Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Kings 4:2
And these [were] the princes which he had; Azariah the son of Zadok the priest,
2. Azariah the son of Zadok the priest ] The two last words are to be referred to Azariah and not to Zadok. The Vat. LXX. omits the title, but the Alex. text has . On the contrary the Vulgate renders ‘Sadoc Sacerdotis.’ The Zadok here named is the son of Ahitub (1Ch 6:8), and Azariah was really his grandson, the order being Zadok-Ahimaaz-Azariah. The use of ‘son’ thus loosely for grandson is not uncommon in the Old Test. Thus (Gen 29:5) Laban is called the son of Nahor. He was really the son of Bethuel. Similarly (Ezr 5:1) Zachariah the prophet is called the son of Iddo, though Barachiah was his father and Iddo his grandfather.
The words ‘the priest’ have caused much discussion, and on the margin of the A.V. ‘chief officer’ is given as an alternative meaning. That the word may have another sense seems plain from 2Sa 8:18. In that passage the same word is used of David’s sons, and is rendered ‘chief rulers’ or ‘princes’ in A.V. The R.V. translates ‘priests’ in the text, with ‘chief ministers’ in the margin. We can hardly however think that David’s sons were priests. But in the verse before us Azariah belongs to the priestly family, as much as Zadok and Abiathar who are called ‘priests’ (the same Hebrew word) in 1Ki 4:4. Where there is no such connexion with the priestly line, Zabud the son of Nathan, in 1Ki 4:5, is styled ‘principal officer’; the R.V. is consistent and renders ‘priest’ there too, but puts ‘chief minister’ as an alternative.
It is probably on account of the difficulty of so many persons being called by the title usually rendered ‘priest’ that the LXX. omits the title both after Azariah’s name, and after Zabud’s, calling the latter merely . It seems clear however from the instance of David’s sons that the title had a sense in which it could be applied to others than those of the priestly line.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Azariah, the son of Zadok, the priest – The priest here belongs to Azariah, not to Zadok. The term used kohen means sometimes a priest, sometimes a civil officer, with perhaps a semi-priestly character. (See 2Sa 8:18 note.) In this place it has the definite article prefixed, and can only mean the high priest. Azariah, called here the son, but really the grandson, of Zadok, seems to have succeeded him in the priesthood 1Ch 6:10. His position as high priest at the time when this list was made out gives Azariah the foremost place in it.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 2. These were the princes which he had; Azariah the son of Zadok the priest.] These were his great, chief, or principal men. None of them were princes in the common acceptation of the word.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The princes which he had, i.e. the chief rulers or officers belonging to him.
The son, or, the grandson, by comparing this with 1Ch 6:8,9.
Of Zadok; either Zadok the priest, 1Ch 6:8,9, or some other of that name.
The priest; So he was the second priest, or the priest that attended upon Solomons person in holy offices and administrations. But when this sacred writer professeth to give an account of Solomons princes, why should he put the second priest, or Solomons domestic priest, in the first place? or why should he be mentioned distinctly from his father, who was generally present with Solomon, and could easily, either by himself, or some other fit person or persons appointed by him, manage all the kings sacred concerns? or why is he named before his father? Others therefore render this Hebrew word
prince, as it is used Gen 41:45; 47:22,26; Exo 2:16; 2Sa 8:18. So he was either the chief in dignity, the first prince, and the highest officer in the state next to the king; or the chief minister of state, by whom the great affairs of state were managed and prepared for the kings consideration, &c.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
2. these were the princesorchief officers, as is evident from two of them marrying Solomon’sdaughters.
Azariah the son of Zadok thepriestrather, “the prince,” as the Hebrewword frequently signifies (Gen 41:45;Exo 2:16; 2Sa 8:18);so that from the precedency given to his person in the list, he seemsto have been prime minister, the highest in office next the king.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And these [were] the princes which he had,…. That were in office about him, in the highest posts of honour and trust:
Azariah the son of Zadok the priest: or rather his grandson, since Ahimaaz was the son of Zadok, and Azariah the son of Ahimaaz, 1Ch 6:8; though another Zadok may be meant, and his son not a priest but a prince, as the word may be rendered, and was Solomon’s prime minister of state, and the rather, since he is mentioned first.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
(2) And these were.The officers described are of two classesthose attached to Solomons Court, and those invested with local authority.
The princes are evidently Solomons high counsellors and officers, eating at the kings table. The word is derived from a root which means to set in order. It is significant that whereas in the lists of Davids officers in 2Sa. 8:16-18; 2Sa. 20:23-26, the captain of the host stands first, and is followed in one list by the captain of the body-guard, both are here preceded by the peaceful offices of the priests, scribes, and the recorder.
Azariah the son of Zadok the priest.In 1Ch. 6:9-10, we find Azariah described as the son of Ahimaaz, and so grandson of Zadok; and the note in 1Ki. 4:10 (which is apparently out of its right place) seems to show that he was high priest at the time when the Temple was built. The title the priest in this place must be given by anticipation, for it is expressly said below that Zadok and Abiathar were now the priests. The use of the original word, Cohen (probably signifying one who ministers), appears sometimes to retain traces of the old times, when the priesthood and headship of the family were united, and to be applied accordingly to princes, to whom perhaps still attached something of the ancient privilege. Thus it is given to the sons of David in 2Sa. 8:18, where the parallel passage in 1Ch. 18:17 has a paraphrase, chief about the king, evidently intended to explain the sense in which it is used in the older record. We may remember that David himself on occasions wore the priestly ephod (see 2Sa. 6:14). Possibly in this sense it is applied in 1Ki. 4:5 to Zabud, the kings friend (where the Authorised Version renders it by principal officer). But in this verse there is every reason for taking it in the usual sense. Azariah was already a prince before he succeeded to the high priesthood. The mingling, of priestly and princely functions is characteristic of the time.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
2. Princes Hebrew, the Sarim, Superior officers; high state-dignitaries, in distinction from the prefects, or lesser officers mentioned below, 1Ki 4:7-19.
Azariah the son of Zadok the priest The word , here rendered priest, but in verse v principal officer, occurs three times in this list of officers, and if we adopt the present punctuation of the Hebrew, Septuagint, and English texts, and explain with Keil, Bahr, and others, that here means a regent, or some privy counsellor of the king, then we have the word used in the space of four verses in three different senses. That means an intimate counsellor of the king in 1Ki 4:5 and in 2Sa 8:18, is admitted in our notes; but if it means the same thing here, and defines the office of Azariah to be identical with that of Zabud the son of Nathan, why in the world are not these two persons holding the same office placed together in the list? Certainly the relative position of these two names in the record most naturally indicates that Azariah and Zabud did not hold the same office. It seems better, therefore, to adopt the punctuation of the Vulgate, and construe Azariah with the first two names of 1Ki 4:3, and , the priest, in apposition with Zadok. Thus, connecting 1Ki 4:2-3, we read, “Azariah the son of Zadok the priest, Elihoreph and Ahiah, the sons of Shisha, scribes.”
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
(2) And these were the princes which he had; Azariah the son of Zadok the priest, (3) Elihoreph and Ahiah, the sons of Shisha, scribes; Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud, the recorder. (4) And Benaiah the son of Jehoiada was over the host: and Zadok and Abiathar were the priests: (5) And Azariah the son of Nathan was over the officers: and Zabud the son of Nathan was principal officer, and the king’s friend: (6) And Ahishar was over the household: and Adoniram the son of Abda was over the tribute.
Honourable testimony is given to his princes. But what were Solomon’s princes to the princes of Jesus? Reader! think what an unspeakable privilege that is, which maketh poor sinners kings and priests to God and the Father! Sweetly Hannah sung over this when she said, he raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifted up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: 1Sa 2:8 . And yet, if possible, sweeter still the apostle sounds an higher note, when speaking to believers in Jesus he saith, But ye are a chosen generation; a royal priesthood; an holy nation; a peculiar people; that he should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light! 1Pe 2:9 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
1Ki 4:2 And these [were] the princes which he had; Azariah the son of Zadok the priest,
Ver. 2. Azariah the son of Zadok, ] i.e., The son’s son. 1Ch 6:8-9 Priests and their sons were in great request in those days. Our king Edward III made clergymen his chief officers.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
the princes: That is, great, chief, or principal men; for none of them were princes, in the common acceptation of the word. Exo 18:21, 2Sa 8:15-18, 2Sa 20:23-26, 1Co 12:28
Azariah: 1Ch 6:8-10, 1Ch 27:17
priest: or, chief officer
Reciprocal: 2Sa 15:24 – Zadok 1Ch 18:4 – an hundred chariots
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1Ki 4:2. These were the princes which he had The principal officers employed under him. Azariah the son Or the grandson; of Zadok
1Ch 6:8-9. The priest The second priest, or the priest that attended upon Solomons person, in holy offices and administrations. Or, as the Hebrew word here rendered priest may be, and is often, translated prince, in Scripture, this Azariah might be the highest officer of the state, next to the king; or the chief minister of state, by whom the great affairs of the kingdom were managed and prepared for the kings consideration.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
4:2 And these [were] the {a} princes which he had; {b} Azariah the son of Zadok the priest,
(a) That is, his chief officers.
(b) He was the son of Achimais and Zadok’s nephew.