Hebr. I. s. 160) says, “an objective truth in so far as every occurrence in nature is a revelation of the moving God.” As in general the whole of created nature makes known the Creator and reveals His glory (Psalms 19:1 sq.), so also single special objects in nature, and phenomena or occurrences in nature, serve for His special revelation, for they correspond to the relations of the special time and person, as is here the case. 7. Of the various explanations which the appearance on Horeb has received, that one, first of all, is to be rejected as wholly mistaken which finds represented here for Elijah the fact that the peaceful rest of eternity is to follow the unrest, the conflicts and tribulations of this life (Seb. Schmidt), for this has no connection with the explanatory oracle in 1 Kings 19:15, or rather is directly contradictory to it, even were it not Jehovah, but Elijah’s life, that “passed by.” Much more probable and widespread is another explanation, according to which the appearance expresses a censure of Elijah’s “zeal as not wholly free from human passion,” and aims “to quiet his zeal, which demeans itself too passionately, although it is commendable so far as concerns the sentiment lying at its foundation,” and to “show to him that his zealous activity for the honor of the Lord is not in harmony with the love, grace, and long-suffering of God,” and at the same time also to remind and admonish him not to go too far in the matter (Keil after Ephraim the Syrian, Theodoret, certain Rabbis, Le Clerc, et alii). But where, then, had the prophet, thus far, demeaned himself too passionately, and where did he go too far in his zeal? It could only have happened upon Carmel. But since, then, “by slaying the priests of Baal he only fulfilled what the law demanded” (Keil on 1 Kings 18:40), he certainly deserved no censure or reproof; and since later he caused fire from heaven to fall upon the company sent against him (2 Kings 1:10 sq.), he would certainly have paid no heed to the pretended admonition not to be too zealous. The gentle whispering in which Jehovah was, and out of which he spoke, can by no means have set forth what Elijah was to be, and how he was to control himself; it was no censure, but comfort and encouragement, consolation and support for him.—A third explanation sees on the appearance a picture of the two economies: the law, which terrifies and crushes sinners, and the gospel, which makes them alive and quickens them (so Irenζus, long ago, Grotius, and many more modern ones), or, at the same time, of the judgments and chastisements which came upon the people under the old dispensation, and of the New Testament season of refreshing and peace, in which the Lord Himself will appear and dwell among His believing ones (Jo. Lange, Calw. Bib., et alii). This, however, is opposed by the fact that the appearance would, in that case, stand in no direct connection with Elijah’s complaint (1 Kings 19:10), to which, nevertheless, it was the first reply; and moreover the following oracle (1 Kings 19:15 sq.), which makes it refer to the relations existing at that time, contains no allusion to the Messianic age. When Paul (Romans 11:5) cites Elijah’s complaint and the divine response (1 Kings 19:18), and then continues: “Even so, then, at this present time also there is a remnant according, to the election of grace,” he does not mean to say: What is there predicted is now fulfilled, but: As in Elijah’s time God according to His grace had left alive a number of such as did not give themselves up to the service of Baal, so now also, in the time of salvation, there is an “election of grace,” which does not, with the hardened multitude, reject the offers of salvation, but embraces it and is saved. In Isaiah a recurring theme of prophecy is this: that after all the chastisements and judgments which would come upon Israel, there should still always be in existence a “remnant” of the peculiar and faithful people of God, therefore also at the end of the Old Testament age, resp. at the beginning of the Messianic age (Isaiah 4:2; Isaiah 6:13; Isaiah 10:16 sq.; 1 Kings 11:11). But the reference in the oracle before us is not to this remnant, but to that which in Elijah’s time does not bow the knee before Baal, although it can always be looked upon as a type of the later one and the last. The truth presented in the natural phenomenon on Horeb is of such a kind that it finds application to various times and relations, because it is universal and eternal, and in so far it may be valid also for the Messianic age, but it was revealed to Elijah only with reference to his own time, that of the Old Testament. 8. The calling of Elisha to become a prophet naturally connects itself directly with the revelation on Horeb. What filled Elijah with the greatest solicitude, and drove him into the wilderness and to Horeb, was, that he alone remained of all the prophets, that with him his work of restoring the covenant would go down and the prophetic office die out. On Horeb now he learned that Jehovah had appointed as prophet one who would step into his place and carry on his work, so that there should never be in Israel a lack of such as do not bow the knee before Baal. This it was that brought him out of his depressed state of mind, since the cause of God was the only matter of importance to him, and tilled him with new courage, and because this was the chief matter for him, he felt himself impelled to summon at once as his successor that Elisha whom Jehovah had appointed and elected to become a prophet, and so he betook himself “thence” to him directly, and without delay. There can, therefore, be no thought of a “gap” in the account before us between 1 Kings 19:18-19 (Thenius, vide above on 1 Kings 19:15-18). This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ SECOND SECTION The Deeds Of Ahab1 Kings 20, 21, 22A.—The Victories of Ahab over the SyriansChap. 20:1–431 And Ben-hadad the king of Syria gathered all his host together: and there were thirty and two kings with him, and horses, and chariots: and he went up and besieged Samaria, and warred against it. 2And he sent messengers to Ahab king of Israel into the city, and said unto him, Thus saith Ben-hadad, 3Thy silver and thy gold is mine; thy wives also and thy children, even the goodliest, are mine. 4And the king of Israel answered and said, My lord, O king, according to thy saying, I am thine, and all that I have. 5And the messengers came again, and said, Thus speaketh Ben-hadad, saying, Although I have sent unto thee, saying, Thou shalt deliver me thy silver, and thy gold, and thy wives, and thy children; 6yet I will send my servants unto thee to-morrow about this time, and they shall search thine house, and the houses of thy servants; and it shall be, that whatsoever is pleasant in thine eyes, they shall put it in their hand,and take it away. 7Then the king of Israel called all the elders of the land, and said, Mark, I pray you, and see how this man seeketh mischief: for he sent unto me for my wives, and for my children, and for my silver, and for my gold; and I denied him not. 8And all the elders and all the people said unto him, Hearken not unto him, nor consent. 9Wherefore he said unto the messengers of Ben-hadad, Tell my lord the king, All that thou didst send for to thy servant at the first, I will do: but this thing I may not do. And the messengers departed, and 10brought him word again. And Ben-hadad sent unto him, and said, The gods do so unto me, and more also, if the dust of Samaria shall suffice for handfuls for all the people that follow me. 11And the king of Israel answered and said, Tell him, Let not him that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off. 12And it came to pass, when Ben-hadad heard this message as he was drinking, he and the kings in the pavilions, that he said unto his servants, Set yourselves in array. And they set themselves in array against the city. 13And behold, there came a prophet unto Ahab king of Israel, saying, Thus saith the Lord [Jehovah], Hast thou seen all this great multitude? behold, I will deliver it into thine hand this day; and thou shalt know that I am the Lord [Jehovah]. 14And Ahab said, By whom? And he said, Thus saith the Lord [Jehovah], Even by the young men of the princes of the provinces. Then he said, Who shall order [begin] the battle? And he answered, Thou. 15Then he numbered the young men of the princes of the provinces, and they were two hundred and thirty-two: and after them he numbered all the people, even all the children of Israel, being seven thousand. 16And they went out at noon. But Benhadad was drinking himself drunk in the pavilions, he and the kings, the thirty and two kings that helped him. 17And the young men of the princes of the provinces went out first; and Ben-hadad sent out, and they told him, saying, There are men come out of Samaria. 18And he said, Whether they be come out for peace, take them alive; or whether they be come out for war, take them alive. 19So these young men of the princes of the provinces came out of the city, and the army which followed them. 20And they slew every one his man: and the Syrians fled; and Israel pursued them: and Ben-hadad the king of Syria escaped on an horse with the horsemen. 21And the king of Israel went out, and smote the horses and chariots, and slew the Syrians with a great slaughter. 22And the prophet came to the king of Israel, and said unto him, Go, strengthen thyself, and mark, and see what thou doest: for at the return of the year the king of Syria will come up against thee. 23And the servants of the king of Syria said unto him, Their gods are gods of the hills; therefore they were stronger than we; but let us fight against them in the plain, and surely we shall be stronger than they. 24And do this thing, Take the kings away, every man out of his place, and put captains in their rooms: 25and number thee an army, like the army that thou hast lost, horse for horse, and chariot for chariot: and we will fight against them in the plain, and surely we shall be stronger than they. And he hearkened unto their voice, and did so. 26And it came to pass at the return of the year, that Ben-hadad numbered the Syrians, and went up to Aphek, to fight against Israel. 27And the children of Israel were numbered, and were all present [were provided for], and went against them: and the children of Israel pitched before them like two little flocks of kids; but the Syrians filled the country. 28And there came a man of God, and spake unto the king of Israel, and said, Thus saith the Lord [Jehovah], Because the Syrians have said, The Lord [Jehovah] is God of the hills, but he is not God of the valleys, therefore will I deliver all this great multitude into thine hand, and ye shall know that I am the Lord [Jehovah]. 29And they pitched one over against the other seven days. And so it was, that in the seventh day the battle was joined: and the children of Israel slew of the Syrians an hundred thousand footmen in one day. 30But the rest fled to Aphek, into the city; and there a [the] wall fell upon twenty and seven thousand of the men that were left. And Ben-hadad fled, and came into the city, into an inner chamber. 31And his servants said unto him, Behold now, we have heard that the kings of the house of Israel are merciful kings:. let us, I pray thee, put sackcloth on our loins, and ropes upon our heads, and go out to the king of Israel: peradventure he will save thy life. 32So they girded sackcloth on their loins, and put ropes on their heads, and came to the king of Israel, and said, Thy servant Ben-hadad saith, I pray thee, let me live. And he said, Is he yet alive? he is my brother. 33Now the men did diligently observe whether any thing would come from him [and the men interpreted this favorably], and did hastily catch it: and they said, Thy brother Ben-hadad. Then he said, Go ye, bring him. Then Ben-hadad came forth to him; and he caused him to come up into the chariot. 34And Ben-hadad said unto him, The cities which my father took from thy father, I will restore; and thou shalt make streets for thee in Damascus, as my father made in Samaria. Then said Ahab, I will send thee away with this covenant. So he made a covenant with him, and sent him away. 35And a certain man of the sons of the prophets said unto his neighbor in the word of the Lord [Jehovah], Smite me, I pray thee. And the man refused to smite him. 36Then said he unto him, Because thou hast not obeyed the voice of the Lord [Jehovah], behold, as soon as thou art departed from me, a lion shall slay thee. And as soon as he was departed from him, a lion found him, and slew him. 37Then he found another man, and said, Smite me, I pray thee. And the man smote him, so that in smiting he wounded him. 38So the prophet departed, and waited for the king by the way, and disguised himself with ashes upon his face 39[with a band over his eyes]. And as the king passed by, he cried unto the king: and he said, Thy servant went out into the midst of the battle; and behold, a man turned aside, and brought a man unto me, and said, Keep this man: if by any means he be missing, then shall thy life be for his life, or else thou shalt pay a talent of sil1 Kings 1 Kings 20:40 And as thy servant was busy here and there, he was gone. And the king of Israel said unto him, So shall thy judgment be; thyself hast decided it. 41And he hasted, and took the ashes away from his face [band away from his eyes]; and the king of Israel discerned him that he was of the prophets. 42And he said unto him, Thus saith the Lord [Jehovah], Because thou hast let go out of thy hand a man whom I appointed to utter destruction, therefore thy life shall go for his life, and thy people for his people. 43And the king of Israel went to his house heavy and displeased, and came to Samaria. Exegetical and Critical1 Kings 20:1-9. And Ben-hadad. &c. The entire account of chap. 20. was derived, as we have already remarked, from a different source than chaps. 17, 18, and 19. There can be no other reason for our author’s having introduced it here than this, that the victory of Ahab over the Syrians occurred previous in time to the execution of Naboth (chap. 21), which gave occasion for the reappearance of Elijah.—Concerning Ben-hadad, see 1 Kings 15:18. The thirty-two kings were not rulers over entire territories, but were lords of single cities and their districts (cf.Jos. 1 Kings 12:7), vassals (Grotius: reguli in clientela ipsius), who paid tribute to Ben-hadad, and in the event of war, were obliged to furnish auxiliaries. The cause and aim of the expedition was, according to 1 Kings 20:3, to plunder Ahab, and make him a vassal. δַ ?θּ ?εֹ ?αִ ?ιν can hardly refer, as Thenius and Keil would have it, to wives and sons, but only to the latter; by them are meant not Ahab’s own sons, but the best, that is, the most eminent young men of the city or the country, whom Ben-hadad demanded as hostages. The import of his message was, “surrender to me all these, and I will withdraw.” When Ahab, without hesitation, consented so submissively and timorously, Ben-hadad grew only the more audacious and insolent in his demands; he was sorry for having demanded so little, and he now threatens to give over the king’s palace and the dwellings of the king’s servants to be plundered (the pillaging of the entire city can hardly be meant, as Keil and Kimchi think).—Whatsoever is pleasant in thine eyes,i.e., not merely silver and gold, but everything costly and valuable. According to Maurer, Gesenius, Keil, and others, λִּ ?ι, of 1 Kings 20:5, serves, like ὃτι, only to introduce the oratio directa; and λִּ ?ι before ΰִ ?ν, 1 Kings 20:6, is a repetition for the sake of emphasis merely; ΰִ ?ν, however, meaning in that place “when;” better Thenius: “λּ ?ιִ, 1 Kings 20:5, serves to strengthen the assertion; λִּ ?ιΰִ ?ν, 1 Kings 20:6, to strengthen it still more, so that the latter is, according to the sense, to be rendered: but since Ben-hadad increases his demand.” The elders of the land (1 Kings 20:7), in distinction from the elders of the city (1 Kings 21:8), being the highest officials, perhaps, had their court at their residences, or, upon the approach of Ben-hadad, had betaken themselves thither with their treasures. Ahab calls them together to say to them: Ben-hadad is not satisfied with my treasures, he wants yours also. ψָ ?ςָ ?η does not here mean “mischief” (Luther: how malevolent his purpose is), but “disaster,” “destruction:” he intends to ruin us completely. 1 Kings 20:10-12. And Ben-hadad sent unto him, &c., 1 Kings 20:10. He seeks, by boasting in the genuine oriental style, to overawe Ahab (cf.2 Sam. 1 Kings 17:13); the import of his words is, My army is so large that if, in the impending desolation of Samaria, every one of my people desired to take away with him only a handful of rubbish, many would have to go back empty-handed. The explanation of the Rabbins and the Chaldean: Si suffecerit pulvis Somron, ut feratur soleis plantarum pedum populi qui mecum est, is incorrect, since ωֹׁ ?ςָ ?μ in Isaiah 40:12; Ezekiel 13:19, the only other places where the wore occurs, means not vola pedis, but the hollow of the hand. Just as incorrect is the interpretation of Josephus: “He could, with his army, cast up a dike higher than his walls were, if every one of his people contributed only a handful of earth.” Ahab’s somewhat defiant response, expressed in words of a proverb, 1 Kings 20:11, proceeded, perhaps, from the elders, who were much more determined and courageous, and were willing to await the utmost. The import of the proverb is the Latin: ne triumphum canas ante victoriam; the German: Verkaufe das Fell des Bδren nicht, bevor du ihn hast. Let not him who is arming for the fight, boast as though he had already laid aside his weapons, i.e., had gained the victory. The ρֻ ?λּ ?εֹ ?ϊ, 1 Kings 20:12, in which the drinking-bout occurred, were not tents of sailcloth, but huts made of branches of trees, like those put up to-day for the Turkish pashas and Agas on their expeditions (Keil, Rosenmόller A. u. N. Morgenland III. s. 198). The translation of ωִׂ ?ιξεּ, “bring up! (the siege instruments) as a command to prepare for immediately storming the place” (so Thenius, following the Sept. οἰκοδομήσατεχάρακα), does not accord with the use of the word elsewhere: in 1 Samuel 11:11; Job 1:17, the word seems to refer simply to setting the army in array. 1 Kings 20:13. There came a prophet unto Ahab. The conjecture of the Rabbins that this prophet may have been Micaiah (1 Kings 22:8) has no historical basis. The entrance of a prophet here and in 1 Kings 20:28; 1 Kings 20:35 Thenius thinks inconsistent with the statements, chap, 1 Kings 18:4; 1 Kings 18:22; 1 Kings 19:10; 1 Kings 19:14. But the statement is nowhere made that in the persecution of the prophets all had been put to death; Obadiah, in fact, had concealed a hundred of them who did not perish, and Elijah mentioned himself as the only remaining one, because at that time he was the only one who openly appeared as a prophet. The persecution appears to have taken place principally at the time of the famine, and to have ceased after the flight of Elijah. On the approach of Ben-hadad there were other things to be thought of beside the extermination of the prophets, and in the time of their distress a prophet who foretold victory was even welcome. From what quarter this prophet came to Samaria, whether he lived there, or whether he had been sent there from one of the schools of the prophets, must remain undecided. In no case, however, could the compiler of our books have been so thoughtless as to have inserted in chap. 20 anything which stands in contradiction to the immediately preceding chapters. Where Elijah sojourned at the time of the war we do not learn. That it was not he but some other prophet who announced the promise of victory to Ahab cannot be wondered at under the existing circumstances. Elijah was the least suited of all for such a message. 1 Kings 20:14-16. By the servants of the princes, 1 Kings 20:14. Gerlach: “The administrators appointed over separate districts of the country appear at that time to have assembled with the army in Samaria, and each one among them had a sort of body-guard, or such servants about him as generally executed his orders” (2 Samuel 18:15). The πְ ?ςָ ?ψִ ?ιν are therefore not “pages unaccustomed to fight” (Thenius), or “young lads of very tender age” (Ewald); much rather are we to suppose that they were a very select body of strong young men. Ahab would not have consented to appoint weak, inexperienced boys for the advance guard, without at least having expressed some scruples. The extraordinary divine aid consisted not in this, that the victory should be gained by boys, but by such a small number (for that very reason the number is so explicitly specified). Ahab’s question, Who shall open the battle? represents him as by no means a “courageous and resolute man” (Thenius), for such a man, in a struggle where it was a question of life or death, would not first ask a prophet who was to make the attack. The thou in the reply, moreover, does not mean that Ahab was to lead the two hundred and thirty-two, but that the attack was to be made by Israel. According to 1 Kings 20:21, Ahab did not march out until the Syrians had betaken themselves to flight. The very small army of only seven thousand is a token of a not very glorious condition of the might of the kingdom under Ahab. The position of Jarchi is that of a true Rabbi, viz., that the seven thousand were those who had not bowed the knee to Baal (1 Kings 19:18); the number, without doubt, is here an historical one. At noon they marched out, that is, at the time when Ben-hadad, haughty and confident, had given, himself up with his vassals to the table, news of which had probably been received in the city. 1 Kings 20:17-21. And Ben-hadad sent out, &c., 1 Kings 20:17. When he was made aware that something was going on, and the messengers who had been sent out brought him news that a troop was drawing near, in his haughtiness he gave the command to take them all prisoners, even in case they had come to treat or capitulate. Starke, indeed, fills out the idea of alive with “that they may be cut down before mine eyes,” which thought, however, is not necessarily contained in the word. According to 1 Kings 20:20 they fought man to man, each one coping with the enemy immediately opposed to him; the addition of the Sept.: καὶ ἐδευτέρωσενἔκαστοςτὸνπαρ’ αὐτοῦ is gloss, and does not justify an alteration of the text. ςַ ?μΞρεּ ?νεּ ?τָּ ?ψָ ?ωִׁ ?ιν does not mean equis mutatis alternis (Schulz), nor according to the Sept. ἐφἵππωνἵππέων, but upon a horse (according to Thenius: on a hastily seized chariot-horse) with his rider, i.e., in company with the horsemen. Not till now did the king march out of the city with the remainder of the garrison. In place of εַ ?ιַּ ?κְ the Sept. has καὶ ἔλαβε, therefore Thenius would read εַ ?ιִּ ?χַ ?η, which is unnecessary, as the idea of “taking posession of” is contained in the word “slew,” according to Vatablus: he smote those who were endeavoring to escape upon horses and chariots. In any case the idea of butchering of the horses and the demolishing of the chariots is not intended. 1 Kings 20:22-25. And the prophet came, &c. 1 Kings 20:22. The same prophet as that mentioned in 1 Kings 20:13, as we see by the article. The translation of δִ ?ϊְ ?ηַ ?ζַּ ?χ “be of good cheer!” or “be brave!” is not suitable, inasmuch as Ahab had just now gained the victory; therefore: fortify yourself, make yourself strong—namely, by collecting your forces of war. At the return of the year, i.e., with the beginning of the next year, “when, after the close of the winter rains, campaigns were customarily commenced, 2 Samuel 11:1” (Keil). 1 Kings 20:23-25 do not belong to the speech of the prophet, who only announced the coming war; the man of God (1 Kings 20:28) is the first to tell the king what was to happen in that conflict; 1 Kings 20:23-25 are thus an insertion of the narrator’s. The sense of 1 Kings 20:23 is this: in the mountainous region of Samaria we were defeated by the Israelites, because we were there obliged to contend against their gods who are gods of the mountains; in the plains, on the other hand, where these gods do not reside, we will most certainly be victorious. The dii montium, who are enthroned on mountains and direct and watch over everything that takes place within their region, and accordingly prosper and defend the inhabitants of the mountains, are mentioned in other places in heathen antiquities (Deyling, Observatt. III. 12; Winer, Real-Wφrt.-Buch I. p. 154). The advice to remove the kings was caused, perhaps, by the fact that they as vassals marched with him only through compulsion, and therefore were not in earnest, or not entirely to be depended upon in a fight, while the leaders appointed by Ben-hadad himself would be bound to obey him absolutely, and thus there would be greater harmony in inaugurating the war (cf. 1 Kings 22:31). The removal of the princes was accompanied with the loss of the auxiliaries furnished by them, therefore Benhadad was obliged to form an army from his own people that would equal the former one, including the auxiliary troops. 1 Kings 20:26-30. And it came to pass at the return of the year, &c., 1 Kings 20:26. Ben-hadad’s wish being to fight in the plain, this Aphek spoken of can be neither that one at the foot of Lebanon, in the tribe of Asher (Joshua 13:4; Joshua 19:30), nor the highly elevated one of the east of the sea of Galilee; it is rather Aphek in the plain of Jezreel, in the tribe of Issachar, “the largest plain of Palestine, where from the times of Joshua to Napoleon so many great battles have been fought” (Keil). cf. 1 Samuel 29:1; 1 Samuel 28:4; Robinson’s Palestine III. p. 477.—ηֲ ?ωִׂ ?ισ 1 Kings 20:27 means properly something separated (from ηָ ?ωַׂ ?σ in its original meaning—to separate), literally, then, like two flocks of kids, i.e., “like two little flocks of kids separated from the main herd ”(Keil). These flocks pasture mostly on the cliffs, and are smaller than the flocks of sheep. “The figure was used, without question, to present in a vivid manner the insignificance of the Israelitish army, separated into two bands, as contrasted with that of the Syrians which covered the entire plain” (Thenius). The seventh day (1 Kings 20:29) was probably chosen for the attack as being a day of good omen (Joshua 6:15). There is a difficulty in the number one hundred thousand; to slaughter so many men in one day seems scarcely possible. Either πλδ here has, like our word “beat,” the meaning of “defeat,” so that by 100,000 the size of the entire army is designated, or the number is a mistake, to be classed with those mistakes in numbers which arise from confounding figures of similar appearance. The falling of the wall (1 Kings 20:30), according to the old interpreters, resulted from a miracle; according to others, from an earthquake; according to Gerlach and Keil, through a special interposition of God. Thenius supposes a plan for undermining carried on by night on the part of the Israelites; they then enticed a part of the besieged away to the place, and at the capture which occurred thereupon the rest were put to death. Ewald says: the rubbish of the quickly devastated city buried the remaining 27,000. The Sept. translates ηֶ ?γֶ ?ψαְּ ?ηָ ?γֶ ?ψ, εἰςτὸνοἶκοντοῦ κοιτῶνοςεἰςτὸ ταμεῖον; the Vulgate; in cubiculum, quod erat intra cubiculum; it is, however, not necessary to refer it to a bed-chamber. Josephus has εἰςὑπογαῖονοἶκονἐκρύβη. Thenius interprets arbitrarily: Ben-hadad fled into the fortress of the city, and there from one chamber into another (cf. 1 Kings 22:25; 2 Chronicles 18:24). 1 Kings 20:31-34. And his servants said, &c., 1 Kings 20:31. Sackcloth was a sign of penitence, the ropes about the neck signs of most complete subjection. The latter custom still exists in the East. “The peasants in the region of Ningpo (China) are obliged to bring the contributions levied upon them to the city with ropes about their necks, as a sign of their subjection.” (Allg. Zeitung, 1862, Suppl. s. 2,931). In place of thy life the Sept. and Vulg. have, our lives; evidently incorrect. ιְ ?πַ ?ηֲ ?ωׁ ?εּ (1 Kings 20:33) Vulg. Quod acceperunt viri pro omine; they took the expression of Ahab’s to be a good omen. The words εַ ?ιַּ ?ηְ ?μְ ?θεּ ηֲ ?ξִ ?ξֶּ ?πּ ?εּ are variously understood. The Talmud interprets the verb ηָ ?μַ ?θ, occurring only in this place, by declare, and this Maurer and Keil follow: declarare eum fecerunt, an ex ipso pronunciation esset, num ex animi sententia hoc dixisset. Others consider ηָ ?μַ ?θ equivalent to δָ ?μַ ?υ, to snatch, and according to the Syriac, Chald., and some manuscripts unite the δ standing before ξִ ?ξֶּ ?πּ ?εּ with the verb as a suffix: arripuerunt id ex eo (ex ejus ore, ne istud revocare posset); so likewise the Vulg.: rapuerunt verbum ex ore ejus; the Sept. has καὶ ἀνελέξαντοτὸνλόγοναὐτοῦ ἐκτοῦ στόματοςαὐτοῦ; following this Ewald would read: δַ ?γָּ ?αָ ?ψξξπε in place of δξξπε, i.e., they hastily quoted his own word, and adopted it as theirs. Thenius: they took him immediately at his own word. The words “my brother” contained more than they demanded; namely, not only that he would grant Ben-hadad his life, but that he would treat him not even as captive, rather as a king of equal rank, in fine, as though, nothing had happened between them. 1 Kings 20:34. The cities which my father, &c. The cities mentioned in 1 Kings 15:20 cannot he referred to here, since these were taken in the time of Baasha, and Baasha was not the father of Ahab, and the city of Samaria, besides, was not yet built; we are therefore compelled to assume that Ben-hadad’s father, as formerly with Baasha, so afterwards with Omri, Ahab’s father, had a war, and that, too, after the building of Samaria, which war was concluded by the surrender of certain cities, and can easily be included in what is spoken of in 1 Kings 16:27. The ηֻ ?φεֹ ?ϊ are neither fortified places, nor places for paying customs, nor pasture grounds, but streets, in which the Syrians were accustomed to live and do business; thoroughfares for licensed merchants (Bφttcher), bazars (Thenius). The words εַ ?ΰֲ ?πִ ?ιαַּ ?αְּ ?ψִ ?ιϊΰֲ ?ωַׁ ?μֹּ ?ηֶ ?κָ, can only he translated: but I will permit you to go hence free, in accordance with the covenant, i.e., the concluded treaty; thus translated they could only have been the words of Ahab, and we are compelled to supply at the beginning—“Ahab replied.” This is much more admissible than, following the grammatically incorrect translation of the Vulgate (et ego [Benadad] f�deratus recedam a te), to alter the text as Thenius does, and read, ΰַ ?ωֻׁ ?μַּ ?ηΞπָ ?ΰ, i.e., “and I, on the other, wish to be sent away in accordance with an agreement concluded and sworn to.” Opposed to this is the emphatic εַ ?ΰֲ ?πִ ?ι, which throughout is not suited to Ben-hadad; moreover, the two following verbs, of which Ahab is the subject, compel us to refer the ΰπι to him. 1 Kings 20:35. And a certain man of the sons of the prophets, &c. The expression αְּ ?πֵ ?ιδַ ?πְּ ?αִ ?ιΰִ ?ιν appears here for the first time; we are not to consider the “sons of the prophets” young men necessarily, but rather members of the society of prophets, or, if we will, of the order of prophets; according to 2 Kings 4:1, there were married men among them. They were called sons in distinction from the heads and leaders of the separate communities of prophets (cf. Winer, Real-Wφrt.-Buch II. p. 282). The ψֵ ?ςַ is a fellow-prophet. Concerning αִּ ?γְ ?αַ ?ψ see under 1 Kings 13:1. The passage 1 Kings 20:35-43 is not a part which is arbitrarily appended to the preceding narrative, while not originally belonging to it (Thenius), but is an essential constituent part of it—its fitting conclusion, for it furnishes the solemn announcement of the divine punishment for Ahab’s perverse procedure with Ben-hadad (1 Kings 20:32-34). All that the prophet says and does, is summed up in the declaration of v. 42, which must not be lost sight of, as the principal thing. Just as the victory was foretold to the king by a prophet, as an act of God, so also the punishment for his conduct, after the victory had been granted him, was made known to him by a prophet (whether by the same one or some other is unknown), as a judgment of God upon him. This happened in a peculiar, but in every respect in a genuinely prophetic and solemn manner, namely, by means of symbolic action followed by explicit declaration (see above, p. 119). The symbolic action, however, was of such a kind as not only to present to the eyes of the king the blamableness of his conduct, but also to lead him, without his knowing it or wishing it, to pass sentence upon himself, and by that means declare that the prophesied punishment was justly deserved. 1 Kings 20:35. Smite me, I pray thee, &c., that is, wound me (cf. 1 Kings 20:37). The prophet was shortly about to represent himself as a warrior returning from a severe fight (cf. 1 Kings 20:39 : into the midst of the battle); the wounding of the prophet renders all the remaining symbolic action conditional, and just for that reason it is made so markedly prominent. The demand: Smite me! was accompanied without doubt with a statement of the reason and with an appeal to the “word of Jehovah,” and for that very reason the refusal to fulfil the demand, on the part of a fellow-prophet especially, was not at all justifiable. But because the prophet without being wounded could not carry out the action which he had been charged with, nor make a prophetic announcement of the coming punishment, he turned and made his request of another, who consented. What is related besides in 1 Kings 20:36 of the fellow-prophet who refused, does not really belong to the main action, but is a side feature of the narrative, and shows itself to be such from the brevity and fragmentary character of the statements. It is nevertheless important, because by it the main action is made only the more conspicuous, and is at the same time referred to the necessity of unconditional obedience to the “word of God” within the society of prophets. To oppose this word is a thing not consistent with the nature of the prophet’s position, whose calling consists wholly in being the instrument of “Jehovah’s word” (cf. 1 Kings 13:21, p. 144). 1 Kings 20:37 : δַ ?λֵּ ?δεּ ?τָ ?φֹ ?ςַ, smiting and wounding, i. e., he smote him in such a manner as to wound him. ΰֲ ?τֵ ?ψ, 1 Kings 20:38, is not equivalent to ΰֵ ?τֶ ?ψ ashes, as the Vulg., Luther, and others translate, but means (from ΰָ ?τַ ?ψ to enwrap, to surround) head-bandage, Sept. τελαμών, bandage (not turban, as Maurer and others would have it). The bandages betokened one severely wounded, and served at the same time to conceal his features, so that Ahab, who was to be made to pass sentence upon himself, could not recognize him (1 Kings 20:41). By the way he stationed himself, because the proceeding was to take place previous to the king’s return home, in the open street, and before the eyes of his entire retinue, as an open testimony against himself. 1 Kings 20:39-41. Thy servant went out, &c. 1 Kings 20:39. De Wette translates ΰִ ?ιωׁ ?Ξρָ ?ψ, a man approached, but ρεּ ?ψ does not mean “to approach,” but “turn aside,” turn away from the road (Exodus 3:3; Judges 14:8); here, then, one who has left the field of battle. Ewald, whom Thenius follows, would read ρַ ?ψ which is used for ωַׂ ?ψ, and then translates “captain,” i. e., “one whom he (the wounded man) as king, a common soldier must obey,” an officer. The parable would, under these circumstances, certainly be more complete, since this officer would represent Jehovah, who had given Ben-hadad into the power of Ahab; but another lection is not required. If the wounded man should suffer the prisoner committed to him to escape, he would have to forfeit his life or a talent of silver, i. e., 2,600 thalers. “The prisoner is thus represented to be a very important personage” (Thenius).—In place of ςωֶֹׁ ?δ (1 Kings 20:40), Houbigant reads ωֹׁ ?ςֶ ?δ, Thenius τֹ ?πֶ ?δ (turning his eyes this way and that); wherefore the translations read: Sept., περιεβλέπετο; Vulg. dum ego turbatus huc illucque me verterem. This alteration of the text is absolutely unnecessary.—Concerning the signification of the parable, so much is indisputable, that the young man who had gone out into the battle is representative of Ahab, and the man intrusted to his keeping, but allowed to escape through carelessness, is the representative of King Ben-hadad. The signification of the wounding is not so apparent, inasmuch, indeed, as Ahab was not wounded. The hostile treatment which Ahab suffered soon after at the hands of the released Ben-hadad (chap. 22), cannot possibly be signified, since the wounding happened before the man’s escape, and besides it was not the work of the captive; still less possible is the idea of older interpreters, that it was a symbol of the wound which Ahab had inflicted on himself and the people by his idolatry and the release of Ben-hadad. Neither is Ewald’s explanation acceptable, that the prophet allowed himself to be wounded by another, “and as though he had a right, on account of the bloody injury which he had received, to call aloud on the king for help,” put himself in Ahab’s way. It is not acceptable, because the wounded man did not cry to the king for help, but demanded of him, as the chief judge, a decision as to whether he was punishable or not; moreover, the king answered him, “thyself hast decided it” (ξִ ?ωְׁ ?τָּ ?θֶ ?κָ 1 Kings 20:40). We would do better to recognize in the wounded man a picture not only of Ahab, but at the same time of the people of Israel, inasmuch as the king is the people—individualized, is the deputy and representative of his people. The sentence of punishment (1 Kings 20:42) especially shows this: Thy life shall go for his life, and thy people for his people. Israel had just endured a hard, bloody fight, and had carried off the promised victory; but now, in the person of its king, it had let the arch-enemy, whom the Lord had given into their hands, go free and unpunished. They sinned therefore against Jehovah, whose will it was that this enemy, who had sworn to destroy Israel, should not be suffered to escape out of their hands, but should suffer merited punishment; their suffering him to escape was a practical denial of the might, the goodness, and the justice of Jehovah. After the king had pronounced his own sentence, the aim of the disguise by means of bandages, indeed the aim of the entire symbolic proceeding was attained, and hence the prophet threw aside the bands, and allowed himself to be recognized as a prophet, as one who declares the word of Jehovah; following the symbolic-prophetic action comes (1 Kings 20:42) the solemn, prophetic declaration, as in 1 Kings 11:31. 1 Kings 20:42-43. Thus saith the Lord, Because, &c., 1 Kings 20:42. Ben-hadad is called ΰִ ?ιωׁ ?Ξδֶ ?ψְ ?ξִ ?ι, i. e., man of my curse, the man whom I appointed to destruction. Cf. Isaiah 34:5 : My sword shall come down upon Idumea, εְ ?ςַ ?μΞςַ ?νδֶ ?ψְ ?ξִ ?ιμְ ?ξִ ?ωְׁ ?τָּ ?θ (Mal. 3:24). The punishment which Ben-hadad and his people had deserved, but which thou, disobeying the Lord, hast remitted completely, and on thine own authority, shall fall upon thee and thy nation. King and people seem here inseparable from one another, as head and members. Ahab probably had a great desire to seize the prophet for this independent outspoken reproof and curse, but he had the less courage to do it since he had given the sentence of judgment himself; still he was deeply moved to resistance in his heart, and angrily withdrew (ρַ ?ψ, from ρψψ, to be stubborn, refractory, Deuteronomy 21:18; Isaiah 30:1, meaning more than disheartened or low-spirited). Historical and Ethical1. The two victories over the Syrians were designed, according to the declaration of both the prophets who foretold them, to effect “that thou, (king) and ye (the entire nation) may know that I am Jehovah,” that is to say, that Jehovah is the only true God, the God of Israel. In this declaration we have specified the purpose of the entire narrative, and at the same time the stand-point from which it is to be comprehended. That day on Mount Carmel, if it did not put an end to idolatry at once, had at least broken its power, as was already evident from the mere fact that the prophets were no longer persecuted and put to death, but could again go about openly and continue the work begun by Elijah; they even had access to Ahab again. Still the conversion was by no means complete, but rather, being weak, it needed support and strength from above if a complete relapse was to be prevented from setting in. This assistance came from the display of the power of Jehovah, a power which rescued in a time of great need and distress. The attack of the Syrian king, who had grown so mighty, threatened Ahab and his kingdom with destruction; at this crisis God, who never forsakes his people, who is “merciful and gracious, long-suffering and abundant in goodness and truth” (Exodus 34:6), repeatedly grants them the victory, which was so extraordinary and wonderful, that it could not possibly be ascribed to human power and strength, but only to God, to His might, His grace and truth. It was designed to make king and people unmistakably certain that it is not Baal or any other god but the God Jehovah who “doeth wonders, and declareth His strength among His people, and redeemeth His people with a strong arm” (Psalms 77:15). And in order that every one may know whence and from whom such a victory came, he caused it to be foretold by his servants the prophets. If ever anything could be, this double victory was designed to open the eyes of king and people, and bring them to a recognition of the “thus saith the Lord, ‘I am Jehovah.’ ” We have thus in this account, not merely an ordinary history of wars, but a part of the divine history of salvation before us, which in an individual instance is what the entire history of Israel is in its completeness, namely, a display of the special dealings with a guidance of His people on God’s part. Although the first victory is a marked evidence of the saving might and grace of Jehovah, the second, by which the entire Syrian power was destroyed, was for Israel as well as for the Syrians themselves a still more remarkable proof of the fact, that Jehovah was no mere mountain, and local, or national divinity, but that the whole earth was His, and He was God of all nations (Exodus 19:5; Psalms 24:1). He who reduces the God of Israel to a mere local or national deity, as is so often done even nowadays, stands on the same footing with the “servants of the king of Syria” (1 Kings 20:23; 1 Kings 20:28). 2. King Ahab appears by no means in the present part of the historical narrative “in a more favorable light than in those [previously alluded to, traditional] passages” (Thenius); on the contrary he is just as weak, faithless, and devoid of character. There is not the slightest evidence of a single religious emotion, in a time of need and distress; he neither calls upon the Lord for help and assistance, nor renders thanks to him after his rescue from danger. The name of Jehovah does not pass his lips. He does not oppose himself to the haughty, boastful enemy “as a resolutely determined man,” but is faint-hearted and timorous, calls himself his “servant,” submits to his demands, and is ready to surrender to him not only his gold and silver, but also his wives and sons. It is only when the whole nation cries out to him, “You have no right to do that!” that he plucks up courage and assumes quite a different tone: to-day despairing and way down, to-morrow defiant and lofty; still for some time he inquired of the very prophet who foretold to him his victory, whether indeed he should make the attack and place himself at the head of his people. When the danger was past it did not occur to him to prepare for a similar peril; a prophet must first suggest it to him and give him instructions to that end. After the second victory, which brings into his power the bold, dangerous enemy who was constantly threatening Israel, and who, as circumstances afterwards gave evidence, was a false and treacherous foe, he acknowledges him as a brother, treats him with royal honor, and allows him to depart on the easiest possible conditions. This last-mentioned act later interpreters and historians have set down as greatly to his credit; it was “an act which did honor to his heart” (Bauer), a token of a “naturally very noble mind” (J. D. Michaelis), or of “natural kindness of heart and confiding disposition” (Thenius), he had “magnanimously granted life and liberty to a wounded and captive enemy” (Duncker). Not much can be said, however, concerning kindness of heart in connection with that man who at one time permitted the slaughter of defenceless prophets because they opposed the wild, lascivious Baal and Astarte worship, and subsequently permitted the innocent Naboth to be executed through deceit and treachery, merely because he wanted his vineyard; and when he called that barbarous Syrian Ben-hadad, who had set out on an expedition merely to plunder and devastate, and, persevering, sought to destroy Israel at once, his “brother,” and at the same time honored him as a king—whereas he had found fault with such a man as Elijah, charging him with being a disturber of Israel (chap, 1 Kings 18:17). We see no evidence in such action of generosity and magnanimity, but simply that foolishness which is usually allied with weakness and lack of character. He is flattered that the highest servants and generals of Benhadad should come to him in sackcloth and with ropes around their necks, and recite to him all manner of things about the well-known mercy and high-mindedness of the kings of the house of Israel, but about which in reality nothing had been known since the time of Jeroboam. That he should allow himself to be immediately influenced and entrapped by their flattery, is only a proof of his fickle character and his want of serious moral conduct. The sequel (1 Kings 22:31 sq.) shows how wretchedly he had allowed himself to be deceived. 3. The solemn prophetic denunciation which Ahab drew down upon himself was in every sense justly deserved. Concerning the fitness of it and the method of its accomplishment Hess says (loc. cit. O. p. 146): “A very striking scene, if we take the affair out from its old surroundings, and transfer it to the present time. Considered from the point of view of the theocracy, as the old narrator looked at it, it has by no means any of the impropriety which the sense of the present day ascribes to it, but it is a noticeable evidence of the delicate insight into human nature, and the noble independence with which the prophets understood how to resent the encroachments of the kings on the rights of the theocracy.” If ever a man ought to have been made harmless once for all, it was this Benhadad, who had twice wantonly commenced war for the mere sake of robbing and exercising power, who had set a small value on the lives of thousands of his subjects, and who proposed to change Samaria into a heap of ruins and utterly exterminate Israel. This is no question of relations between private individuals; just as Ahab was not so much victor as Jehovah, so Ben-hadad was not Ahab’s but Jehovah’s prisoner. Ahab had then no right to let him go free and unpunished, for by so doing he arbitrarily interfered with the righteous decision of God, and instead of being an instrument of divine justice he became the toy of his own foolishness and imbecility. The nature and method of the prophetic denunciation was similar to that of Nathan, who caused David to utter sentence against himself concerning his deed (2 Samuel 12:1 sq.). What took place there by means of a spoken parable took place here through an acted one, whose peculiarity is by no means any more striking than the one which we find pro ex. in Jeremiah 13:1 sq.; Jeremiah 27:2 sq.; Ezekiel 5:1 sq.; Ezekiel 24:3 sq. At the same time, however, it gives us an opportunity, as Von Gerlach observes, “to gain an insight into the awful solemnity of the prophetic office at this period of the revolt.” What an obedience to the word of Jehovah, what independence and courage were required to do what this son of the prophets did! When Duncker says (loc. cit. p. 412): “The prophets of Jehovah were very much dissatisfied with this merciful forbearance; as Samuel had once blamed Saul, so now they blamed Ahab passionately and bitterly,” his remarks spring from the same spirit of animosity, in accordance with which they discover something noble and good in the actions of Ahab and men like him, but place the doings of the prophets in the worst possible light. Clericus has indeed remarked with justice: Factum Ahabi, quamvis clementi� speciem pr� se ferat, non erat ver� clementi�, qu� non est erga latrones exercenda; qui si dimittantur, multo magis nocebunt, quam antea, quemadmodum re vera fecit Benhadad.Homiletical and Practical1 Kings 20:1-43. The twice repeated victory of Ahab over the Syrians proclaimed aloud and distinctly (a) the power and strength of the Lord (Ben-hadad came with thirty-two kings, horses and chariots, and a great army, 1 Kings 20:1; 1 Kings 20:10, the first time, with more than a hundred thousand men the second time, 1 Kings 20:29. Ahab had only seven thousand; two hundred and thirty-two decided the battle, 1 Kings 20:15, the first time, and the second time his army was like two flocks of kids, 1 Kings 20:27; nevertheless, he conquered. If ever, it could be said in this case: the horse is prepared against the day of battle, but safety is of the Lord, Proverbs 21:31; 1Ma 3:18-19. Every king who goes to battle should consider what is written in Psalms 33:16 sq., and his army should sing: By our own strength nothing is done, &c., through God we shall do valiantly, Ps. 60:14; 84:6). (b) The grace and mercy of the Lord. (Ahab had deserved nothing as little as he had this repeated victory, for he had introduced the worship of idols, abandoned the confederacy, &c., divine judgments had been fruitless. However, God granted him the victory, not from any merit of his, but out of pure grace and compassion. He endured with much long-suffering, &c., Romans 9:22. He is long-suffering, not willing that any, &c., 2 Peter 3:9; Ezekiel 18:23. But the great triumph, cried out to Ahab and Israel: Despisest thou the riches, &c., Romans 2:4-6. Great victories ought not to make a king and his people haughty, but humble, and bring them to the knowledge that He, the Lord, is God alone.) 1 Kings 20:1-21. The war between Ben-hadad and Ahab; (a) Ben-hadad’s invasion and demands; (b) Ahab’s danger and distress; (c) Israel’s victory. 1 Kings 20:1-11. The messages of Ben-hadad to Ahab, and his responses, (a) The first one, 1 Kings 20:1-4; (b) the second, 1 Kings 20:5-9; (c) the third, 1 Kings 20:10-11. 1 Kings 20:1-4. Wόrt Summ.: In these two kings we see what a thing the human heart is, how insolent and timorous by turns (Jeremiah 17:9). It is insolent when man, grown prosperous, powerful, and rich, places his confidence in his success, and haughtily despises his neighbor. But it is timid when man falls into difficulty, and neither sees nor knows any help, just as was the despairing, womanly heart of king Ahab, who took it for granted that everything was lost when he saw the hosts of his enemies. 1 Kings 20:1-3. Ben-hadad thought that because he had the power to rob and appropriate, ho also had the right to do so. But God gives power and might to kings, not to distort the right, but to protect it. The power of that one who, confiding in his own strength, treads the right under his feet, will sooner or later miserably decline. 1 Kings 20:4. Those who no longer have a Lord in heaven whom they fear, and before whom they bow, cringe and fawn before all men who can harm or serve them. If Ahab had said to the King of kings what he sent as a response to the royal robber and boaster: “I am thine and all that I have;” he would then have had the trust and assurance: He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty, &c. (Psalms 91:1-3). He who bows before God is sure to be humble before men; but he does not cringe to them nor throw himself away. To submit to the superior power and force that demands gold and silver is no disgrace; but to surrender wife and child is contrary to honor, duty, and conscience. 1 Kings 20:5-6. Haughty and insolent men grow all the more overbearing and ungovernable, and the more one submits to them and crawls before them and gratifies their desires, the more exorbitant they become in their demands. It is the curse that rests upon avarice, that the more the appetite after money and property is gratified, the more it grows, not diminishes (Proverbs 16:8). 1 Kings 20:7-9. Ahab and his people, (a) Ahab feels himself helpless and perplexed. Adversity teaches us how to pray, but Ahab had turned from the living God, who is a helper in every time of trouble, to a dumb idol that cannot help; he had forgotten how to pray, forgotten the word of the Psalms 50:15 : Call on me in a day of trouble, &c.; he had sought to help himself by cowardly submission, and now he seeks help of men. In every distress we should turn first to the Lord, Psalms 118:8-9; Psalms 108:13; Hymn: Wenn wir in hφchsten Nφthen sein, und wissen nicht wo aus und ein, &c. (“God is the refuge of his saints, when storms of deep distress invade”), 1 Kings 20:1-2. (b) The elders and the people reproach him. Instead of his giving instructions to them with the words of Joe 3:15, like a king, they give commands to him: Hearken not unto him. He is no real king, realizing the position which has been given to him by God, whom the people control instead of allowing themselves to be controlled by him. Tyrants are of this class: at first they do not consult the people, and do not scruple to appropriate their most sacred possessions, take away their faith, and burden their consciences. Ahab did not consult his people about the introduction of the worship of Baal and the persecution of the prophets; but now when he does not know how to counsel or help himself, he applies to the wish of the nation, the aid of the people is now very acceptable. 1 Kings 20:10. Boasting and braggadocio are never a sign of true strength and ability, much rather of moral weakness. Ben-hadad, who speaks of the dust of Samaria, shows himself by that very act to be of dust, Psalms 75:5-6; Jeremiah 17:5 (Matthew 26:33; Matthew 26:69). 1 Kings 20:11. Cramer: It is presumption for a man to celebrate a triumph before he has gained the victory; so that those who propose doing anything should say: If the Lord will, &c. (James 4:15). Starke: We have no need to stand in fear of men who put their confidence in themselves. 1 Kings 20:12. No success or blessing can rest upon orders which issue from drunken revelries. 1 Kings 20:13. Formerly Ahab wished no instruction from the prophets; now in his danger and distress he admits them and listens to them. In days of prosperity the world does not care for any advice from the faithful servants of the divine word; it looks down upon them and despises them; but in the hour of sorrow and mourning it grants them access, and is glad to avail itself of their consolation. Temptation teaches us to observe God’s word. They who do accept it and obey it will have as little cause as Ahab to repent of it. Before a great troop which has been abandoned of God, you have no cause to fear if God has said to you: I will help thee (Isaiah 41:13). You are to acknowledge: I am the Lord. This is the end and aim of all God’s guidings and providences; if they do not attain this end in your case, your life and existence are vain and of no value, to no purpose. 1 Kings 20:14-15. Cf. 1 Samuel 14:6; 2 Chronicles 14:11. A little band of brave men accomplishes more than a great troop of such as fight in a bad cause and with a wicked conscience. 1 Kings 20:16. Ben-hadad must have sorely repented his drunkenness, as it resulted in the loss of his army, his horses and chariots. How often still is drunkenness the original cause of great sorrow and distress (Ephes. 1 Kings 5:18; Isaiah 5:22; Proverbs 23:29-30). 1 Kings 20:18. Great men often think, when they have been disturbed in their carnal rest and security, that they only need to speak the word of command in order to be relieved from everything disagreeable and wearisome, but they must learn that they cannot rid themselves by a command of what God has sent for their humiliation. 1 Kings 20:19-21. The way of the godless shall perish (Psalms 1:6). Their way is covetousness and pillage (1 Kings 20:3; 1 Kings 20:6), haughtiness, insolence, and assurance (1 Kings 20:10; 1 Kings 20:18), service of their belly, wantonness (1 Kings 20:16). This way shall perish; they are as chaff which the wind driveth away, “utterly consumed with terrors” (1 Kings 20:20-21; Psalms 73:19). 1 Kings 20:22-34. The second expedition of the Syrians against Israel. (a) The motive; (b) the issue. 1 Kings 20:22. The advice of the prophet; Go, strengthen thyself, and mark, &c. is applicable in another, higher sense to us all. Our enemies are not idle, they are constantly returning to the attack. Even if we have by the help of the Lord conquered a victory over sin, the world, and the devil, that is not all there is to be done; we must even after the victory be on our guard and arm ourselves, so that the enemy may not fall upon us unawares (1 Corinthians 16:13; Ephes 1 Kings 6:10 sq.; 1 Peter 5:8; Hymn: Rόstet euch, ihr Christenleute, die Feinde suchen euch zur Beute, &c., “My soul be on thy guard. Ten thousand foes arise,” &c.). 1 Kings 20:23-25. The evil counsellors of Ahab. (a) They urge him on to war and battle instead of counselling peace, because their pride was wounded and their hope of booty had been frustrated. Place no confidence in the man who incites you to begin a quarrel. The saying of Scripture (Hebrews 12:14) is applicable to all, in private as well as public life, for individuals and entire nations, for masters and servants. (b) They plead religious reasons, and make use of the superstition of their unwitting lord. It is possible for a bad, unholy thing to become confirmed through superstition; the man who plants himself on truth, however, will not permit himself to be deceived on such a foundation, (c) They shove the blame of the ignominious defeat on to the thirty-two kings, instead of seeking for it in themselves. A man always prefers to find the cause of his own misfortune and distress in another’s rather than in his own sin and guilt. 1 Kings 20:26. Ben-hadad followed their foolish and perverse advice because it was entirely in accordance with his own wish. So strong and overpowering is sinful desire in the human heart, that even the bitterest dispensation and chastisement of God suppresses it only for a time, and, as soon as the external impression ceases, it breaks forth afresh. 1 Kings 20:28. He who calls the God of Israel, who made heaven and earth and filled them both (Jeremiah 23:23-24), a god of the hills or a national divinity, blasphemes His name; the Lord, however, will not let him go unpunished, who takes His name in vain. 1 Kings 20:29 sq. God is a judge who putteth down one and setteth up another (Psalms 75:8). Hymn: Es sind ja Gott geringe Sachen, und seiner Allmacht gilt es gleich, den Reichen arm und klein zu machen, &c. Today a king and lord over hundreds and thousands, to-morrow a man who is obliged to sneak about and beg for mercy; to-day haughty and insolent, to-morrow a slave in sackcloth, and with a rope about the neck (Jeremiah 16:6-7).—Wόrt. Summ.: Nothing among mortal affairs is so inconstant as temporal prosperity. There is a time for everything. For that reason let no man place his dependence on his good fortune and exalt himself on its account, for he does not know whether he shall possess in the evening what was his in the morning (Sir 18:26). 1 Kings 20:31-42. Lisko: Ahab’s wicked conduct after the victory. (a) In what it consisted. (b) How he was punished for it.—Cramer: When authority is compassionate out of proper season and neglects its office of correction, it draws upon itself the guilt of the other. God wants no mercy to be shown where he has ordered punishment. 1 Kings 20:31-33. Praise, flattery, and subserviency are only too often the snare with which kings and great men are caught, so that under the appearance of generosity and magnanimity they may be led astray and act contrary to the will of God. They ought, indeed, to be merciful and gracious, but not forget that to do justice is their first duty, and that they do not carry the sword in vain.—Ahab persecutes an Elijah in every kingdom (chap, 1 Kings 18:10), and threatens him with death, but he permits a robber and a plunderer to sit beside him in his chariot and makes a covenant with him. What to the eyes of the world looks like generosity, in the eyes of God, who trieth the heart and reins, is only weakness and folly. Great injury can be done by seeming ill-timed generosity. 1 Kings 20:33. Cramer: After a word has been once spoken, we cannot recall it. Therefore learn to guard thy mouth: he who does will not offend by his words (Sir 23:7). 1 Kings 20:35-43. The proclamation of the divine punishment for Ahab’s conduct. (a) How it occurred; (b) how it was received by him (vide Historical and Ethical). 1 Kings 20:35-37. He who has his calling and service from the word of God ought to allow no danger to detain him from making an announcement of the fact (2 Timothy 4:2), and must obediently submit himself to his commands even when the fulfilment of them is joined with pain and sacrifice. 1 Kings 20:38-40. A genuine preacher of repentance must first of all convict the sinner of his guilt and bring him to the point where he condemns himself, just as Nathan did with David. 1 Kings 20:42-43. Ahab listened well pleased to the falsehood from the lips of the Syrian nobles, for it gave nourishment to his folly; the truth from the mouth of the prophet made him restless and angry, because it punished his folly. There is no help for the man who allows himself to be irritated by the truth instead of receiving it with meekness (James 1:21). There is nothing that so rouses and provokes an unconverted and unbelieving man as to have his sinful character so unveiled and set before his eyes that he can no longer justify or excuse himself. Footnotes: [The Vat. Sept. transposes chapters 20 and 21, thus making the affair of Naboth precede the deliverance and victories of Ahab, but making the narrative of the wars of Israel under Ahab with the Syrians continuous. 1 Kings 20:1.—[Many MSS., followed by the Sept., have this name uniformly with the final letter r instead of d. 1 Kings 20:2.—[1 Kings 20:3 begins at this point in the arrangement of our Heb. Bibles, of Luther, and of our author; the Sept. divides as in the A. V. 1 Kings 20:3.—[The Vat. Sept. omits this qualification of Ben-hadad’s demand. 1 Kings 20:5.—[On this form of oath, λִּ ?ιΰִ ?ν cf. 1 Kings 17:1. 1 Kings 20:6.—The Sept., Vulg., and Syr., by taking the pronoun in the plural, make this refer to the officers of Ben-hadad—whatsoever they should fancy. 1 Kings 20:7.—[The Sept. more particularly, “my sons and my daughters.” 1 Kings 20:8.—[The negative is here printed μεֹ ?ΰ, which form occurs but twice elsewhere, but many MSS. give the more usual form μֹ ?ΰ. 1 Kings 20:9.—[The Sept changes the pronoun, and reads, “tell your lord.” The other VV. all follow the Heb., but below the Alex. Sept. omits the words “at the first.” 1 Kings 20:10.—[ΰֱ ?μֹ ?δִ ?ιν is here, as in 1 Kings 19:2, connected with verbs in the plural, and is rightly translated as referring to the false gods of Ben-hadad. The Vat. Sept., however, has ὁ Θεός in the singular, and the Chald. γַּ ?ηֲ ?μָ ?ϊָ ?ΰ = the terrors. 1 Kings 20:10.—[On the meaning of ωֹׁ ?ςָ ?μ see the Exeg. Com. 1 Kings 20:14.—[ξִ ?ιִ ?Ξιֶ ?ΰְ ?ρֹ ?ψδַ ?ξִּ ?μְ ?ηָ ?ξָ ?δ = who shall join the battle, i. e., begin the fight? 1 Kings 20:15.—[The Alex. Sept. alters this number to 332, an evident error. 1 Kings 20:19.—The Sept., by introducing the negative μή and changing the form of the verb to ἐξελθάτωσαν makes 1 Kings 20:19 a part of Ben-hadad’s order: “Let not the princes. … go out,” &c. 1 Kings 20:20.—[The Sept. very unnecessarily reduplicates: καὶ ἐδευτέρωσινἕκαστοςτὸνπαρ’ αὐτοῦ. 1 Kings 20:23.—[The Sept., by putting the verb in the singular, refers the superiority more immediately to the God of Israel. 1 Kings 20:27.—[The translation of the A. V. is certainly wrong, resting upon a false derivation of λָּ ?μְ ?λְּ ?μεּ from λָּ ?μ. The word is Polp.: from λּ ?εּ ?μ, and means “were supplied with provisions.” Vulg. acceptis cibariis. Our author renders [mit Lebensmitteln] versorgt; Keil, too fully, “were supplied with ammunition and provisions.” The Vat. Sept. neglects the word altogether, but the Alex, renders διοικήθησαν. 1 Kings 20:28.—[The Sept. puts this in the sing., “thou shalt know.” 1 Kings 20:30.—[δַ ?ηεֹ ?ξָ ?δ = the wall sc. of the city. “The fleeing Syrians probably, in order to make a stand in Aphek against the pursuing Israelites, bad partly climbed and occupied the city walls, and partly sought behind them a shelter for their protection,” Keil. Many MSS. read without the ε, and Kennicott, adopting this reading, would understand the word of the Simoom, or pestilential wind, by which so many of the Syrians were destroyed. There seems little support for this. 1 Kings 20:31.—[The Vat. Sept. makes this the address of Ben-hadad to his servants. At the close of the verse both recensions have the plural pronoun of the first person—save our lives. 1 Kings 20:33.—[εְ ?δָ ?‍ ?ֽ ?ΰֲ ?πָ ?ωִׁ ?ινιֲ ?π‍ ?ֽ ?ηֲ ?ωׁ ?εּ. The verb πָ ?ηַ ?ωׁ seems to be always used of augury, foreboding, presentiment, &c. (cf. Genesis 44:5; Genesis 44:15; Leviticus 19:26; 2 Kings 17:17, &c). and is always translated in this general sense in the A. V. except in this passage and in Genesis 30:27, where it should be. All the versions here concur in this sense, e. g. the Vulg. Quod acceperunt viri pro omine. Our author translates as in the brackets—Und die Mόnner deuteten es gόnstig. So also Keil: “These took the words of Ahab as a good omen.” 1 Kings 20:33.—[εַ ?ιַּ ?ηְ ?μְ ?θεּ δֲ ?ξִ ?ξֶּ ?πּ ?εּ. These words are of much more difficult interpretation, especially because of the ἅπαξλεγ. word ηָ ?μַ ?θ. For a discussion of its meaning see the Exeg. Com. 1 Kings 20:34.—[All the VV. concur in making this clause a continuation of the words of Ben-hadad. Keil agrees with our author and with the AV. in changing the speaker to Ahab. 1 Kings 20:38 —ΰֲ ?τֵ ?ψ is rendered in the A. V. as in the Vulg. and some of the other VV. as if it had been pointed ΰֵ ?τֶ ?ψ. The Chald. and Sept. (τελαμών) have undoubtedly hit the true sense, which in the Chald, is expressed by the very similar word ξַ ?ςְ ?τָּ ?ψָ ?ϊ. This is agreeable to the following words ςַ ?μΞςֵ ?ιπָ ?ιε, and also to the readiness with which it was removed, 1 Kings 20:41.—F. G.] B.—The proceedings of Ahab against Naboth1 Kings 21:1-291 And it came to pass after these things, that Naboth the Jezreelite had a vineyard, which was in Jezreel, hard by the palace of Ahab king of Samaria. And 2Ahab spake unto Naboth, saying, Give me thy vineyard, that I may have it for a garden of herbs, because it is near unto my house: and I will give thee for it a better vineyard than it; or, if it seem good to thee, I will give thee the worth of it in money. 3And Naboth said to Ahab, The Lord [Jehovah] forbid it me, that I should give the inheritance of my fathers unto thee. 4And Ahab came into his house heavy and displeased, because of the word which Naboth the Jezreelite had spoken to him: for he had said, I will not give thee the inheritance of my fathers. And he laid him down upon his bed, and turned away his face, and would eat no bread. 5But Jezebel his wife came to him, and said unto him, why is thy spirit so sad, that thou eatest no bread? 6And he said unto her, Because I spake unto Naboth the Jezreelite, and said unto him, Give me thy vineyard for money;, or else, if it please thee, I will give thee another vineyard for it: and he answered, I will not give thee my vineyard. 7And Jezebel his wife said unto him, Dost thou now govern the kingdom of Israel? arise, and eat bread, and let thine heart be merry: I will give thee the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite. 8So she wrote letters in Ahab’s name, and sealed them with his seal, and sent the letters unto the elders and to the nobles that were in his city, dwelling with Naboth. 9And she wrote in the letters, saying, Proclaim a fast, and set Naboth on high among the people: 10and set two men, sons of Belial, before him, to bear witness against him, saying, Thou didst blaspheme God and the king. And then carry him out, and stone him, that he may die. 11And the men of his city, even the elders and the nobles who were the inhabitants in his city, did as Jezebel had sent unto them, and as it was written in the letters which she had sent unto them. 12They proclaimed a fast, and set Naboth on high among the people. 13And there came in two men, children of Belial, and sat before him: and the men of Belial witnessed against him, even against Naboth, in the presence of the people, saying, Naboth did blaspheme God and the king. Then they carried him forth out of the city, and stoned him with stones, that he died. 14Then they sent to Jezebel, saying, Naboth is stoned, and is dead. 15And it came to pass, when Jezebel heard that Naboth was stoned, and was dead, that Jezebel said to Ahab, Arise, take possession of the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite, which he refused to give thee for money: for Naboth is not alive, but dead. 16And it came to pass, when Ahab heard that Naboth was dead, that Ahab rose up to go down to the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite, to take possession of it. 17And the word of the Lord [Jehovah] came to Elijah the Tishbite, saying, 18Arise, go down to meet Ahab king of Israel, which is [dwelleth] in Samaria: behold, he is in the vineyard of Naboth, whither he is gone down to possess it. 19And thou shalt speak unto him, saying, Thus saith the Lord [Jehovah], Hast thou killed, and also taken possession? And thou shalt speak unto him, saying, Thus saith the Lord [Jehovah], In the place where dogs licked the blood of Naboth shall dogs lick thy blood, even thine. 20And Ahab said to Elijah, Hast thou found me, O mine enemy? And he answered, I have found thee: because thou hast sold thyself to work evil in the sight of the Lord 21[Jehovah]. Behold, I will bring evil upon thee, and will take away thy posterity, and will cut off from Ahab him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel, 22and will make thine house like the house of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, and like the house of Baasha the son of Ahijah, for the provocation wherewith thou hast provoked me to anger, and made Israel to sin. 23And of Jezebel also spake the Lord [Jehovah], saying, The dogs shall eat Jezebel by the wall of Jezreel. 24Him that dieth of Ahab in the city the dogs shall eat; and him that dieth in the field shall the fowls of the air eat. 25But there was none like unto Ahab, which did sell himself to work wickedness in the sight of the Lord [Jehovah], whom Jezebel his wife stirred up. 26And he did very abominably in following idols, according to all things as did the Amorites, whom the Lord [Jehovah] cast out before the children of Israel. 27And it came to pass, when Ahab heard those words, that he rent his clothes, and put sackcloth upon his flesh, and fasted, and lay in sackcloth, and went softly. 28And the word of the Lord [Jehovah] came to Elijah the Tishbite, saying, Seest 29thou how Ahab humbleth himself before me? because he humbleth himself before me, I will not bring the evil in his days: but in his son’s days will I bring the evil upon his house. Exegetical and Critical1 Kings 21:1. And it came to pass after these things, &c. The Sept. places this whole chapter before the twentieth, and Thenius holds this to be its original place. Ewald says, rightly: “The transposition resulted simply to unite more closely the similar narrations in chaps. 20 and 22 and inversely chaps. 17–19, 21. The expression in 1 Kings 21:4, as a climax to 1 Kings 20:43, refers back rather palpably to the latter passage.” Naboth’s affair must have happened then after the two victories over the Syrians, because Elijah’s severe sentence proclaiming the fall of the house of Ahab, which was occasioned by them, could not have immediately preceded those victories. The connecting thought with chap. 20 is this: As Ahab, in consequence of victory twice won, found tranquillity and peace externally, he was contemplating the extension and the beautifying of the garden of his summer palace at Jezreel (vide on 1 Kings 18:46). Sanctius: post victos hostes ad delicias comparandas animum adjecit. 1 Kings 21:2-6. And Ahab spake unto Naboth, &c. 1 Kings 21:3, literally: Far is it for me from Jehovah that I, &c. This expression presupposes two things, viz.: that Naboth was a worshipper of Jehovah and did not bow his knee to Baal, and that he belonged to those who had remained faithful (Ahab does not mention the name “Jehovah”) and that also he held the alienation of his vineyard to be a sin against Jehovah, a transgression of a command of Jehovah. This command must have been that respecting the inalienability of the inheritance which was apportioned to each tribe and to each family, and could not, even by marriage, go into other hands, and which, even if it were sold on account of impoverishment or otherwise on account of distress, would revert to it again, without price, in the year of Jubilee (Numbers 36:1-13; Leviticus 25:10-28). According to Ezekiel 46:18, the prince himself could not force any one out of his property. This Mosaic law is connected most intimately with the stability of the Theocracy; it secured its material foundation (cf. Symb. des Mosais. Kult., II. s. 604); and if it were not always strictly observed and enforced, the main thought pervading it nevertheless struck out strong roots in the consciousness of the people, and the preservation of the πַ ?ηֲ ?μָ ?δ was for every covenant-keeping Israelite a matter not merely of piety towards his family and his tribe, not merely a prudential, worldly affair, but a religious, sacred duty. No consideration would induce Naboth to violate this, neither greater gain (for Ahab offered him a better vineyard or wished to pay him well), nor the royal authority and the fear of the royal displeasure, especially when, as here, not need, but a royal whim only, was concerned. Hence it is almost laughable when with J. D. Michaelis Naboth’s answer is explained as “uncivil in the extreme,” or when others say that it was a piece of “obstinacy;” for in that case Joseph’s reply to Potiphar’s wife (Genesis 39:9) was uncivil and obstinate. For ρַ ?ψ (1 Kings 21:4), see on 1 Kings 20:43 : He turned away his face, the Vulg. adds ad parietem, which 2 Kings 20:2, has: Seb. Schmidt: more tristium, qui conversationem, colloquium et conspectum hominum fugiunt et declinant. 1 Kings 21:7-8. And Jezebel his wife said, &c. The words ιִ ?ωְׂ ?ψָ ?ΰֶ ?μ—ΰַ ?ϊָּ ?δ are usually translated imperatively: “Thou! exert now the royal authority over Israel” (de Wette), i. e., act as king, use the power which belongs to thee as king of Israel, or, “Thou exercisest authority now over Israel” (Philippson), i. e., now must thou show thyself to be king over Israel. On the other hand, as Thenius properly remarks, the collocation of the words is to be observed (Thou comes first), and also the connection (Jezebel says: I will give thee). This antithesis compels us to understand the words as ironical, and with the Sept., the Vulg., and the Syriac, to regard them as a question: Dost thou now exercise authority over Israel? Dost thou as king permit thyself to ask such a thing of one of thy subjects? I will give thee the vineyard, since thou trustest not thyself to act as man and king.—The letters (1 Kings 21:8) Jezebel furnished with the royal seal, i. e., she affixed the seal to (not sealed up). “Probably the seal had on it the name of the king, which, instead of the signature, was by the seal stamped upon the document, as is the case now in Egypt and Persia, amongst Turks and Arabs; cf. Paulsen, die Regier. der Morgenland. s. 295” (Keil); Esther 8:12. Jezebel certainly received the seal (seal-ring, Daniel 6:18) from Ahab himself, who allowed her the free use of it. From 1 Kings 21:8, it is manifest that Ahab and Jezebel were then in Samaria, their residence, properly speaking. The elders and nobles constituted without doubt the city tribunal (Deuteronomy 16:18), “which must have had then, according to our chapter, in cases easily to be decided the jus vit�” (Thenius); cf. on Matthew 5:21. The addition: dwelling with Naboth, shows that they were his fellow-townsmen. 1 Kings 21:9. Proclaim a fast, as was customary in the event of national calamities (Joe 1:14), after grievous defeats (Judges 20:26; 1 Samuel 31:13), after great sins(1 Samuel 7:6; Joe 2:12), or for the turning away of apprehended misfortune (2 Chronicles 20:2; 2 Chronicles 20:4); it is always the sign of penitence. Obviously it stands here in a definite relation to the offence charged, and it was not merely to furnish occasion for the procedure against Naboth (Thenius), but rather “to publish the fact that a grievous fault was resting upon the city, which must be expiated.” The stamp of truth would thus thereby be impressed, in the eyes of the entire city, upon the crime with which Naboth was charged (Keil). Naboth was to be set on high in the assemblage, “so that the public indignation might be the more vividly expressed, if one who was worthy of such distinction, on account of his God-fearing sentiment, should be convicted of being such a grievous sinner” (Thenius). This is certainly better than the view advanced by Grotius: ne odio damnasse crederentur, quern ipsi honoraverant, or the explanation of Seb. Schmidt: producite eum ante universum populum in judicium ad causam dicendam. 1 Kings 21:10-14. Two men… before him, &c. According to Deuteronomy 17:6; Deuteronomy 19:15, every crime punishable by death must be testified to by at least two witnesses, who also must at the stoning make the beginning. πֶ ?βְ ?γּ ?εֹ not contra (Vulg.), but coram, in conspectu.—Thou didst blasphemeαָּ ?ψַ ?κְ means properly to bless; then, because at a departure one utters a benediction, generally to say farewell, is to leave, so Job 1:5; Job 2:5 : to bless God, to give God a departure, to turn one’s self from Him. If now Naboth, by this expression, was guilty of a capital crime, it must of necessity be that which the law ordained in the death-punishment (cf. Lev. 24:14sq.). Blasphemy against the king is placed beside blasphemy against God, because the king represents God and rules in His name; crime against majesty involves death (2 Samuel 16:9). Jezebel does not use the name ιδεδ but the more general indefinite ΰμδιδ. 1 Kings 21:15-16. Take possession of the vineyard, &c. The immediate seizure of the property appears here as something which, in consequence of the execution of Naboth, is understood to be according to usage and right. The Rabbins remark, that which indeed the Mosaic law does not expressly ordain, the property of an offender against majesty falls to the king, who was, in so far, its inheritor (ιָ ?ψַ ?ωׁ means also to inherit, Genesis 21:10; Jeremiah 49:1). According to 2 Kings 9:26, Naboth’s sons also were put to death, the heirs proper, besides, were no longer living. 1 Kings 21:17-19. And the word of the Lord came to Elijah, &c. From ψֵ ?ψ in 1 Kings 21:18 we are to conclude that Elijah was, at that time, in a mountain-district. Ahab’s crime is set before him in the form of a question, which was more fitted to awaken his conscience than a bare affirmation. When the guilt of the crime is charged upon Ahab, and not upon Jezebel who was the agent in the matter, it is like Genesis 3:9, where God brings Adam and not Eve to account.—According to 1 Kings 22:38, the dogs licked the blood of Ahab, not at Jezreel, the place where Naboth was put to death, but at Samaria. In order to reconcile both passages, either αְּ ?ξִ ?χεֹ ?νΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ have been translated by pro eo quod (Grotius, Maurer, De “Wette: “for that”), or it has been supposed that the prophecy, inasmuch as Ahab repented (1 Kings 21:27), was fulfilled but partially in him, and fully in his son (2 Kings 9:25) (Calmet, Keil, Gerlach and others). Thenius believes that there is a contradiction here which does not admit of any reconciliation, no matter what the explanation be. But how thoughtless the author of our books must have been, if in two chapters alongside of each other, on the same leaf as it were, he had admitted “direct” contradictions inadvertently. The place where Naboth’s and Ahab’s blood were licked up by dogs was “before or outside the city,” i. e., the place where supposed or real criminals were executed (cf. 1 Kings 21:13; Leviticus 24:14; Acts 7:56; Hebrews 13:12 sq.). The prophetic word means: As thou hast unrighteously put Naboth to death, as a criminal, without the city, so shalt thou, righteously, in the same place, outside thy city (residence), be put to death, i. e., as a criminal. In this the prophecy found its fulfilment, in the similarity of the disgraceful death, not in the similarity of the special locality. Consequently here the entirely general ξָ ?χεֹ ?ν stands, and not, as in 2 Kings 11:25 sq. the special ηֶ ?μְ ?χַ ?ϊωְׂ ?γֵ ?δπָ ?αεֹ ?ϊ. 1 Kings 21:20. Hast thou found me, &c. Luther follows the inaccurate translation of the Vulg.: num invenisti me inimicum tibi? Thenius: “ξφΰ is here in its most proper signification: to overtake (seizing me), (1 Samuel 31:3; Job 11:7; Jeremiah 10:8), used especially of the punishing hand (1 Samuel 23:17; Isaiah 10:10; Psalms 21:9), consequently: Hast thou overtaken me, mine enemy? As a defiant question, and entirely suited to, mine enemy: thinkest thou that thou hast now got me down? To this the reply is wholy suited: Yes, I have got thee!” Von Gerlach justly remarks: “Struck at by the address of Elijah, Ahab seeks to justify himself by attributing personal enmity upon the prophet’s part towards himself.” Michaelis wholly wrong: Hast thou found me in an act which I cannot excuse? or Vatablus: Hast thou found something against me which thou canst censure, thou who art always against me?—δִ ?ϊְ ?ξַ ?λֵּ ?ψ must be taken here in a wholly general sense, as in 1 Kings 21:25 (cf. 2 Kings 17:17; Romans 7:14); to abandon one’s self without will to evil; to make one’s self a slave of sin; “the feebleness is therein expressed also, by virtue of which he was the tool of others” (Gerlach). The Sept. add arbitrarily, μάτην, which Thenius holds to be original, and then translates: on account of thy pretended selling of thyself to do, &c. i.e., thou shalt become conscious that thou hast fully received the price of sin; very forced. The τοῦ παροργίσαισὐτὸν of the Sept. after ιδεδ is also an arbitrary addition. 1 Kings 21:21-24. Behold, I will bring evil, &c. Upon 1 Kings 21:21-24, see above on 1 Kings 14:10, sq. and also 16:3sq. It is the standing avenging sentence for the dynasties of apostate kings, repeated also in 1 Kings 22:38 and 2 Kings 9:8 sq. 36. The divine punishment falls upon Ahab and his house not alone on account of the crime committed against Naboth, but also, and chiefly, on account of the idolatry existing and promoted during his reign, with which, indeed, that crime was closely connected. The αְּ ?δֵ ?μ in 1 Kings 21:23 is translated in the Septuag, rightly here as in 2 Samuel 20:15, by ἐντῷ κροτειχίσματι, by which a space immediately close to the walls, and belonging to the city-terrain, is. to be understood. Jezebel also was to be devoured by dogs before, i. e. outside the city. When for αְ ?δֵ ?μֶ ?χιִ ?ζְ ?ψָ ?ςֱ ?ΰμ ,αְּ ?ηֵ ?μιִ ?εְּ ?ψְ ?ςֱ ?ΰμ occurs in 2 Kings 9:10; 2 Kings 9:36-37, not another but the same place is designated, viz. in the space, i. e., in the city-terrain of Jezreel. Thenius very unnecessarily would have the reading in our passage αְּ ?δֵ ?μ. Jezebel, according to 2 Kings 9:33, was thrown out of a window and trodden by horses, but was not devoured by dogs in “the court of the palace.” This happened rather before the city-walls. 1 Kings 21:25-26. There was none like unto, &c. The 25th and 26th verses are a parenthesis by which the relator desires once more to bring out the reason for the miserable destruction of the house of Ahab, and why every effort to wash Ahab clean, and to make of him “a good man of the best disposition” (Michaelis) seemed useless. ψַ ?χ does not mean here: yea, assuredly (De Wette); “it has here its usual meaning, but it does not stand, as is often the case, immediately before the word to which it is related; translate: besides how Ahab (Ahab excepted), there was none (as he), &c.” (Thenius).—The Amorites are mentioned instead of the Canaanites generally, as in Genesis 15:16; Joshua 24:15; Amos 2:9, because they were the most powerful tribe of Canaan. Ahab had abandoned himself entirely to the idolatry on account of which Jehovah had driven the Canaanites from their land, and had given it to the Israelites (1 Kings 16:33). 1 Kings 21:27-29. When Ahab heard those words, &c. The rending of the clothes, putting on sackcloth and fasting, are the usual signs of mourning and penitence (Winer, R.-W.-B., II. s. 631. Ahab slept in his sackcloth. ΰַ ?θ does not mean barefoot (Jarchi and others), not demisso capite, or slowly (Keil), but quietly, softly (Isaiah 8:6).—The complete ruin was not to overtake Ahab during his lifetime, but “he was referred back to the threatening of the law, according to which, the misdeeds of the fathers were not to be borne in the children, who did not cease from them longer than to the third or fourth generation” (Menken). Historical and Ethical1. The procedure against Naboth constitutes a turning-point in the history of Ahab, in so far as it called forth the prediction of the destruction of himself and of his house. Although it concerned but our contemporaneous people, it has nevertheless a general theocratico-historical significance in this, that a moral corruption was therein brought to light, which had seized the head and the members of the kingdom, and was the consequence of the apostasy from the God of Israel and from His law. It was a crying proof that all the evidence of divine power and grace and fidelity and long-suffering had produced no fruit. That too was the point of time when it was necessary for the prophet to appear again, of whom Sirach says (Sir 48:10), “who wast ordained for reproofs in their times to pacify the wrath of the Lord’s judgment before it break forth into fury.… and to restore the tribes of Jacob.” It devolved upon him whose destination and calling it was essentially to exercise the prophetic avenging office, to bear witness agajnst apostasy, and to proclaim the judgments of God—upon him it devolved, before all things, by virtue of his position in the history of the kingdom of God (see above), to announce to the king who, with his wife, had formally introduced the apostasy, and in his procedure against Naboth had shown himself incorrigible, the final sentence of God against him and his whole house. The word of Jehovah came hence also to him, and he issued forth again from his retirement “as a fire, and his word burned like a torch” (Sir 48:1). He first places before the king, his crime against Naboth, and proceeds then to the announcement of his punishment for his conduct generally. The whole narration culminates in this announcement. The new criticism does not question the historical reality of the affair with Naboth: “the dressing up,” however, belongs to the author of the history of Elijah (Thenius, Ewald). Under this clothing (drapery) nothing else can be meant than the paragraph from 1 Kings 21:17-24, which is, however, the main thing. If this be explained as unhistorical, for which no reason is at hand, the point of the whole narrative is taken away, and the high meaning disappears from the event which it has for the history of Ahab, and indirectly for the history of the kingdom of Israel generally. It becomes an isolated, ordinary, Oriental murder-tale, and ceases to be a turning-point in the history of the theocracy. 2. We are able to understand for the first time, rightly and completely, the royal couple from the present narrative. If Ahab has shown himself, thus far, to be a weak man, destitute of any religious and moral firmness, and subject to every evil influence, here this is the case so conspicuously that from feebleness and want of character he becomes a common criminal. He did not know how to devote the time of peace, after the severe pressure caused by the Syrians, to anything except to be thinking of the enlargement and beautifying of his pleasure-garden—a sign that all the great experiences of his life, even the last sharp threatening at the releasing of Ben-hadad, had made no permanent impression upon him. The refusal of Naboth to cede to him his vineyard makes him angry, and excites him; but he has not force enough to make use of his mettle, and so he be-takes himself to his bed, will not eat, nor see any person, and behaves like a spoiled, ill-mannered child, which has been refused a toy. It was necessary for his wife to supply him with spirit, and to remind him that he must be a man and king. He does not interfere himself, but allows her to arrange the matter, and gives her the insignia of his royal authority, unconcerned how she may use it, or, as it almost seems, he enters into her criminal designs. When the infamous transaction was done, and she told him of it, he was not shocked; he was rather visibly pleased and satisfied (Josephus has it: “he sprang up from his bed with delight”), and he made haste to take possession of the property stolen and stained with blood. This blood-guiltiness rested upon him, so that the prophet could, with all propriety, call him both a murderer and a thief. In respect of Queen Jezebel, who has hitherto been portrayed only on the side of her wild fanaticism for the unchaste Baal and Astarte worship, she shows herself here in her complete moral depravity. We discover in her no trace of the feebleness and want of energy which characterized her husband. Josephus well calls her a γύναιονδραστήριόντεκαὶ τολμηρόν. Her deepest traits were pride and a desire for dominion, to gratify which she shrank back from no instrumentality. Under the show and pretext of serving her husband and fulfilling his wishes, she knew how to govern him and to appropriate to herself the royal authority. She did not look at the monarchy according to the Israelitish sense, as the institution which was designed to carry out the law and will of Jehovah, but as the absolute authority over the property and lives (Gut und Blut) of the subjects. Every refusal to fulfil a royal wish, though it had been grounded in the divine law, was, in her eyes, lese-majesty, yes, as blasphemy against God, because she wished the king to be considered not as the servant, but as the representative of Deity. Right and justice, for the administering of which the monarchy exists, are to her mere forms, and she misapplies the legal organs of justice to carry out injustice. A religious solemnity must be the cloak of her lust of robbery and murder, and the people be deceived by perjured witnesses. Jezebel does all this in cold blood and with calm deliberation; yes, she congratulates herself upon it, and informs her husband of the fact with self-satisfaction, as if she had done something deserving praise and thanks. This was the royal couple at that time at the head of the people and of the kingdom. If ever at any time, certainly here, the Turkish proverb finds its application: “The fish stinks first at the head.” 3. The elders and nobles constituting the city tribunal at Jezreel are a worthy pendent to the royal couple. Without hesitation they carry out quickly and punctiliously the received order, and they hasten to give the queen the news of it, in order to show themselves loyal and obedient subjects. The fear and the pleasure of men are the motives for their way of acting; there is no trace of the fear of God and of conscientiousness amongst them. They knew the tyranny and the severity of the queen, and they did not dare to thwart her; they were afraid that by resistance they might lose the residence and suffer loss, or be punished in limb and body. It seems that they, as the presiding officers of the residence, gladly embraced the opportunity to please the powerful, dreaded queen, and to show their unconditional submission, in the hope of being praised and rewarded for it. Perhaps, owing to the sojourn of the court there, they had become habituated to unrighteous expectations of the sort, and that fawning and servility were no longer new to them. Certainly their whole course presupposes thorough corruption in public affairs, a natural consequence of the religious confusion which must have entered in during a reign when “the covenant of Jehovah” was forsaken, his law trodden under foot, and the infamous Baal and Astarte worship was introduced and patronized. For there is no more authentic sign of the decay of a kingdom than when law is deliberately debased, and murder, under the show of right, and with deference to the usual forms of law, is done by those to whom the duty of public justice is intrusted. Deliberate judicial murder is the most infamous of all, and can only take place where absolute ungodliness has broken all moral bonds, and a putrefaction has begun. Jezebel would never have dared to order such a process had she not known the people, and regarded them as capable of everything. The circumstances here were such as Micah, in 1 Kings 7:2 et sq., has portrayed. When we consider that the elders who composed the local tribunal were not royal officials, but inhabitants of the place, chosen by their fellow-townsmen, and that they, one and all, as one man, perpetrated the crime, we learn how deeply the people, who had freely placed such men at their head, were sunken, and had become devoid of all fear of God. The blindness with which the false verdict was accepted, and the brutality with which it was carried out, doubtless in a tumultuous fashion, is an additional proof of what we have stated. 4. The meeting of Elijah and of Ahab in Naboth’s vineyard is very characteristic of the personal qualities of each. Both reappear here, such as we find them in the earlier interview in 1 Kings 18:7 et sq. As there, so here, Elijah comes forth suddenly from his retirement. Like the lightning which descends from on high and strikes, he met the king, walking and enjoying himself in the stolen vineyard. Nothing was further from his thoughts than an encounter with the earnest, severe preacher of repentance, and of hearing from him the thunder-words of the Divine judgment. As there, Ahab at first blustered, and saluted the prophet with the words: “Art thou here, troubler of Israel?” so here he addresses him angrily: “Hast thou found me, mine enemy?—thou who art always in my way.” But as then, so also now, the prophet did not allow himself to be imposed upon and frightened in the least. With firm words he announces the destruction of him and of his house; then the high-going man breaks down and becomes so dejected that he is bowed down and creeps along, and even sleeps in sackcloth. But the meeting is also significant in respect of the relation between the prophetic and the monarchical element. This relation is now represented in a manifold way, as that of two “self-appointed powers” who were in perpetual struggle with each other to gain the upper hand in the kingdom. But Elijah especially, the head and representative of the prophetic order, from whom proceeded the strife against the covenant-breaking monarchy, the most energetic and powerful of all the prophets, resolutely and sharply as he met the king, who called him his enemy, was in the greatest degree possible free from all hierarchical efforts. No one in all Israel cared less than he about having anything to do with outward power and authority. He did not, like Jeroboam, in the time of Solomon and of Rehoboam, place himself at the head of the discontented; he did not intrigue against the secular power, and mingle in political affairs; he did not live at the residence or at court; but in retirement, from which he issued only from time to time, when it was needful to resist the base misuse of the royal authority, which did not fear to revolutionize even the foundations of the people of Israel. He was not “an enemy” of the monarchy, but an enemy of the idolatry which was destroying both the monarchy and the national being. 5. Ahab’s penitence was regarded by the older theologians as hypocritical, so that even yet all false penitence is called, proverbially, “Ahab’s penitence.” But, according to 1 Kings 21:29, it was not a sham, but an actual humiliation, which was graciously recognized by God as such. Vatablus justly says: “H�c p�nitentia fuit vera, sed temporaria.” Owing to the feebleness of his character, which made him readily susceptible to every influence, and the rapid change of his purposes, it was very comprehensible that the word of the prophet, piercing bone and marrow, threatening him and his house with destruction, which had never yet deceived him, made an affecting impression upon him. Such a wholesome terror had never hitherto overtaken him, and might well have been able to lead him to a thorough change from his past ways. But he had no abiding conversion of heart to the living God, as the course of the history shows. As the threatened punishment did not follow immediately, he thought he had been able to ward it off by his penitential discipline, and, according to his constantly attested fickleness, he fell back again into his earlier way of life. The first thing which he should have done, had his repentance been true, to repair somehow a wrong done, he did not do, but, on the contrary, began war anew. Homiletical and Practical1 Kings 21:1-29. The proceeding against Naboth: (a) How it was done (1 Kings 21:1-16); (b) its consequences (1 Kings 21:17-29) 1 Kings 21:1-16).—Wirth: The unrighteous acquisition of Naboth’s vineyard, (a) King Ahab; (b) Queen Jezebel; (c) the elders of Jezreel; (d) Naboth.—Wόrt Summ.:. Here we see how the children of this world use their rank; how they ruin others for the sake of their possessions, and seize upon them; they try to make them sell against their will, and wrest their property from them; if this fail, they use every false device, accuse him as an evil-doer before the authorities, and, by means of false witnesses, lead him on to misfortune, until he is compelled to sacrifice his little property to save himself, or becomes so ill that he dies of grief, and thus they obtain his property. But the Spirit denounces woe to such men (Isaiah 5:8). Every man should guard against such sin, but especially those in power. Let them never seize upon the property of their subjects. V. 1.—Starke: It is not well to have godless neighbors, especially if they are powerful, for, loving injustice, they think nothing of over-reaching their neighbors. One should pray for industrious, pious and honest neighbors. 1 Kings 21:2-4. Naboth’s vineyard, (a) The greed of Ahab (1 Kings 21:2); (b) the denial of Naboth (1 Kings 21:3); (c) the consequence of the denial upon Ahab (1 Kings 21:4). 1 Kings 21:2. Great lords often have fancies, which cost them more time and money than do their chief and holiest duties. Thus Ahab thought more of the enlargement and adornment of his garden, than of the good of his subjects. The desire for things which serve for pleasure is often a temptation to grievous sin. Therefore says the Scripture: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods, nor anything that is his. Let the needy be thy first care, not thine own pleasures. It is a great gain to be godly and contented. Watch over thine heart, for desires apparently lawful, if not resisted and denied, may lead to ruin. 1 Kings 21:3. The men, are rare who, for God and conscience sake, will not yield to entreaties and offers, the granting of which would be advantageous to them, whilst the refusal would be accompanied with injury, and perhaps peril to themselves. Where fear of God and true devoutness exist, there also you will ever find that piety which holds in love and veneration everything which serves as a remembrance of parents and all other benefactors. 1 Kings 21:4. Richter: Godless people regard the care taken by the pious to observe reverently the divine law, as so much useless scrupulousness.—Calw. Bib: Even so, in our day, does the worldling look with an evil eye upon the Christian who, for the sake of the divine word, refuses to yield to his wishes; for either he recognizes no divine authority, or exalts his own above it. The children of this world, whose aims and designs are wholly material, will often fret and grieve for days when they are compelled to give up a temporal gain, or a promised enjoyment, whilst the condition of their souls never causes them the slightest grief.—Wirth: The high and mighty ones of this world often think that all other people are placed here, simply to yield obedience to their whims. They cannot comprehend that all men are not to be bought with gold, and woe to that inferior whose refusal destroys their darling plans. Every man not rooted and grounded in God, becomes ever more and more grasping; in his vain purse-pride he thinks all the world must yield to his will, and hates bitterly him who independently and resolutely upholds his rights against him. 1 Kings 21:5-16. The condemnation of Naboth. (a) Ordered by Jezebel; (b) carried out by the city ordinance; (c) joyfully received by Ahab.—The apparently fortunate but really unfortunate and accursed marriage of Ahab and Jezebel. (a) She seeks the sorrowful man, shares his grief, and seeks to comfort him, as is the province of a wife; but instead of pointing him to the true Comforter, and leading his heart to higher and better thing, she strengthens him in his grasping desire after others’ property, and leads him on still further, (b) She reminds him that he is the lord and master, and recognizes him as such, as a wife should; but, at the same moment, she assumes the dominion, and the weak man lets her manage and rule, as if she were the man and he the woman. (c) She rejoices to accomplish an ardent wish of her husband’s, and to make him a worthy present, as every faithful spouse should strive to do; but it is a blood-stained and stolen gift, obtained with deceit and falsehood, and Ahab delights in it. Thus both husband and wife, who together should be blest after God’s ordinance, together walk on to ruin and destruction.—Jo. Lange: As a righteous spouse in the court of a great lord is as a sun, giving light throughout the land and doing much good work by her example, in the same proportion is an unholy woman mischievous. The example of Naboth shows what is the event where such an one rules, and its evil influence in a country.—The quality (=being) of tyranny. (a) It regards sovereignty simply as unlimited might and power over the property and life of subjects; then the name of king means the power to do whatsoever a man wills, without regard to God or man; they reverse the divinely ordained “subjection” (Romans 13:1), and live in rebellion against God. (b) They upset justice, and convert the servants of the law, whose place it is to punish evil, into instruments of unrighteousness; they love darkness and hate the light, for they work the works of darkness (Psalms 64:7). It dissembles and plays its own game with religious solemnity, and converts an oath itself into a means for its worst designs. The proceeding against Naboth is a combination of the heaviest crimes, for by it are trodden under foot the three divine commands: Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. How thankful should we be that we dwell in a land where mercy and truth are met together, righteousness and peace have kissed each other, where righteousness looks down from heaven (Psalms 85:10-12). 1 Kings 21:11-14. The elders and nobles of Jezreel. (a) Their conduct (they obey blindly, but God must be obeyed rather than man; power is not of man, but the minister of God, Romans 13:4, and before the commandment: “Honor the king,” stands that other, Fear God, 1 Peter 2:17). (b) Their motives (fear of and subserviency to man, time serving and sycophancy, fruit of their desertion of the living God and of his holy word.—Evil masters can ever find evil servants, who do their will from ambition or covetousness.—Calw. Bib: Woe, where such things befall! and shame! that in the fairest lands, as in the plains of Jezreel, are often the worst men to be found.—Godlessness and corruption in courts is a poison, which extends throughout the whole body politic, even to the lowest rank; no example is so powerful upon all classes of society. How many gross, how many refined sins are committed out of sheer complaisance to high personages, whose favor men wish to seek or preserve. Woe to those lords who find such ready tools in their servants, who will be accomplices in their misdoings, and palliate, or even laud and praise all their perverse dealings; they undermine the throne more than open enemies. The judgment and condemnation of Naboth, compared with that of our Lord. There, as in this instance, offended pride, followed by hatred, accusation of blasphemy and riot; false witnesses and vile judges; and a blind, infuriated populace crying out: Crucify, crucify! 1 Kings 21:17-29. Krummacher: The mission of Elijah. (a) Its intention; (b) its aim; (c) its immediate results.—Bender: Elijah and Ahab in the vineyard of Naboth. (a) The sin of the king; (b) the judgment of God.—Wirth: Ahab in the vineyard of Naboth. (a) The approach of Elijah; (b) the announcement of the sentence; (c) the repentance of Ahab. 1 Kings 21:17. Deceive not yourself, God is not mocked. What a man sows, that shall he reap (Galatians 6:7). Menken: But though much unrighteousness and wickedness goes apparently without further evil results, and without the chastisements of the just Judge in heaven, yet still all will be demanded; and at the Divine judgment-seat everything will be discovered, and everything to the uttermost farthing accounted for.—The blood of Naboth, which Ahab thought had been swallowed up by the earth, cried to heaven, and found there judgment and vengeance. Like a lightning-flash comes the word from heaven into the dark soul of Ahab, and made him feel that no net of human evil can be woven thickly enough to conceal the crime which it veils from the All-seeing Eye. 1 Kings 21:18-19. It is no easy matter to say to the face of a royal robber, “Thou hast stolen,” and to a royal adulterer, “It is not right that thou shouldst have thy brother’s wife.” Where to-day are the prophets who thus use the sword of the Spirit? Thou hast slain.—Menken: Observe, that evil which thou couldst hinder, and didst not, and from which thou shouldst have shrunk, and for which thou didst neither exhibit horror, nor didst punish—all shall, in future, be laid to thy account, as if thou hadst committed it in thine own person. Therefore warns the apostle: Neither be partaker of other men’s sins (2 Tim. 5:22). 1 Kings 21:20. Hast thou found me, O mine enemy? Calw. B: One can readily imagine that the hard impenitent, meeting the pious preacher and soul-director, regards the high-principled, soul-saving address of the prophet as evidence of personal enmity, and replies with personal enmity. He is not thine enemy who finds thee out, charging thee with thine unrecognized sins, with thy God-forgetting life, until thou dost think and tremble—not thine enemy, the disturber of thy peace and rest, but thy true friend, who leads thee through the narrow gates of repentance, to the way where alone true joy is to be found.—I have found thee. This word of sentence must be heard by all, even by those who have come before no human tribunal—often in this world, certainly at the last day, “for the Lord will bring to light,” &c. (1 Corinthians 4:5), and cause every man to find according to his ways (Job 34:11). But there is also a sentence of mercy, which pursues the sinner and seeks him until it finds him (Luke 15). Well for all who have thus been caught and found and can say: “Unter allen frohen Stunden, die im Leben ich empfunden.” &c. He who will not be sought out by mercy, will be found by justice. 1 Kings 21:20-29.—Krummacher: The penitence of Ahab. (a) What called it forth; (b) what was its nature; (c) what were its consequences. 1 Kings 21:21-26. The predicted judgments of God upon Ahab and his house. (a) Its cause; (b) its accomplishment (1 Kings 22:38; 2 Kings 9, 10).“Buying for money” amongst sins. What is to be understood by this? How one can be made bought and made free (John 8:33 sq.; 1 Corinthians 6:20; 1 Corinthians 7:23; Romans 7:14). It is a great misfortune when one man can be bought by another as a chattel or merchandise, but a still greater one if he allows himself to be bought with a price to sin against the Lord. One may be, like Ahab, lord and king, and yet a purchased slave. 1 Kings 21:25. His wife stirred him up. Menken: Woe to the man who, through the power which love gives him over the heart of another, by means of which he might become a ministering angel, is to him as a misleading fiend. How many fires of ruinous passion, of anger, of discord, of unrighteousness and of hatred, might and should be quenched and extinguished by the power of love—the power of one heart over another—and especially by the mildness and gentleness peculiar to woman: and yet so often, by this means, they are kindled and fanned. This belongs to the catalogue of unconfessed sins of many men, and especially of many women.—What gave Ahab’s repentance its worth, and wherein it was defective. (a) It was not merely ostensible, feigned; it was a wholesome dread and fear of the judgment of God which came upon him, causing him to fear and tremble; he bowed beneath the mighty hand of God, and was not ashamed to confess this outwardly, but laid aside crown and purple, and put on sackcloth, unheeding if he thus exposed himself to the scorn of the courtiers and idol worshippers. Therefore the Lord looked in mercy upon his repentance. Would that, in our day, many would go even as far as Ahab did in this case. (b) It bore no further fruits. He retained the stolen vineyard, he desisted not from idol worship, he allowed full sway to Jezebel. Everything in his house, at his court, and in his kingdom, remained as of old. He did not hunger and thirst after righteousness. Fleeting impressions and emotions are not true repentance. The tree which brings forth no fruits, is and remains a corrupt tree (Matthew 3:8). How wholly different the repentance of David (Psalms 51).—How many go to confession before the communion, bow the knee, and confess their sins before God and man, without being inwardly bowed down and humiliated, to bring forth fruits meet for repentance (Joe 2:13; Isaiah 58:5).—Richter: Since God looks with pardoning mercy upon an outward humble abasement, how much more upon a righteous repentance. Therefore pray: Lord, grant true penitence and grief.—Krummacher: Ahab was, and is, an example to warn us how it is possible that notwithstanding the most remarkable visitations of God, the strong est incentives, the liveliest emotions, and in spite of a certain sort of repentance and wonderful granting of prayer, a man may still, at the very last, be lost. Footnotes: 1 Kings 21:1.—[The Vat. Sept., which, as before noted, transposes chaps, 20. and 21., omits in consequence the mark of time at the beginning of 1 Kings 21:1. The Alex. Sept., which follows the Heb. in that matter, designates Naboth as an Israelite instead of a Jezreelite, throughout the chapter. 1 Kings 21:2.—[The Sept. omits the reason for Ahab’s coveting the vineyard. 1 Kings 21:2.—[Several MSS., followed by most of the VV., supply the word or and read εΰν. 1 Kings 21:4.—[The Vat. Sept. gives a mere epitome of this ver.; the Alex, follows the Heb. 1 Kings 21:6.—[The Sept. instead of vineyard here introduce from 1 Kings 21:4 “the inheritance of my fathers.” As this phrase explains Naboth’s reason (see Exeg. Com.) for refusing Ahab, the addition is not likely to be right. 1 Kings 21:8.—The k’tib δַ ?ρְּ ?τָ ?ψִ ?ιν is to be unhesitatingly preferred to the k’ri ρτψιν. [The k’ri is the reading of many MSS., but the k’tib reappears in the next ver. and 1 Kings 21:11 unquestioned. 1 Kings 21:8.—[The Chald. and Syr. omit this pronoun, which certainly does not seem necessary in itself; but, from its repetition in 1 Kings 21:11, doubtless belongs here also. 1 Kings 21:16.—[The Sept. here curiously interpolates the statement, “he rent his clothes and put on sackcloth. And it came to pass after this that Ahab,” &c. Ahab seems to have felt no need of such decent hypocrisy. 1 Kings 21:18.—[Our author in his translation supplies the ellipsis by the verb dwelleth rather than is, since the reference must be to his dwelling-place, and at this moment he was in Jezreel. 1 Kings 21:19.—[The Sept. considerably modifies this prophetic denunciation: “In everyplace where the sows and the dogs licked the blood of Naboth, there shall the dogs lick thy blood, and harlots wash in thy blood.” 1 Kings 21:19.—[ βַּ ?ρΞΰַ ?ϊָּ ?δ an emphatic repetition of the pron. suff, literally and well expressed in the A.V. 1 Kings 21:21.—[The k’ri gives the full form ξֵ ?αִ ?ιΰ here, and ΰָ ?αִ ?ιΰ ver.29, of this verb, in which there appears to be a peculiar tendency of the ΰ to fall away.—F. G.] C.—Ahab’s expedition against the Syrians, undertaken with Jehoshaphat, and his death1 Kings 22:1-40 (2 Chronicles 18:1-34)1And they continued three years without war between Syria and Israel. 2And it came to pass in the third year, that Jehoshaphat the king of Jndah came down to the king of Israel. 3And the king of Israel said unto his servants, Know ye that Ramoth in Gilead is ours, and we be still, and take it not out of the hand of the king of Syria? 4And he said unto Jehoshaphat, Wilt thou go with me to battle to Ramoth-gilead? And Jehoshaphat said to the king of Israel, I am as thou art, my people as thy people, my horses as thy horses. 5And Jehoshaphat said unto the king of Israel, Inquire, I pray thee, at the word of the Lord [Jehovah] to-day. 6Then the king of Israel gathered the prophets together, about four hundred men, and said unto them, Shall I go against Ramoth-gilead to battle, or shall I forbear? And they said, Go up; for the Lord shall deliver it into the hand of the king. 7And Jehoshaphat said, Is there not here a prophet of the Lord [Jehovah] besides, that we might inquire of him? 8And the king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat, There is yet one man, Micaiah the son of Imlah, by whom we may inquire of the Lord [Jehovah]: but I hate him; for he doth not prophesy good concerning me, but evil. And Jehoshaphat said, Let not the king say so. 9Then the king of Israel called an officer, and said, Hasten hither Micaiah the son of Imlah. 10And the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat the king of Judah sat each on his throne, having put on their robes, in a void place in the entrance of the gate of Samaria; and all the prophets prophesied before them. 11And Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah made him horns of iron: and he said, Thus saith the Lord [Jehovah], With these shalt thou push the Syrians, until thou have consumed them. 12And all the prophets prophesied so, saying, Go up to Ramoth-gilead, and prosper: for the Lord [Jehovah] shall deliver it into the king’s hand. 13And the messenger that was gone to call Micaiah spake unto him, saying, Behold now, the words of the prophets declare good unto the king with one mouth: let thy word, I pray thee, be like the word of one of them, and speak that which is good. 14And Micaiah said, As the Lord [Jehovah] liveth, what the Lord [Jehovah] saith unto me, that will I speak. 15So he came to the king. And the king said unto him, Micaiah, shall we go against Ramoth-gilead to battle, or shall we forbear? And he answered him, Go, and prosper: for the Lord [Jehovah] shall deliver it into the hand of the king. 16And the king said unto him, How many times shall I adjure thee that thou tell me nothing but that which is true in the name of the Lord [Jehovah]? 17And he said, I saw all Israel scattered upon the hills, as sheep that have not a shepherd: and the Lord [Jehovah] said, These have no master; let them return every man to his house in peace. 18And the king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat, Did I not tell thee that he would prophesy no good concerning me, but evil? 19And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the Lord [Jehovah]: I saw the Lord [Jehovah] sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left. 20And the Lord [Jehovah] said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner. 21And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the Lord 22[Jehovah], and said, I will persuade him. And the Lord [Jehovah] said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so. 23Now therefore, behold, the Lord [Jehovah] hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord [Jehovah] hath spoken evil concerning thee. 24But Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah went near, and smote Micaiah on the cheek, and said, Which way went the Spirit of the Lord [Jehovah] from me to speak unto thee? 25And Micaiah said, Behold, thou shalt see in that day, when thou shalt go into an inner chamber to hide thyself. 26And the king of Israel said, Take Micaiah, and carry him back unto Amon the governor of the city, and to Joash the king’s son; 27and say, Thus saith the king, Put this fellow in the prison, and feed him with bread of affliction and with water of affliction, until I come in peace. 28And Micaiah said, If thou return at all in peace, the Lord [Jehovah] hath not spoken by me. And he said, Hearken, o people, every one of you. 29So the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat the king of Judah went up to Ramoth-gilead. 30And the king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat, I will disguise myself, and enter into the battle; but put thou on thy robes. And the king of Israel disguised himself, and went into the battle. 31But the king of Syria commanded his thirty and two captains that had rule over his chariots, saying, Fight neither with small nor great, save only with the king of Israel. 32And it came to pass, when the captains of the chariots saw Jehoshaphat, that they said, Surely it is the king of Israel. And they turned aside to fight against him: and Jehoshaphat cried out. 33And it came to pass, when the captains of the chariots perceived that it 34was not the king of Israel, that they turned back from pursuing him. And a certain man drew a bow at a venture, and smote the king of Israel between the joints of the harness: wherefore he said unto the driver of his chariot, Turn thine hand, and carry me out of the host; for I am wounded. 35And the battle increased that day: and the king was stayed up in his chariot against the Syrians, and died at even: and the blood ran out of the wound into the midst of the chariot. 36And there went a proclamation throughout the host about the going down of the sun, saying, Every man to his city, and every man to his own country. 37So the king died, and was brought to Samaria; and they buried the king in 38Samaria. And one washed the chariot in the pool of Samaria; and the dogs licked up his blood; and they washed his armor [and the harlots washed]; according unto the word of the Lord [Jehovah] which he spake. 39Now the rest of the acts of Ahab, and all that he did, and the ivory house which he made, and all the cities that he built, are they not written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel? 40So Ahab slept with his fathers; and Ahaziah his son reigned in his stead. Exegetical and Critical1 Kings 22:1. And they continued, &c., i. e. Syria and Israel. The three years are those which had elapsed since the war mentioned in chap. 20, that is, since the release of Ben-hadad. In this interval fell the murder of Naboth. The 22d chap. is a continuation of the 20th, and is derived from the same original document. Chap. 21 is from some other authority, but appears here in its proper chronological position. The ground of Jehosha-phat’s visit to Ahab, according to the parallel account in Chronicles, was the marriage relationship which had been formed between them, viz., Ahab’s daughter, Athaliah, had become the wife of Jehoshaphat’s son, Jehoram. Chronicles also states that Ahab slaughtered a large number of sheep and oxen for Jehoshaphat and his numerous escort, i. e., he entertained them generously. Ahab profited by this opportunity, so soon as he had made sure of the support of his generals who had come to the entertainment, to persuade Jehoshaphat into making an expedition against the Syrians in alliance with him.—On Ramoth (1 Kings 22:3) see notes on 1 Kings 4:13. Ben-hadad, contrary to his promise (1 Kings 20:34), had not given up this stronghold, from which, as a base, he could easily make incursions into Israel, and Ahab became more and more uneasy as years passed by, and the promised surrender was not consummated. His words (1 Kings 22:3) mean: This important city belongs to Israel as of right, and besides that Ben-hadad has solemnly promised to give it up; yet he has not done this, but, on the contrary, menaces us on that side, while “we rest satisfied with this state of things, instead of taking what is ours by a double right” (Thenius). 1 Kings 22:4. And he said unto Jehoshaphat. Instead of εַ ?ιֹּ ?ΰξֶ ?ψ we find in Chronicles εַ ?ιρִ ?ιϊֵ ?δεּ, the same expression which is used in 1 Kings 21:25 in regard to Jezebel and her influence on Ahab; he seduced him (cf. Jeremiah 38:22; Deuteronomy 13:7). This shows that Jehoshaphat ought not to have agreed to the proposition. However, he did not enter into the plan “after dinner,” thoughtlessly (Richter), but because he wished to confirm the good understanding which had just been established between Judah and Israel, and because he also saw danger to himself in Ramoth, so long as it was in the hands of the Syrians. The horses are especially mentioned, because they formed the essential part of the military power.(Psalms 33:16-17; Proverbs 21:31). 1 Kings 22:5. And Jehoshaphat said unto the king of Israel,. &c. Jehoshaphat had some scruples. He wished first to be certain that the undertaking was conformed to the will of Jehovah, a thing in regard to which no anxiety had entered Ahab’s mind. He ought to have considered this before giving his consent (1 Kings 22:4). The prophets whom Ahab summoned were not, as some of the old expositors inferred from the number four hundred, the Astarte-prophets who had not been upon Carmel (1 Kings 18:19; 1 Kings 18:22), for their chief, Zedekiah, affirmed that he had the spirit of Jehovah (1 Kings 22:24), and all the others unite in this assertion (1 Kings 22:12). Nevertheless, they wore not “certainly genuine Jehovah-prophets” (Clericus), nor “pretended” Jehovah-prophets (Schulz), nor prophet-disciples (Thenius), for the definite article does not refer to such as these, but to a definite class, different from these, the prophets of Ahab. Hence Junius and Tremellius translate correctly according to the sense: Ahab congregavit prophetas suos. So Micaiah designates them in 1 Kings 22:22-23, when he calls them “thy” or “his” prophets. Moreover, how could Ahab ever have brought himself to tolerate four hundred prophets, adherents of Elijah, in his immediate circle, when he had not been converted to Jehovah? No one will assert that they belonged to the number of those who wore the well-known penitential robe of the prophets, and went about in goat-skins or in hair-cloth (Zechariah 13:4; Hebrews 11:37). It remains that we can think of them only as adherents of Jeroboam’s Jehovah-worship, that is, of the calf-worship. Hence Jehoshaphat did not recognize them as genuine Jehovah prophets. Although they all agree, yet he asks for another, a true worshipper of Jehovah; and Ahab calls for such a one, though with inward dissatisfaction. Since in 1 Kings 18:19; 1 Kings 18:22; 1 Kings 18:25; 1 Kings 18:40, the priests of Baal and Astarte are always called πְ ?αִ ?ιΰִ ?ιν, the conjecture is suggested that these persons were priests of the calf-worship, who at the same time filled, like the Baal and Astarte priests, the functions of prophets. (See notes on 1 Kings 18:19.) 1 Kings 22:8. And the king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat, &c. Micaiah is called once only, in the parallel passage (2 Chronicles 18:14), Micha, and is certainly not, as Josephus and the rabbis assert, the man who is mentioned in 1 Kings 20:35 as a prophet-disciple. Ahab could not at the moment give the name of any other whom he could summon at short notice. It was very natural that he should not mention Elijah, even aside from the fact that he did not know where he was. Micaiah was in Samaria, and even, as it appears, on account of some previous prophecy which was unfavorable and displeasing to Ahab, in confinement; hence he could be at once brought forward—To the words, but evil, the chronicler adds: “all his days,” i. e., so long as he has filled the office of a prophet. Von Gerlach aptly remarks: We find in Ahab the same heathen conception of the relation between the prophet and Jehovah, as we find in the case of Balak (Numbers 23:11). He ascribes to the seer some power over his God, and therefore makes him responsible for his unfavorable oracles. Agamemnon says to Calchas (Iliad i. 106), “Seer of evil ! how hast thou never foretold to me good! Thou prophesiest to me with pleasure only evil in thy trance, and hast never declared to me a favorable oracle.” Jehoshaphat’s answer: “Let not the king say so! refers to Ahab’s words: I hate him; I will not now listen to him. Jehoshaphat’s words, therefore, have not this sense: vaticinabitur prospere (Vatablus, Keil), but they are a reply to his remark, and contain such an encouragement as this: Let him come, though;—and this Ahab then does. 1 Kings 22:10. Sat each on his throne, &c. 1 Kings 22:10-12 carry out into detail that which had been hinted at briefly in 1 Kings 22:6. We must, therefore, think here of the same assemblage as there. It is now only described more fully in what a solemn manner this assemblage was held (see Bertheau on 2 Chronicles 18:9). That ξְ ?μֻ ?αָּ ?ωִׁ ?ιναְּ ?βָ ?γִ ?ιν means “in their official (royal) robes” is clear from Leviticus 21:10, where it is said of the high-priest: μαωׁ ΰϊΞδαβγιν, i. e., “clad in the official (priestly) garments.” ιεֹ ?ωְׁ ?αִ ?ιν is repeated before αְּ ?βֹ ?ψֶ ?ο in the parallel passage 2 Chronicles 18:9. It can, therefore, only mean: in areaβֹּ ?ψֶ ?ο means a “smooth open place” (Gesenius); hence a threshing-floor, which is such a smooth open place. However, “threshing-floor” is not the sole meaning, as Thenius asserts. He reads αְּ ?ψֻ ?γִּ ?ιν for αְּ ?βֹ ?ψֶ ?ο (since the word for threshing-floor makes no sense) and joins it with αβγιν, “particolored, that is, probably, vestes distinct�, acu pict�;” but this conjecture is as unnecessary as it is violent. Ewald also joins the word with αβγιν, and says that it can from the connection (?), have here only the meaning, armor, war-dress, but there is no evidence to support this, for the ἔνοπλοι of the Sept. is not a translation of αβψο but of the words discussed above ξμΧΧαβΧΧ. 1 Kings 22:11. And Zedekiah, the son, &c. Zedekiah, following the method of the true prophets, performs a symbolical action before the declaration of his oracle (see on 1 Kings 11:29). He intended thereby to show himself a prophet of the northern kingdom. He put on horns of iron, which would not break, for Deuteronomy 33:17 says of Ephraim: “His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns; with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth.” By a physical reference to this prophecy he intended to represent his present declaration as certain. However, he forgot that “the entire fulfilment of Moses’ blessing depended on the fidelity with which Israel adhered to the commandments, and to the Lord. But Ahab, least of all, had been careful to be thus faithful” (Keil). Of the two imperatives ςֲ ?μֶ ?δεְ ?δַ ?φֵ ?μַ ?δ, the first is a command and the second an encouragement, as in Genesis 42:18; Proverbs 20:13; Psalms 37:27; Job 22:21; Isaiah 36:16 (Gesen. Grammar § 127). 1 Kings 22:15. So he came to the king. “Ahab meant by his question to Micaiah to represent himself to Jehoshaphat as never having attempted to exert any influence upon the declarations of the prophet” (Thenius). He took up the attitude to Micaiah “of holding himself ready for any answer, and of demanding only to know the divine will, although ho had really made up his mind, and would be pleased only with one answer” (Jo. Lange). Hence we may understand the prophet’s answer, which is not irony (Keil), nor “spoken with ironical gestures and a sarcastic tone” (Richter),but certainly a reproof for the hypocritical question. The sense is: How camest thou to the idea of consulting me, whom thou dost not trust? Thy prophets have answered thee as thou desirest. Do, then, what they have approved. Try it. March out. Their oracles have far more weight with thee than mine. “Since Micaiah, who, in 1 Kings 22:14, had distinctly declared that he would not speak simply according to the king’s pleasure, nevertheless repeats almost exactly the words of the king’s prophets, he must have spoken in a tone which made it clear to Ahab that what he said was not in earnest” (Bertheau). Therefore Ahab adjured him to speak only the word of Jehovah, but did not promise to follow the counsel which ho should give him in the name of Jehovah. He was not in earnest to learn the truth, but only to convince Jehoshaphat that what he had said (1 Kings 22:8) about this prophet was true and just, and that no authority ought to be ascribed to him. Micaiah now refuses no longer, but makes known the vision which he has had (1 Kings 22:17). The meaning of this vision was clear. Ahab understood it. The king would fall, and Israel would be scattered without being pursued. Each one would take his own way home, and so the war would end. Perhaps Numbers 27:17 floated before the prophet’s mind, as Deuteronomy 33:17 was in the mind of Zedekiah in 1 Kings 22:11. Luther erroneously took the words of Jehovah μֹ ?ΰΞΰֲ ?γֹ ?πִ ?ινμָ ?ΰֵ ?μָּ ?δ as a question. The sense is: Since these have no longer any master, let each return. Ahab now assures Jehoshaphat (1 Kings 22:18; cf. 1 Kings 21:20), in order that he may not be influenced by this oracle, that it springs from the malice which he had before declared this prophet to entertain. Then, in order to refute this imputation, Micaiah (ver.19) states, by describing another vision, the reason why the four hundred prophets had prophesied falsely and deceitfully. 1 Kings 22:19. Hear thou therefore the word of the Lord.μָ ?λֵ ?ο has here its regular signification: for this reason. (Keil: “Because thou thinkest [my declaration the result of mere malice], therefore”.) It is not, “according to the Sept., οὐχοὕτως, equivalent to μֹ ?ΰλֵ ?ο: veruntamen” (Thenius). The speech in 1 Kings 22:19-23 is indeed addressed to the king in the first instance, but evidently all around heard it and were intended to hear it. In Chronicles we find for ωִׁ ?ξְ ?ςεּ ,τְ ?ξַ ?ς, as in 1 Kings 22:28. .—I saw the Lord sitting on His throne. What Micaiah describes in 1 Kings 22:19-22 is not a mere parable invented by him, but a prophetic vision which he saw, and which, as the Berleburger Bibel says, represents God and His government and providence in an appropriate symbolical manner. Peter Martyr says: Omnia h�c dicunturἁνθρωποπαθῶς. The separate expressions are not, therefore, to be strained or interpreted in a “gross and materialistic manner” (Richter).—And all the host of heaven, &c. The old expositors, Peter Martyr, Jo. Lange, Starke and others suppose that the prophet described God seated on the throne of heaven and surrounded by the heavenly hosts, in contrast with the two kings sitting on their thrones surrounded by the band of false prophets. It appears, however, that this cannot be correct, for if it were correct, then Micaiah must have had his vision after he came to stand before the kings and to see how they were arrayed, but the revelation, doubtless, came to him some time before this. He rather saw God as the ruler of all in heaven or earth, and as the judge in the full glory of His majesty, entirely independently of the two kings. The host of heaven are not, of course, here the stars, as in Deuteronomy 4:19, but all the higher heavenly powers who serve as His organs in the administration of the universe (Hebrews 1:14; 2 Samuel 24:16; 2 Kings 19:35). Some of the older expositors incorrectly say that those on the right were the good, and those on the left the bad. The latter are nowhere included in the “host of heaven.” All surround Him and wait for His commands.—The question in 1 Kings 22:20 : Who shall persuade [delude] Ahab? shows that the fall of Ahab, who had heaped sin upon sin, was determined in the counsels of God (cf. Isaiah 6:8). The only question which still remained open was as to the way in which his fall should be brought about. “Who is able to delude Ahab, so that he may march against Ramoth to his own destruction?” (Bertheau). And one said on this manner and another said on that manner. Peter Martyr says on these words: Innuit varios providenti� Dei modos, quibus decreta sua ad exitum perducit. The dramatic-figurative form of representation corresponds fully to the character of the vision, in which inner and spiritual processes are regarded as real phenomena, nay even as persons. 1 Kings 22:21. And there came forth a spirit.—δָ ?ψεּ ?ηַ, i. e., not a spirit (Luther, and E. V., following the Sept.), but the spirit, a definite one, and it can be, according to the entire connection, none other than the spirit of prophecy (Thenius; Keil), the power which, going forth from God, and taking possession of a man, makes him a prophet (1 Samuel 10:6; 1 Samuel 10:10; 1 Samuel 19:20; 1 Samuel 19:23). The πָ ?αִ ?ιΰ is the ΰִ ?ιωδָ ?ψεּ ?ηַ (Hosea 9:7). This spirit offered itself to fulfil the divine decree. It is a feature in the dramatic-figurative form of representation, that as all the powers of God are represented as persons, so also this power is personified. It steps forth from the ranks of the divine powers and declares its readiness to fulfil the divine will: “I (ΰֲ ?πִ ?ι with emphasis) will persuade him” The question in 1 Kings 22:22, Wherewith? adds to the liveliness of the delineation. The meaning of the answer: “I will go forth and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets” is this: The prophets of Ahab shall prophesy to him what he desires to hear, and thus delude him until he shall bring about his own ruin through his own plans. As this view was already decided on in the divine counsels, the Lord answers to the spirit: Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also. Go forth and do so. Because Ahab, who had abandoned God and hardened his heart, desired to use prophecy for his own purposes, it is determined that he shall be led to his ruin by prophecy. As God often used the heathen nations as the rod of his wrath for the chastisement of Israel (Isaiah 10:5), so now he uses Ahab’s false prophets to bring upon Ahab the judgment which Elijah had foretold against him. We have to compare the passage Isaiah 6:8-9, where the prophet, who has just been cleansed from sin and consecrated to the prophetic office, answers to the Lord’s question: “Who shall I send,”—“Send me,” and then the command is given to him: “Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert and be healed.” From this we see that the ψεּ ?ηַ ωֶׁ ?χֶ ?ψ (1 Kings 22:22) is not, as most of the old expositors declared, Satan, who does not belong to the “heavenly host” (1 Kings 22:19), and is, moreover, nowhere called simply δָ ?ψεּ ?ηַ (1 Kings 22:21). Keil indeed admits that “neither Satan nor any other evil spirit is meant,” but he adds that the spirit of prophecy, in so far as it is, by God’s will, a ψεּ ?ηֹ δωׁ ?χψ “stands under the influence of Satan.” But the vision has nothing at all to do with Satan. The circumstances are entirely different from those in Job 1:6, which are often compared. It expresses an act in God’s government and judicial administration, in which Satan is neither directly nor indirectly involved. In 1 Kings 22:23 Micaiah states the result of what precedes: Now see; the prophets have prophesied to thee pleasant things, but they are deluded and they delude thee. If therefore I have prophesied otherwise, it is not, as thou hast said (1 Kings 22:18), out of hate towards thee, but the Lord has thus spoken to me, and has thus determined in regard to thee. 1 Kings 22:24. Zedekiah.… went near. This leader of the other party felt himself especially insulted, as he had confirmed his prophecy by a symbolical act (1 Kings 22:11). The blow on the cheek was intended as an insult (Job 16:10; Lamentations 3:30). We may see from this how Zedekiah stood in Ahab’s favor, and how unesteemed Micaiah was. Chronicles supplies δַ ?γֶּ ?ψֶ ?κְ which is wanting with ΰֵ ?ιΞζֶ ?δ (1 Kings 13:12; 2 Kings 3:8; Job 38:24). The sense is: How dost thou dare to say that the spirit of prophecy has turned aside from me and gone only to thee? Zedekiah had not, therefore, knowingly prophesied falsely, but his insolence was far from being a proof that he had the spirit of the Lord. On ηֶ ?γֶ ?ψαְּ ?ηֶ ?γֶ ?ψ see notes on 1 Kings 20:30. The story of Zedekiah’s end is wanting both in Kings and Chronicles, but this does not prove that the original document contained much more than now appears in our books (Thenius, Ewald). As Ahab fell, and Zedekiah’s definite prediction was startlingly falsified, we may be sure that he did not fail to be persecuted. 1 Kings 22:26. And the king of Israel said: Take Micaiah, &c. Josephus narrates that Ahab was disturbed by Micaiah’s speech, but when he saw that Zedekiah’s hand did not wither as Jeroboam’s did (1 Kings 13:4), and that Micaiah inflicted no punishment, that he took courage and went on to the war. This is an empty rabbinical tradition. Zedekiah’s insolence was influential in encouraging Ahab in the determination which he had formed. The latter caused Micaiah to be taken back to Amon the governor of the city, not to his own house (Thenius). He had probably been previously in arrest under this man’s charge, but now he was to be put in prison on the bread and water “of affliction.” Joash, son of the king, was not, probably, a son of Ahab, but a prince of the blood, who, together with the commandant of the city, had charge of the prisoners. If he had been, as Thenius supposes, a young prince who had been intrusted to Amon for his military education (2 Kings 10:1), one does not see why he should be mentioned here. In the last words of 1 Kings 22:28 Micaiah calls “all people” to be witnesses of his declaration, i. e., not “all the world,” or “people generally” (Keil), but all the people who, besides the two kings and the four hundred prophets, were collected on this solemn occasion. The prophet Micah begins his prophecy (1 Kings 1:2) with the words ωִׁ ?ξְ ?ςεּ ςַ ?ξִּ ?ινλֻּ ?μָ ?ν, but we may not infer from this, as Bleek does, that the author confused Micaiah with the much younger prophet Micah, nor, as Hitzig does, that the words in this passage are borrowed from that place. It would be more natural to suppose that Micah borrowed the words from the original document of this author. However, the exclamation is so general that it might occur in the independent works of different prophets. It is remarkable that the pious king Jehoshaphat does not interfere to prevent the maltreatment of Micaiah; and that, in spite of the opposition of that prophet, he goes on the expedition. Peter Martyr says: Affinitas cum impiis contracta sanctitatem plurimum imminuit. It appears that he was not willing to take back the promise which he had given (1 Kings 22:4) on account of a prophet whom Ahab declared to be his personal opponent. 1 Kings 22:30. And the king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat. The Vulgate and Luther mistakenly take the infinitives δִ ?ϊְ ?ηַ ?τֵּ ?ωׁ εָ ?αֹ ?ΰ (disguise and come) as imperatives addressed to Jehoshaphat. εְ ?ΰַ ?ϊָּ ?δ, which immediately follows by way of contrast, shows that this is wrong. The infinitive absolute is the plainest and simplest form of the voluntative for exclamations, and is used when the speaker is excited and filled with the idea (Ewald, § 328). It is to he remembered, in connection with Ahab’s attempt to disguise himself, that the ordinary custom was for the king to lead the army into battle in full royal costume (2 Samuel 1:10). Hence he was conspicuous not only to his own army, but also to that of the enemy, who then directed their attack upon him. The words of Micaiah, especially these: “These have no master,” had caused Ahab great secret anxiety. Moreover, he might well suppose that the Syrians would be more eager to attack him than Jehoshaphat. Though he knew nothing of Ben-hadad’s command (1 Kings 22:21), yet he desired to frustrate the prophet’s prediction. The sense of his words to Jehoshaphat is, therefore, this: I have every reason to make myself unrecognizable in this war, but thou, against whom the Syrians have no especial hate, mayst go forward in thy royal apparel.—When thus taken, Ahab’s words contain a sort of justification and excuse of his purpose. Jehoshaphat, therefore, agreed to it without objection. There is no ground for the idea that Ahab had planned cunningly that Jehoshaphat might be killed, in order that he might inherit Judah (Schulz, Maurer, and others). Ahab was anxious to save his own life, not to secure Jehoshaphat’s death. 1 Kings 22:31. But the king of Syria, &c. Perhaps he had learned that the expedition had originated with Ahab, who had proposed it to his generals, persuaded Jehoshaphat, and pushed forward the plan perseveringly. He hoped that Ahab’s end would be the end of the war. Hence the command which he gave to the thirty-two chariot-captains, who are also mentioned in 1 Kings 20:24. They were the leaders, they made known the command to their men. Neither with small nor great,i. e., do not spend time in conflict with any one else, but all press forward against the king of Israel. ΰַ ?κְ in 1 Kings 22:32 does not mean certainly (De Wette, Bunsen), but only. They need not be in doubt, since he alone wore royal dress. Instead of εַ ?ιָּ ?ρֻ ?ψεּ the chronicler has εַ ?ιָּ ?ρֹ ?αּ ?εּ, and the Sept. has, in both places. ἐκύκλωσαν. Bertheau and Thenius regard the latter as the correct reading. But the Syrians certainly had not yet surrounded him; they were pressing forward towards him, but turned aside when they saw that they were mistaken in the person (1 Kings 22:33). The Vulg. has: impetu facto pugnabant contra eum. ρεּ ?ψ means, to turn from the way and go towards something. When they saw the king, they turned towards him. Jehoshaphat cried out, and, as they recognized him, it seems that he must have called out his own name, not, however, in order to make himself known to them, but in order to call his own people to his aid. It may be, also, that his people called to him and uttered his name. In Chronicles it is added: “And the Lord helped him; and God moved them to depart from him.” This can hardly have been borrowed from the original document. The cry was understood [by later readers] as a cry to God (Vulg., clamavit ad Dominum), and the rescue as a divine interposition. If this pair of sentences had been in the original, it is inexplicable how they should have been omitted in the text before us. 1 Kings 22:34. And a certain man drew a bow, &c. μְ ?ϊֻ ?ξּ ?εֹ does not mean “at a venture” (Luther, E. V.), nor in incertum (Vulg.), but, as 2 Samuel 15:11 shows, “without knowing why he aimed particularly at that individual whom he had in his eye” (Thenius). According to Josephus this man’s name was Aman; according to Jarchi it was Naaman. In the text, however, emphasis is laid on the fact that it was an unknown man. Gesenius and De Wette translate δַ ?γְּ ?αָ ?χִ ?ιν by joints or grooves, but what joints can be referred to? The stem γָ ?αַ ?χ means only to hang on or depend from. γֶ ?αֶ ?χ, therefore, means that which depends or hangs down, but not a Joint, nor yet the soft parts or flanks (Ewald). Luther, correctly: Zwischen den Panzer und Hengel [between the corselet and the tunic]. The corselet covered the body down as far as below the ribs. The lower part of the body was protected by a hanging skirt of parallel plates (hence the plural γְ ?αָ ?χִ ?ιν). The arrow penetrated between this skirt and the corselet, where the connection was not close or perfect, and penetrated the “lower abdomen” (Thenius). This wound was of course, a very severe one, if not a fatal one. We may perceive how far such weapons penetrated, by the instance, for example, of the arrow with which Jehu shot king Jehoram, which entered his body between the arms from behind, and came out obliquely through the heart in front (2 Kings 9:24; Lament. 1 Kings 3:13; Job 16:13). Hereupon Ahab commanded his charioteer to turn and drive out of the midst of the contending armies, for I am wounded,i. e., I am no longer fit to fight, and must retire from the conflict. Evidently δָ ?ηֳ ?μֵ ?ιϊִ ?ι means, in this connection, I am wounded (cf. 1 Samuel 31:3); Sept., τετραυμάτισμαι; Vulg. graviter vulneratus sum). Thenius, translates, “I am not well,” and observes: “He desired to be quickly rid of the arrow, and not to let any one know that he was wounded.” Similarly Bertheau: “For I am unwell. The charioteer cannot have observed that Ahab had been wounded by an arrow.” But a fatal wound in the abdomen, from which blood flowed into the chariot, cannot have passed unobserved, and it is impossible that Ahab should have removed the arrow himself; at least such action is not mentioned in the text. It is certain that he felt so unwell that he asked to be removed from the conflict, and it is difficult to understand how Thenius can say, on the words Against the Syrians (1 Kings 22:35), that “he kept his face towards them and did not retire from the place of battle.” Ewald’s assertion that he “had to be carried from the field,” contradicts the words of the text; also there is nothing in the text of Ewald’s further statement, that “when his wound had been bound up Ahab returned into the battle, and fell bravely fighting to the last.” Only so much is certain, that he was removed from the battle in his chariot, but not that he returned to it, as has been erroneously inferred from 1 Kings 22:35. 1 Kings 22:35. And the battle increased,i. e., the battle became more violent. The figure is taken. from a swelling river (Isaiah 8:7). Thenius explains the following words, δָ ?ιָ ?δξָ ?ςֳ ?ξָ ?γ: “He was standing upright, i. e., through his own strength. He forced himself in order that he might support the courage of his followers.” But he had given orders (1 Kings 22:34) that his charioteer should remove him as incapacitated for further fighting, and it does not show in the text that he caused his wound to be bound up and then returned into the fight; this must be invented and added arbitrarily. The sentence: the battle increased, is a subordinate clause to explain how it came about that Ahab remained standing in the chariot and died at evening. The Calwer Bibel states the connection of thought very correctly as follows: “Ahab’s charioteer could not escape from the crush of the battle because the fight became more and more violent, and Ahab was obliged to remain standing on the chariot on which he was until towards evening. His wound could not, therefore, be bound up, and he bled to death. When finally, at sunset, the Israelites turned away from the field of battle, it was too late to save the king.” πֹ ?λַ ?ηΰֲ ?ψָ ?ν does not mean “presenting front to the Syrians” (Thenius), but in the face of the Syrians (coram, Judges 18:6; Jeremiah 17:16; Ezekiel 14:3; Ezekiel 14:7; Proverbs 5:21). The Syrians, however, did not recognize him, because he was disguised. It is once more stated that the blood ran out of the wound into the midst of the chariot, on account of the incident to be narrated in 1 Kings 22:38. In Chronicles these words are wanting, as also the following verses 36–38. The story ends there with the words: “and about the time of the sun going down he died,” because it is not the history of Ahab which is there the prominent interest, but that of Jehoshaphat. 1 Kings 22:38. And one washed the chariot in the pool of Samaria. As in the case of other cities (2 Samuel 2:13; 2 Samuel 4:12; Song Son 7:4), so also at Samaria, there was a pool near the city which served for purposes of washing and bathing. The dogs licked up the water which was mixed with the blood washed from the chariot. The words εְ ?δַ ?εֹּ ?πεֹ ?ϊψָ ?ηָ ?φεּ cannot be translated as in the Syriac and Chaldaic versions, arma laverunt, or, as in the Vulg., habenas laverunt, in the first place because it is contrary to the usage of the language to make ζֹ ?πεֹ ?ϊ the object, and in the second place, because this word occurs in the Old Testament only in the signification harlots. Maurer and Von Gerlach supply, as object of ψָ ?ηָ ?φεּ, the chariot, but then this clause would only repeat the previous one: “they washed the chariot.” Bunsen supplies arbitrarily: the corpse. ψηυ means here, as in Exodus 2:5; Ruth 3:31, to bathe. Harlots are also elsewhere mentioned together with dogs, though, it is true, in the figurative use (Deuteronomy 23:19; Revelation 22:15), because both were regarded as impure and contemptible. Theodoret remarks that the harlots bathed in the evening, according to custom. They did not intend to wash in the blood, but the water was mixed with it. Probably the women were the temple-prostitutes, so that the blood of Ahab was not only licked up by dogs, but also came in contact with persons who were impure, and prostituted in the service of Baal and Astarte; a double mark of the shameful ruin which had been foretold for him. Peter Martyr: Sordes suas miscebant cum sanguine Ahabi, qu� fuit maxima ignominia. Thenius’ proceeding is very arbitrary when he declares that 1 Kings 22:38 is an addition of the redactor, who desired to bring the event into full accord with the, prophecy in 1 Kings 21:19. We have no further information in regard to Ahab’s buildings mentioned in 1 Kings 22:39. The ivory house was a house which was richly decorated within with ivory. Cf. Amos 3:15; Psalms 45:8; Son 7:5; Homer’s Odys. 4:72. Historical and Ethical1. Jehoshaphat’s journey to Samaria is an important incident in the development of the history of the two kingdoms, for this reason: Ever since the division of the kingdom (seventy years) the two parts had been hostile to each other, but Jehoshaphat’s visit was meant to confirm a peace between them, which had already been brought about by the intermarriage of the prince of Judah and the princess of Israel. A period of peace now began. This new state of things was brought about by Jehoshaphat and not by Ahab, as we see clearly from the account in Chronicles, where also we may learn what considerations induced the pious king of Judah to seek friendship and alliance with Ahab. He had raised the comparatively weak kingdom of Judah to a pitch of prosperity, both internal and external, such as it had not enjoyed since the time of Solomon. Especially against the neighboring nations he had been so successful that all brought him tribute, and no one any longer dared to oppose him (2 Chronicles 17:10). Since now he had attained to great wealth and renown (2 Chronicles 18:1), the wish must naturally arise in his heart, to put an end to the long hostility of the two brother-kingdoms, of which, probably, each was weary. This could not be accomplished by force, for experience had proved that neither kingdom could subjugate the other. Jehoshaphat therefore attempted the peaceful means of a family alliance, and Ahab met him willingly, since he could expect from such an alliance nothing but advantage. It appears, however, that Jehoshaphat aimed at something more than a mere friendly relation between the two kingdoms. When we reflect that he, the faithful adherent of Jehovah, made an alliance between his son and heir and the daughter of the fanatical idolater, Jezebel; that he then went himself in great state to Samaria; that he entered into a military expedition with Ahab in spite of the warning of a prophet of Jehovah; that he afterwards entered into an alliance with Ahab’s successor in spite of the warning of the prophet Jehu not to enter into fellowship with apostates (2 Chronicles 19:1); then we cannot understand all this save on the supposition that he aimed to unite once more the two kingdoms under Judah’s supremacy. However glorious the aim was, it could never be attained in the way upon which he had entered. The real cause of the division of the kingdom was Israel’s revolt from the chief command of the covenant with Jehovah. This cause could not be removed by external means such as Jehoshaphat sought to use. The friendship which he sought to establish by intermarriage and by political measures, ignoring the true ground of division, and even setting it aside by denying some features of the theocratic constitution, was a friendship which had no root, and enjoyed no divine blessing, out of which rather mischief arose for Judah. For, far from tending to root up Jeroboam’s cultus in Israel, this intermarriage helped to transplant it to Judah, and brought that kingdom to the brink of ruin. After seventy or eighty years, in the time of Amaziah, the hostility between the two kingdoms broke out afresh, and was never entirely allayed again until the Assyrians took Israel into captivity. 2. King Ahab appears here in the last act of his career, just as we have seen him always hitherto, devoid of religious or moral character. His penitence, which seemed so earnest, and which certainly falls in the period immediately preceding the renewed war with the Syrians (1 Kings 21:27), had, as we see from the story before us, borne no fruit. His attitude toward Jehovah and His covenant remained the same. There is not a sign of any change of heart. He is now enraged against Ben-hadad, whom, after the battle of Aphek, he called his “brother,” and suffered to depart out of weakness and vanity. He summons his chief soldiers to a war against Ben-hadad, and calls for Jehoshaphat’s aid also, in order to make sure of destroying him. He had either forgotten the words of the prophet (1 Kings 20:42), or else he cared nothing about them. To “be still” (1 Kings 22:3) did not suit him. As Jehoshaphat desired, before engaging on the expedition, to hear an oracle of Jehovah in regard to it, Ahab summoned only those in regard to whose declarations he could be sure that they would accord with his own wishes, and when Micaiah, being called at the express wish of Jehoshaphat, gives another prophetic declaration, Ahab explains this as the expression of personal malice, as he had once done in regard to Elijah’s declarations (chap 1 Kings 21:20). He allows Zedekiah to insult and abuse Micaiah, and even orders the latter into close confinement. But then again he becomes alarmed at the prophet’s words, though before he was passionate and excited. He cannot overcome the impression he has received, and so, contrary to military custom and order, he does not go into the battle like Jehoshaphat, clad in royal robes, but disguised. This precaution, which testified to anything but heroism (Eisenlohr says justly: “He hoped in this way to escape danger”), did not, however, avail. He was shot without being recognized. His command to be removed from the strife, that his wound might be cared for, could not be executed. He bled to death on his chariot. Some moderns have represented his end as heroic, starting from the erroneous exegesis that he caused his wounds to be bound up and returned to the fight (see Exeg. on 1 Kings 22:34-35). “He had his wound bound up, returned to the battle, and held himself erect in his chariot, though his blood flowed down on its floor until the evening” (Duncker, Gesch. des Alterthums I. s. 1Kings 212:—following Ewald). Thenius even says: “If Ahab held himself erect through the whole day with the purpose already mentioned (to encourage his men), then he possessed, aside from the qualities manifested in 1 Kings 20:7; 1 Kings 20:14; 1 Kings 20:32; 1 Kings 20:34, a character whose general features were grand.” This view is certainly mistaken, since we may be sure that the author did not intend to glorify Ahab in this account of his death. It is so far from his intention to say anything in his honor, that he even expressly narrates how Ahab after his death met with involuntary disgrace (1 Kings 22:38). In mentioning the end of Asa, Baasha, and Omri their “heroism” (βְּ ?αεּ ?ψָ ?δ) is mentioned, but when Ahab’s death and burial are mentioned, there is no reference to his valor. Moreover, it is impossible to speak of this king as having “a character whose general features were grand,” seeing that he was ruled by his wicked wife, that he went to bed and would see no one, and neither eat nor drink, because he could not at once obtain a garden which he wanted, and that he did not recover his spirits until he had obtained the garden by a judicial murder. 3. The congregation of not less than four hundred prophets, who claimed to be prophets of Jehovah, but were not such, is a phenomenon which has no parallel either in the earlier or later history of Israel, and which, for various reasons, deserves attention. In the first place, it appears from this that, although the Baal-cultus had been formally introduced, it had not entirely superseded the Jehovah-cultus; on the contrary, that it existed by the side of that (perhaps as a consequence of Elijah’s work), and that, as we may infer from the number of the prophets who were assembled, a great portion of the people must still have been well disposed towards the national cultus. Secondly, it appears that there was in Israel, besides the class of prophets of whom Elijah and Elisha and their pupils were the leaders (2 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 2:5; 2 Kings 2:7; 2 Kings 2:16; 2 Kings 6:1), also another class of prophets, who did not oppose the cultus of Jeroboam or the idolatrous dynasty, but rather joined hands with these, and sought a compromise with them. This latter class was no doubt, for the most part, identical with the priests of Jeroboam’s cultus, and formed the official privileged class of prophets. The union of the priestly and the prophetic offices occurred in the Baal-religion (chap. 18). No ancient people considered any cultus complete without a class of men through whom the god might be questioned. This class was naturally identified, in the first place, with the priesthood, through whom all dealings with the gods must be brought about. The calf-worship of Jeroboam must, therefore, have prophets in order to be a complete religious system, and its priests became its born prophets. Since, however, this cultus, with its priesthood, was not a legitimate outgrowth of the national constitution and the divine covenant, but a creation of political policy (1 Kings 12:31-32; 1 Kings 13:33), the prophecy also, which was connected with it, did not stand upon the covenant with Jehovah, and the spirit which animated this prophecy could not be the “spirit of Jehovah.” It was a lying spirit, since the whole existence of this class of persons was rooted in apostasy and in revolt from the theocratic constitution. These “prophets of Samaria” (Jeremiah 23:13; Ezekiel 13:1) were false prophets. They were not “servants of Jehovah” or “men of God,” but creatures of Jeroboam’s royal power, court prophets, who stood ready for the service of the king. This is the character in which they here appear. Ahab knew that they would prophesy “good” concerning him; hence he called them and would not listen to Micaiah. It is not necessary to consider them conscious and intentional deceivers, but, though they may have believed in their own oracles, yet they were deceitful prophets, since the “spirit of Jehovah” was not in them. 4. The prophet Micaiah, of whom we know nothing more than is to be learned from this chapter, unites, in contrast with the prophets of Ahab, all the chief features of a genuine Jehovah-prophet in a manner in which they are not to be found in a single appearance of any other prophet. We are first struck by the fulfilment of his prediction. He announces, on the authority of a vision, the fall of Ahab as a thing settled in the counsels of God, and does this in such a clear and definite way that Ahab and all the others who were present at once understood what was predicted, and there was no place for a “dim misgiving of the defeat which was to be suffered” (Ewald). According to human foresight, a great defeat was the less to be expected on this occasion, since Ahab’s army was considerably strengthened by the addition of Jehoshaphat’s, and the only thing sought was the capture of one city. Hence the four hundred prophets unanimously promised victory. The passage is certainly historical: according to Thenius, the vision of Micaiah “is to be regarded as a proof of the historical truth of the passage on account of its peculiarity and originality;” we have here, therefore, a definite prediction, which can have proceeded only from divine revelation, from which Micaiah expressly asserts that he received it. Then with this gift of prediction Micaiah unites also the heroic courage which marked all the true prophets. He steps forth in the face of the king and his four hundred prophets, as once Elijah stepped forth in the face of the same king and the four hundred and fifty priests of Baal on Mount Carmel. Though he came from captivity, and had now an opportunity to receive the royal favor, and although the attendant begged him, as he came, to “prophesy good,” yet he speaks only what God has revealed to him, and fears neither the wrath of the king, nor the outcry and rage of the four hundred. He recognizes no fear of men and no desire to please men. The word of his God is more to him than all else, and with that he stands firm, no matter what may threaten him. To this heroic courage he adds, finally, the patient endurance of insult and abuse which he is called to endure for the sake of truth. He does not repay Zedekiah in kind, but refers him to the experience which awaits him. When the enraged king orders him into close confinement on the “bread of affliction,” he does not murmur, but calls on all present to remember his prediction, and submits to his lot, leaving judgment to Him who judges righteously. So this servant of God appears as a forerunner of Him in whose mouth no deceit was found, who, when he was reviled, reviled not again, and did not threaten when he suffered (1 Peter 2:22 sq.), as if the great example had already appeared before him, and he had only followed in His footsteps. 5. The vision of the prophet Micaiah (1 Kings 22:19-22) is original and peculiar. It has no parallel in the Old Testament. In meaning it corresponds most nearly to Isaiah 19:14 sq. It is very important for the elucidation of the idea of God as contained in the Old Testament. In so far as it proceeds upon the supposition that the deceitful prophecy of the four hundred prophets had its source in God, it seems to stand upon a religious idea which is not reconcilable with the holiness of God. In order to escape the offence which is involved in this view, the action of God has been described as a mere “permission.” Theodoret, for instance, whom nearly all the ancient expositors follow, says of this vision: προσωποποιΐατις, διδάσκουδστὴνθείανσυγχώρησιν. But this is clearly a case in which Jehovah himself appears ordering and regulating independently and spontaneously, not merely permissively. We must bear in mind that the vision represents an executive or judicial act of God. As judge, God stands to evil not in the attitude of permission, but in one of punishment. Since evil does not come from God, but from man, who rebels against God, chooses evil, and opposes it to God, so punishment comes upon man through evil. God proves His holiness most of all by this, that He punishes evil by evil, and destroys it by itself. It is an essential feature in the divine government of the world that the evil which springs up in the world is made an instrument in the hand of the Holy One for neutralizing and destroying itself, and that it becomes a means of ruin to him who chooses it, and brings it into being. The idea of holiness as applied to God excludes all idea of His indifference as between good and evil, and therefore forbids us to think of Him as “permitting” evil. The theory of permission does not therefore reconcile this incident with God’s holiness, but rather is directly inconsistent with God’s holiness. Hence it has been abandoned in modern theology (cf. Rothe, Ethik, II. s. 204–210). It is also entirely foreign to Holy Scripture (cf. Hengstenberg, Beitrδge, III. s. 462 sq.). The notion that God punishes evil by evil, which forms the basis of Micaiah’s vision, runs through all the Scriptures, and is not at all, as Thenius says, “an outgrowth of the opinions of the time.” Thenius is even inclined to regard its close conformity to the prevalent notions of the time as “an especial proof of the historical character of the passage.” But this general notion is found in the writings of the greatest prophet of the Old Testament (Isaiah 19:14), and in those of the greatest Apostle of the New Testament (2 Thessalonians 2:11; Romans 1:24-28; Romans 9:17). The saying, frivolous in itself, Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur, may be applied to Ahab, at least in this sense: He who seeks and chooses falsehood will be ruined by falsehood, against his choice (Psalms 18:27). 6 Ahab’s end was truly tragical. It was brought about, not by a blind fate, but by a God who is just in all His ways, and holy in all His works (Psalms 145:17), whose judgments are unsearchable, and His ways past finding out (Romans 11:33). The conflict which Ahab had sought, and which no warning could induce him to abandon, became his punishment. He fell in battle with that very enemy who had once been delivered into his hands, and whom he had released, out of vanity and weakness, to the harm of Israel, and so he made good just the words of the prophet in 1 Kings 20:42. He thought that a disguise would render him secure from the Syrian leaders who sought to find him out, and he did indeed escape them; but an unknown man, who did not know him, and had no intention against him, shot him, while Jehoshaphat, though undisguised, escaped unharmed. The arrow which struck him was not warded off by his corselet, but just struck the narrow opening between the corselet and the skirt, where it could penetrate and inflict a fatal wound. Every one, therefore, who does not regard all incidents as accidents, must recognize the hand which guided this shaft. The words of the Psalmist held true: “If he will not turn, he will whet his sword, he hath bent his bow, and made it ready. He hath also prepared for him the instruments of death; he ordaineth his arrows against the persecutors” (Psalms 7:12-13). Finally, Ahab did not die at once, but at evening, in consequence of the loss of blood. His blood flowed down in the chariot, which was so besmeared by it that it had to be washed. It was washed at the pool before the city, where dogs drank and harlots bathed. So it came to pass, although he was buried with all honor, that he was marked in his death as one condemned by God, and Elijah’s word (1 Kings 21:19) was fulfilled. Homiletical and Practical1 Kings 22:1-38. Ahab’s last undertaking, (a) What led him to it (1 Kings 22:1-4); (b) the question which he put to the prophets in regard to it (1 Kings 22:6-28); (c) how it resulted (1 Kings 22:29-38) 1 Kings 22:1-4. The coalition of the two kings, (a) It is proposed by Ahab. (He aims to bring about the war under an apparently just pretext, whereas he was himself to blame for the loss of Ramoth, because he let Benhadad go. So, often, strife is stirred up under the pretext of a just occasion, when the real cause is an evil and godless feeling. Instead of using the time, of peace for peaceful industry the restless man begs for Jehoshaphat’s help in a new war. He was willing to borrow Jehoshaphat’s aid for such an undertaking, but did not care to borrow anything of his piety. [He cunningly proposed the war to recover Ramoth at a time when Jehoshaphat was on a visit to him, and was most anxious to please him.]) (b) Jehoshaphat agrees to it (without due consideration. He was bribed by Ahab’s friendly reception and hospitality. He thus brought himself into great danger, 1 Kings 22:32. We must not enter into alliances with men like Ahab, who are given over to do evil. Still less ought we to form relationships with them, for we are thus liable to be led into ways which are displeasing to God and lead to ruin. 2 Chronicles 19:2. We ought to be at peace with all men, but to enter into alliances and relationships only with those who stand on the same ground with us as regards the highest interests) 1 Kings 22:1. Starke: God gives time and place for repentance even to the greatest sinners. If they will not repent he will whet his sword (Psalms 7:12-13) 1 Kings 22:3. Wόrt. Summ.: It is a misfortune when great men have a fondness for war. They are not satisfied when they must be still, but seek war without necessity and imperil their country.—Pfaff’sche Bibel: Do ye not know that heaven is ours, yet we be still! So should those cry out to their hearers who are charged with the cure of souls, and should encourage them to take the kingdom of heaven by force (Matthew 11:12). 1 Kings 22:5. Wόrt. Summ.: We should undertake nothing without God’s approval, for how can a thing prosper in which God does not help? Hence we ought to seek counsel of God in his word and in prayer, and, when the word of God does not counsel us to proceed with the undertaking we should give it up, satisfied that it would not succeed. It is well to ask God’s will, but do it always before, not after thou hast asked or promised.—J. Lange: It often happens thus, a man determines on something displeasing to God, following his own notion, and then convinces himself that it is according to God’s will. Question the word of God! the best counsellor (a) for all who seek truth and are tossed about by doubts, 2 Peter 1:19; Psalms 19:8 sq.; (b) for all who seek consolation and peace for the soul, Psalms 119:82; Psalms 119:92; Psalms 119:105; Jeremiah 15:16. 1 Kings 22:6-12. The congregation of prophets, (a) The question which Ahab submitted to them. (He did not ask in the simple desire to learn the truth and submit to it, but to obtain divine approval before the world for that which he had already determined on. If any one prophesies to him in any other manner he becomes angry with him. The world demands prophets, but calls only those “good preachers” whose words please its ears, 2 Timothy 4:3, and whose words are not a hammer to break the rock, but a cradle-song to lure to sleep in the midst of vain folly.) (b) The answer which the assembled prophets gave to Ahab. (The answer did not proceed from the spirit of truth any more than the question, for these prophets did not stand on the ground of the divine word. He who has abandoned God’s word may speak as finely as he will; he is a false prophet. [This holds true as well of the dogmatist as of the rationalist] Ahab’s prophets say to him: Go and prosper! He goes and falls into hell. So also now the false prophets promise salvation to all who walk in the broad way, Ezekiel 13:18. Therefore, “Believe not every spirit, but try the spirits,” &c, 1 John 4:1) 1 Kings 22:7-8. In many a city and country where there are preachers enough, one is still obliged to ask, as Jehoshaphat did: “Is there not here a prophet of the Lord besides?” Is there not one who proclaims the word of God simply and purely, without fear or favor of men, and who can say what Paul says: Galatians 1:10? There was indeed one other prophet of the Lord in Samaria, but he was in prison, and the king was hostile to him. Starke: Pious people esteem a single genuine prophet or preacher more than four hundred false ones.—Let not the king say so. When a servant of God touches thy conscience, say not: I will go to that church no more; I do not like that preacher—Starke: A Christian should not keep silence when the godless speak sinfully, but interrupt and rebuke them. The Lord did so on the cross (Luke 23:39) 1 Kings 22:10-12. Pfaff. Bibel: There is nothing which is more sinful and worthy of punishment than to flatter the great, who need to hear the truth. This is more sinful, however, in the clergy than in others.—Berleb. Bibel: Who is not disgusted by those who fashion their words by popular favor? Yet he who would go on smoothly and easily and prosperously must do this. Then he will not meet with opposition, nor lose his place at Jezebel’s table (1 Kings 18:19), nor his other emoluments. All the four hundred agreed unanimously, and yet their prophecy was false. In matters of divine truth it matters not how many agree. Here voices ought to be weighed, not counted. The number of the unbelieving or the superstitious was always greater than that of the believers, for men agree in error or falsehood much more easily than in truth. Be not deceived, though thousands may think and say the same thing, and though the greatest and most learned may be amongst them, but cling thou to the word of Him who has said: “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word shall not pass away.”—Starke: Unanimity of opinion, even in the largest congregations of theologians, is not always a proof of truth, for a great company may err. 1 Kings 22:12-28. Wόrt. Summ.: Here we see the marks of the true and false prophets. The false teachers say what is popular, so as to enjoy rewards; they rely upon their number; they say that they have God’s word, though they have it not and claim to be in all things equal to the true teachers; they dispute more with blows and screams than with proofs from the word of God; they are held in high esteem. On the contrary, true teachers do not speak to please anybody, but they preach fearlessly the truth of God’s word, letting it strike whom it will, refusing to be turned aside, and submitting to persecution. Micaiah, the type of a true prophet (see Histor. § 4). Vers, 13 and 14 Micaiah on his way to the king, (a) How he was tempted. (The witnesses to the truth often have to withstand the strongest temptations from those who appear to be their sincere friends. They are begged for their own sakes, and for the sake of those who depend on them, not to oppose the great and mighty, and not to declare other teachers false prophets. They are told that their declarations will do no good, but will only excite enmity against them, and deprive them of bread and of respect. Cf. Mark 8:32 sq.) (b) How he repels the temptation. (Neither allurements nor threats can turn aside a faithful servant of God from the word of the Lord. That is the rock on which he takes his stand, the sword and shield with which he fights. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/