Ch. 1Ki 4:1-20<\/span>. Lists of Solomon’s officers (Not in Chronicles)<\/p>\n 1<\/strong>. over all Israel<\/em> ] The whole land yielded him willing obedience, the people were contented and happy (see below, 1Ki 4:20<\/span>) and the enemies of the king were removed.<\/p>\n Solomon, that is, was king over all Israel from the first; not like David, who for seven and a half years reigned over Judah only. This feature well introduces the glory of Solomon and the organisation of the court, of which the historian in this chapter intends to give us a general sketch. Solomon constitutes certain princes or officers of the first rank, deriving their station from him, and probably holding it during pleasure.<\/P><\/p>\n 1Ki 4:1-28<\/span><\/p>\n So King Solomon was king over all Israel.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n A kingdom unified<\/strong><\/p>\n Charles Albert, we are told, went to help the Milanese. The Austrians, vastly outnumbering, drove him back toward Turin, defeated him at Novara, swayed renewed sceptre over the revolted provinces. The king abdicated in favour of his son, Victor Emanuel. When the young king accepted the crown he pointed his sword toward the Austrian camp and said, By the grace of God there shall be a united Italy. It seemed then but an empty boast. Yet his prophecy turned to fact. Marshal Radetjsky proposed to him the abolishment of the constitutional charter granted to the people by his father, and advised him to follow the Austrian policy of unbridled oppression. But the young king declared that, sooner than subscribe to such conditions, he was ready to renounce, not one crown, but a thousand. The house of Savoy, he said, knows the path of exile, but not the path of dishonour. Right noble answer! Better anything than disloyalty to a high ancestry, than falseness to the laws of the kingdom of which he had been made the leader.<\/p>\n The Church triumphant<\/strong><\/p>\n Make these words bear their very highest meaning, and we begin to approach a true conception of the position of Jesus Christ as He sits enthroned above the riches of the universe, ruling an obedient creation, receiving the acclaims of the nations He has redeemed. Even this is prophesied. The prophets were bold men. They followed their logic to its conclusions; yea, even until it became poetry, and surprised themselves with unexpected music. We must not regard millennial glory and millennial music as representing only imagination, fancy, a vivid or overwrought dreaming faculty; all that is brightest, sweetest, most melodious, expresses an underlying solidity of fact, history, reality. The prophets said, Right shall reign; the day must come when men will see that right is better than wrong, justice better than injustice, and peace to be preferred above battle; and all this will be wrought out in connection with the name of Immanuel–God with us–whose name is the Prince of Peace. (J. Parker, D. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n CHAPTER IV <\/P> An account of Solomon’s chief officers<\/I>, 1-6.<\/P> Names of the twelve officers that were over twelve districts,<\/I><\/P> to provide victuals for the king’s household monthly<\/I>, 7-19.<\/P> Judah and Israel are very populous; and Solomon reigns over<\/I><\/P> many provinces<\/I>, 20, 21.<\/P> The daily provision for his family<\/I>, 22, 23.<\/P> The extent and peace of his dominions<\/I>, 24, 25.<\/P> His horses, chariots, and dromedaries; with the provision made<\/I><\/P> for them<\/I>, 26-28.<\/P> His wisdom and understanding<\/I>, 29-31.<\/P> The number of his proverbs and songs; and his knowledge in<\/I><\/P> natural history<\/I>, 32, 33.<\/P> People from all nations come to hear his wisdom<\/I>, 34. <\/P> NOTES ON CHAP. IV<\/P><\/p>\n This is spoken with respect to his successors, who were kings only over a part, and that the smallest part of it. Or in reference to the times of division and rebellion under David; when part went after David, and part after Ish-bosheth; or part after Absalom, or Sheba, or Adonijah. But now all Israel were united under Solomon, and adhered to him, not only a part of them; especially since the death of Adonijah and Joab, (who may be suspected to have watched an opportunity of revolting,) and the confinement of Abiathar and of Shimei, (if not his death also,) who could now have little or no interest or opportunity of setting up a party against Solomon, (their principals being taken away, to whom they were but accessaries,) nor in probability any design to attempt it. <\/P> <\/p>\n 1. So King Solomon was king over allIsrael<\/B>This chapter contains a general description of the stateand glory of the Hebrew kingdom during the more flourishing or lateryears of his reign.<\/P><\/p>\n So King Solomon was king over all Israel.<\/strong> As David his father was not at first, only over Judah, and as Solomon’s successors were not, after the division of the kingdom under his son Rehoboam; though this seems to have a particular respect to what is related in the preceding chapter concerning the wisdom of Solomon, for which he was so famous, that he reigned by the consent of all, and in the hearts of all the people of Israel.<\/p>\n The Chief Ministers of State. – The list is introduced in 1Ki 4:1<\/span> by the general remark, that “king Solomon was king over all Israel.” <\/p>\n 1Ki 4:2<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> The first of the , princes, i.e., chief ministers of state or dignitaries, mentioned here is not the commander-in-chief, as under the warlike reign of David (2Sa 8:16<\/span>; 2Sa 20:23<\/span>), but, in accordance with the peaceful rule of Solomon, the administrator of the kingdom (or prime minister): “ Azariah<\/em> the son of Zadok was ,” i.e., not the priest, but the administrator of the kingdom, the representative of the king before the people; like in v. 5, where this word is interpreted by , with this difference, however, arising from the article before , that Azariah<\/em> was the Kohen par excellence<\/em>, that is to say, held the first place among the confidential counsellors of the king, so that his dignity was such as befitted the office of an administrator of the kingdom. Compare the explanation of at 2Sa 8:18<\/span>. The view of the Vulgate, Luther, and others, which has been revived by Thenius, namely, that is to be connected as a genitive with in opposition to the accents, “Azariah the son of Zadok the priest,” is incorrect, and does not even yield any sense, since the connection of these words with the following Elichoreph<\/em>, etc., is precluded by the absence of the copula Vav<\/em>, which would be indispensable if Azariah had held the same office as the two brothers Elichoreph and Achijah.<\/p>\n (Note: The objection by which Thenius tries to set aside this argument, which has been already advanced by Houbigant<\/em>, viz., that “ if the first (Azariah) was not also a state scribe, the copula would be inserted, as it is everywhere else from v. 4 onwards when a new office is mentioned, ” proves nothing at all, because the copula is also omitted in v. 3, where the new office of is introduced.) <\/p>\n Moreover, Azariah the son of Zadok cannot be a grandson of Zadok the high priest, i.e., a son of Ahimaaz the son of Zadok, as many infer from 1 Chr. 5:34-35 (1Ch 6:8-9<\/span>); for, apart from the fact that Zadok’s grandson can hardly have been old enough at the time for Solomon to invest him with the chief dignity in the kingdom, which would surely be conferred upon none but men of mature years, we can see no reason why the Azariah mentioned here should not be called the son of Ahimaaz. If the Zadok referred to here was the high priest of that name, Azariah can only have been a brother of Ahimaaz. And there is no real difficulty in the way, since the name Azariah occurs three times in the line of high priests (1 Chr. 5:36, 39), and therefore was by no means rare.<\/p>\n 1Ki 4:3<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> Elichoreph<\/em> and Achijah<\/em>, sons of Shisha<\/em>, who had held the same office under David, were secretaries of state ( : see at 2Sa 8:17<\/span> and 2Sa 20:25<\/span>, where the different names = and are also discussed). – Jehoshaphat<\/em> the son of Ahilud was the chancellor, as he had already been in the time of David ( 2Sa 8:17<\/span> and 2Sa 20:24<\/span>). The rendering of Thenius, “whilst Jehoshaphat was chancellor,” is grammatically impossible.<\/p>\n 1Ki 4:4<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> On Benaiah<\/em>, compare 1Ki 2:35<\/span> and the Commentary on 2Sa 23:20<\/span>. On Zadok<\/em> and Abiathar<\/em>, see at 2Sa 8:17<\/span>. It appears strange that Abiathar should be named as priest, i.e., as high priest, along with Zadok, since Solomon had deposed him from the priestly office ( 1Ki 2:27<\/span>, 1Ki 2:35<\/span>), and we cannot imagine any subsequent pardon. The only possible explanation is that proposed by Theodoret, namely, that Solomon had only deprived him of the , i.e., of the priest’s office, but not of the or priestly dignity, because this was hereditary.<\/p>\n (Note: , . – Theodoret.) <\/p>\n 1Ki 4:5<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> Azariah<\/em> the son of Nathan was over the , i.e., the twelve officers named in vv. 7ff. Zabud<\/em> the son of Nathan was (not the son of “Nathan the priest,” as Luther and many others render it). is explained by the epithet appended, : privy councillor, i.e., confidential adviser of the king. Nathan is not the prophet of that name, as Thenius supposes, but the son of David mentioned in 2Sa 5:14<\/span>. Azariah and Zabud were therefore nephews of Solomon.<\/p>\n 1Ki 4:6<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> Ahishar<\/em> was , over the palace, i.e., governor of the palace, or minister of the king’s household (compare 1Ki 16:9<\/span>; 2Ki 18:18<\/span>, and Isa 22:15<\/span>), an office met with for the first time under Solomon. Adoniram<\/em>, probably the same person as Adoram<\/em> in 2Sa 20:24<\/span>, was chief overseer of the tributary service. He was so in the time of David also.<\/p>\n Solomon’s Officers.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/I><\/span><\/P> <\/TD> B. C.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN> 1014.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/P> <\/TD> <\/TR> <\/TABLE> 1 So king Solomon was king over all Israel. 2 And these were<\/I> 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<\/I> over the host: and Zadok and Abiathar were<\/I> the priests: 5 And Azariah the son of Nathan was<\/I> over the officers: and Zabud the son of Nathan was<\/I> principal officer, and<\/I> the king’s friend: 6 And Ahishar was<\/I> over the household: and Adoniram the son of Abda was<\/I> over the tribute. 7 And Solomon had twelve officers over all Israel, which provided victuals for the king and his household: each man his month in a year made provision. 8 And these are<\/I> their names: The son of Hur, in mount Ephraim: 9 The son of Dekar, in Makaz, and in Shaalbim, and Beth-shemesh, and Elon-beth-hanan: 10 The son of Hesed, in Aruboth; to him pertained<\/I> Sochoh, and all the land of Hepher: 11 The son of Abinadab, in all the region of Dor; which had Taphath the daughter of Solomon to wife: 12 Baana the son of Ahilud; to him pertained<\/I> Taanach and Megiddo, and all Beth-shean, which is<\/I> by Zartanah beneath Jezreel, from Beth-shean to Abel-meholah, even<\/I> unto the place that is<\/I> beyond Jokneam: 13 The son of Geber, in Ramoth-gilead; to him pertained<\/I> the towns of Jair the son of Manasseh, which are<\/I> in Gilead; to him also pertained<\/I> the region of Argob, which is<\/I> in Bashan, threescore great cities with walls and brasen bars: 14 Ahinadab the son of Iddo had<\/I> Mahanaim: 15 Ahimaaz was<\/I> in Naphtali; he also took Basmath the daughter of Solomon to wife: 16 Baanah the son of Hushai was<\/I> in Asher and in Aloth: 17 Jehoshaphat the son of Paruah, in Issachar: 18 Shimei the son of Elah, in Benjamin: 19 Geber the son of Uri was<\/I> in the country of Gilead, in<\/I> the country of Sihon king of the Amorites, and of Og king of Bashan; and he was<\/I> the only officer which was<\/I> in the land.<\/P> Here we have,<\/P> I. Solomon upon his throne (v.<\/I><\/span> 1<\/span>): So king Solomon was king,<\/I> that is, he was confirmed and established king over all Israel,<\/I> and not, as his successors, only over two tribes. He was a king, that is, he did the work and duty of a king, with the wisdom God had given him. Those preserve the name and honour of their place that mind the business of it and make conscience of it.<\/P> II. The great officers of his court, in the choice of whom, no doubt, his wisdom much appeared. It is observable, 1. That several of them are the same that were in his father’s time. Zadok and Abiathar were then priests (2 Sam. xx. 25<\/span>), so they were now; only then Abiathar had the precedency, now Zadok. Jehoshaphat was then recorder, or keeper of the great seal, so he was now. Benaiah, in his father’s time, was a principal man in military affairs, and so he was now. Shisha was his father’s scribe, and his sons were his, v.<\/I><\/span> 3<\/span>. Solomon, though a wise man, would not affect to be wiser than his father in this matter. When sons come to inherit their father’s wealth, honour, and power, it is a piece of respect to their memory, cteris paribus–where it can properly be done,<\/I> to employ those whom they employed, and trust those whom they trusted. Many pride themselves in being the reverse of their good parents. 2. The rest were priests’ sons. His prime-minister of state was Azariah the son of Zadok the priest.<\/I> Two others of the first rank were the sons of Nathan the prophet, v.<\/I><\/span> 5<\/span>. In preferring them he testified the grateful respect he had for their good father, whom he loved in the name of a prophet.<\/I><\/P> III. The purveyors for his household, whose business it was to send in provisions from several parts of the country, for the king’s tables and cellars (v.<\/I><\/span> 7<\/span>) and for his stables (1Ki 4:27<\/span>; 1Ki 4:28<\/span>), that thus, 1. His house might always be well furnished at the best hand. Let great men learn hence good house-keeping, to be generous in spending according to their ability, but prudent in providing. It is the character of the virtuous woman that she bringeth her food from afar<\/I> (Prov. xxxi. 14<\/span>), not far-fetched and dear-bought, but the contrary, every thing bought where it is cheapest. 2. That thus he himself, and those who immediately attended him, might be eased of a great deal of care, and the more closely apply themselves to the business of the state, not troubled about much serving, provision for that being got ready to their hand. 3. That thus all the parts of the kingdom might be equally benefited by the taking off of the commodities that were the productions of their country and the circulating of the coin. Industry would hereby be encouraged, and consequently wealth increased, even in those tribes that lay most remote from the court. The providence of God extends itself to all places of his dominions<\/I> (Ps. ciii. 22<\/span>); so should the prudence and care of princes. 4. The dividing of this trust into so many hands was prudent, that no man might be continually burdened with the care of it nor grow exorbitantly rich with the profit of it, but that Solomon might have those, in every district, who, having a dependence upon the court, would be serviceable to him and his interest as there was occasion. These commissioners of the victualling-office, not for the army or navy (Solomon was engaged in no war), but for the household, are here named, several of them only by their surnames, as great men commonly call their servants: Ben-hur, Ben-dekar, c.,<\/I> though several of them have also their proper names prefixed. Two of them married Solomon’s daughters, Ben-Abinadab (<i>v.<\/span> 11<\/span><\/U><\/span>) and Ahimaaz (v.<\/I><\/span> 15<\/span>), and no disparagement to them to marry men of business. Better match with the officers of their father’s court that were Israelites than with the sons of princes that were strangers to the covenant of promise.<\/I> The son of Geber was in Ramoth-Gilead (v.<\/I><\/span> 19<\/span>), and Geber himself was in the country of Sihon and Og, which included that and Mahanaim, v.<\/I><\/span> 14<\/span>. He is therefore said to be the only officer in that land,<\/I> because the other two, mentioned 1Ki 4:13<\/span>; 1Ki 4:14<\/span>, depended on him, and were subordinate to him.<\/P> <\/p>\n First Kings – Chapter 4<\/strong><\/p>\n Solomon’s Council, Verses 1-6<\/p>\n Most of <\/em>the princes of <\/em>Solomon’s council are not well know Bible characters, though they must have been prominent men of their times. Azariah was of <\/em>the priestly family of <\/em>Zadok, the chief priest. It appears that he was actually the son of Ahimaaz, and thus grandson of Zadok (1Ch 6:9<\/span>). It was Ahimaaz who brought the news of Absalom’s death to David (2Sa 18:19-29<\/span>). The scribes (royal secretaries), Elihoreph and Ahiah, were the sons of Shisha, who had held the position of scribe under David (1Ch 18:16<\/span>, there called Shavsha). Jehoshaphat had been the recorder under David and continued under Solomon. Benaiah is well known, having served as captain of the Cherethites and Pelethites under David, but becoming captain of the host to succeed Joab when Solomon became king. Zadok and Abiathar are also well known. They were doubtless aged men when Solomon became king. They were the chief priests, though the tenure of Abiathar was brought to an end by Solomon because of his connivance with Adonijah to make him king instead of Solomon (1Ki 2:26-27<\/span>).<\/em><\/p>\n Two sons of <\/em>Nathan were members of <\/em>the council, though it is not clear whether their father was the prophet by that name. It seems probable that he was. Azariah was captain of the king’s guard (the officers), while Zabud was the chief advisor (friend) of the king. Zabud held the office Hushai had under David. Nothing more is known of Ahishar, who was placed as steward over the king’s house. Adoniram (also called Adoram, Hadoram in the Scriptures) had charge of the tribute (taxes, levies, etc.). He continued in this office through all the reign of Solomon and into that of Rehoboam. He was killed by the followers of Jeroboam when he tried to collect the tribute from the rebelling northern tribes (1Ki 12:18<\/span>).<\/em><\/p>\n <\/span>SOLOMON AND THE SACRED TEMPLE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1 Kings 1-11.<\/p>\n IN previous discussions, we have called attention to the chronology of the Old Testament, and have shown that the Books are correctly placed from the standpoint of history. Certainly the Books of the Kings belong where found in the Sacred Canon. David has held the field of view in the Books of Samuel, and I Kings opens with a record of his age, infirmity and approaching death.<\/p>\n The Books of Biblical history make up, for the most part, an unbroken series. The events reported as attending the kings death are at once natural, in keeping with the times and customs of that far-off century. The scramble between the sons as to succession in office and the inheritance of riches and honor, are easily believable because they belong to every century, and abate not. The methods of Adonijah, amounting to merely a repetition of Absoloms abortive attempt, reveal the mental inability and moral and political incapacity of that ambitious boy. His neglect to take Nathan, the Prophet, into counsel, or to seek advice from Benaiah and other mighty men, or even regard his brother Solomons claims, reveal the fact that he knew himself to be indulging a political plot that could succeed only in shadows and secrecy.<\/p>\n The opening chapter makes clear the fact that the Prophet of God is a capital statesman, for it was Nathan who brought this whole matter to the attention of Bathsheba, the mother of Solomon; and through her, reached the king and settled the question, and seated Bathshebas son on the throne.<\/p>\n An interesting study is excited by those verses in this same first chapter which reveal two things; first, that the dying man is far more interested in things eternal than in things temporal (1kings 1:29<\/span>); more deeply concerned in permanent Israel than in his own passing throne (1 Kings 1:30<\/span>); more alive to the moral and spiritual interests of his country than to its material and political supremacy; and in proportion to that interest, anxious to be succeeded in office by the one man to whom he could intrust both Gods people and Gods truth (1Ki 2:2<\/em><\/span><\/em> fol.).<\/em><\/p>\n With this introduction, we come naturally to three themes that compass somewhat clearly the chapters of our text: Solomons Succession to the Throne; Solomons Greatest Single Achievement; The Secrets of Solomons Signal Failure.<\/p>\n <\/span>SOLOMONS SUCCESSION TO THE THRONE<\/strong><\/p>\n Then sat Solomon upon the throne of David his father; and his kingdom was established greatly (1Ki 2:12<\/em><\/span><\/em>).<\/em><\/p>\n In coming to this office, he came as his fathers favorite. In the establishment of Israel, Isaac desired the line through Esau, and Rebecca contrived to secure it through her favorite, Jacob; but in this instance, father and mother agree as to the son who shall stand in the fathers stead. It is not at all likely that this choice was wholly a result of the certain influence exerted over the king by the beautiful Bathsheba. That impulse was doubtless present, but the controlling sentiment of the matter rested upon a firmer foundation. A father knows his own children. He knows their weaknesses and their strength; their abilities and their disabilities; their traits of dependableness and their habits of deceit. As between Adonijah and Solomon, David did not need to debate. From the days when as infants they lay in his arms until now, he had studied them, and doubtless often with this very hour in view; and his judgment was already made and had been communicated to both Bathsheba and the Prophet. It is difficult for children to imagine that their parents understand them, properly estimate them, justly judge them; but practically every family furnishes a positive proof that the best judges of character are the very people who have sought to control conduct and direct endeavor. The after history of Solomon is not all the Christian reader could wish. Had David lived on for two-score more years, feeble, infirm, having surrendered the reigns of rule into Solomons hands, he would have seen much come to pass that would have grieved his aged soul; but in spite of all that, he still would have gone to his grave, convinced beyond debate that Adonijah would have fallen shorter still, and Israels interests suffered more deeply in his hands.<\/p>\n These facts are the basis of a second reason why the rulership went to Solomon.<\/p>\n He was the Lords chosen. <\/strong>Men easily make mistakes in judging their fellows. Fathers even fall short in truly estimating the worth or worthlessness of their own, but God, who looketh on the heart <\/em>rather than on the outward appearance,<\/em> and who knows what is in man, as against what man imagines and announces himself to be, makes no such mistake. With the discernment of an infinite wisdom, Jehovah saw in Solomon mental traits, moral convictions, spiritual aspirations, that led Him, as He was led in the case of David, the father, to elect this man from among many sons.<\/p>\n The reaction in my mind, on reading the first chapters of I Kings, was a revolt. In my haste I came near questioning the wisdom of God to set such a man as Solomon on the throne, or to lend His approval to his methods of government. That grew out of the slaughters recorded in chapter 2. My soul sickened when he sent his servant Benaiah to slay his brother, and he fell upon him that he died (1Ki 2:25<\/em><\/span><\/em>);<\/em> when Joab was taken from the horns of the altar and slain without mercy (1Ki 2:30-34<\/em><\/span><\/em>); <\/em>when Shimei perished at Benaiahs hands and by the kings command (1Ki 2:39-41<\/em><\/span><\/em>),<\/em> I confess I came to the phrase, And the kingdom was established in the hand of Solomon,<\/em> with a sickening sense, asking myself, Can one cement the foundations of a true throne with the blood of his brothers, and be under a Divine benediction?<\/p>\n But I am glad for further study. Our judgments are often immature; our speech is often hasty, and when we take issue with the Divine will, our way is always mistaken. I had overlooked for the time that each of these men had not only courted death, but practically compelled it, and had compelled it by the violation of the Law of the Lord. For instance, the one of them to whom the readers sympathy goes out most quickly is Joab, the warrior, the man who had once favored David and fought for him; but alas, when one reviews the history of Joab, he consents to the justice of his fate. How many he had slain, and with what perfidy he had performed these slaughters! Guile had been his brutal instrument. He took Abner aside in the gate to speak with him quietly, and smote him there under the fifth rib, that he died (2Sa 3:27<\/em><\/span><\/em>).<\/em> He concealed his sword while whispering in Amasas ear and yet ripped him until his bowels fell to the ground (2Sa 20:10<\/em><\/span><\/em>).<\/em> The Law of the Lord was, If a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from Mine altar, that he may die (Exo 21:14<\/em><\/span><\/em>);<\/em> and the Law of the Lord is living still and Solomons servant is merely executing the same.<\/p>\n Slaughter is horrible; battle and death wound and offend our spirits; but battle and death and slaughter are not, when all are combined, the undermining factors of civilization, the fiends of successful rebellion against all moral worth, that disregard of Divine law and disobedience to the same, surely effect. It is important, I grant you, that men shall live their natural days, but far more important is it that the law of God shall live. In the last analysis, death is the natural incident of disobedience, so that the brutal features of Solomons reign are features intended to end the shedding of blood. It was a war against war; it was a just judgment against unjust judgments; it was a capital punishment of most capital crimes.<\/p>\n Solomon also became the choice of the people.<\/strong><\/p>\n And Zadok the priest took an horn of oil out of the tabernacle, and anointed Solomon. And they blew the trumpet; and all the people said, God save king Solomon.<\/em><\/p>\n 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 (1Ki 1:39-40<\/em><\/span>).<\/em><\/p>\n It is a great sequence when the public acclaims the will of the Lord. The government chosen of God and clearly accepted by the people has magnificent promise, and holds momentous prospects. It is fairly evident from the whole text that Solomon had those personal traits that rendered Absalom popular in his daythe traits of physical beauty and prowess; but in Solomons case, intellectual acumen and even a certain spiritual power added to his acceptance with the people. It may be true that the designing politician easily deceives the public and often experiences undeserved popularity; but few uninspired sentences are more true than Abraham Lincolns, You cannot fool all the people all of the time.<\/p>\n We are not enamored of the notion of the old Latin proverb, Vox populi, vox Dei,<\/em> for it is a rule that has more exceptions than applications! But on the other hand, the final judgment of man is compelled to conform to the judgment of God, for what God sees and understands by His infinite wisdom becomes increasingly evident by the action that makes history; and sooner or later the voice of the people will second the voice of God.<\/p>\n Victory ought to be comparatively easy for a young man entering upon an important office with the backing of a kingly father, an infinite Lord and the will of the people. At many points Solomon witnessed success; his rule was long continued; his material prosperity became the amazement of the age; his political powers rapidly increased, while his mental and spiritual perceptions were the envy of kings and queens.<\/p>\n I think, however, it is well to dwell upon<\/p>\n SOLOMONS GREATEST SINGLE ACHIEVEMENT<\/strong><\/p>\n This was not his alliance with Pharaoh, nor his marriage into the kings house, nor the political supremacy to which he attained, nor the luxurious living in which he indulged himself, nor the splendors of his court! On the other hand, it was the creation of the temple of God. That achievement is as easily linked up, however, with some facts of his mental and spiritual existence as it is with his political and religious supremacy.<\/p>\n He laid for lifes fabric a true foundation.<\/strong> When God appeared to him in Gibeon in a dream at night, and said, Ask what I shall give thee (1Ki 3:5<\/em><\/span><\/em>),<\/em> the answer revealed the soul of the youth. Give * * Thy servant an understanding heart to judge Thy people, that I may discern between good and bad (1Ki 3:9<\/em><\/span><\/em>).<\/em> A prayer like that could result only in the Divine favor; yea, even in the Divine affection. So far as the record goes, the boy Solomon had been a beautiful lad, his life clean, his conduct upright, his character above reproach; and now to have such a prayer emanate from his lips invites both human and Divine love. We are compelled to think that the principles which compel Gods love are not wholly different from those which control human affection. When the rich young ruler, white-souled, intellectually accomplished, spiritually enthusiastic, fell at the feet of Jesus to inquire what good thing he could do to inherit eternal life, Christ looked upon him to love him. It may be true that by the deeds of the Law there shall no flesh be justified<\/em> in the sight of God; but it is not true that God disregards the deeds of the Law, looks with contempt or indifference upon high human conduct, takes no vital concern in beautiful character. The whole Scripture seems to clearly intimate that upright conduct linked with spiritual expression is lovely in the sight of God.<\/p>\n Neither the Bible nor Spirit-instructed men imagine, with the author of a certain University textbook, that the human intellect is merely a brute mind greatly developed, nor do they hold with another author, compulsory upon students study in some institutions, that the soul is accounted for by the development of the social in brute life.<\/p>\n On the contrary, the Bible teaches that God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul,<\/em> including intellect and spirit, his reasoning powers and his capability of receiving revelation.<\/p>\n If Solomon lived now and was a student in certain departments of the University, they would be teaching him that the only possible way of having wisdom is to evolve the ape intellectuality to a higher plane; but suffering the misfortune of living and dying before Darwins day, the great soul of the worlds wisest man knew no better than to look upward instead of downward for such acquisition, and pray, Give * * Thy servant an understanding heart to judge Thy people, that I may discern between good and bad<\/em> (1Ki 3:9<\/em><\/span><\/em>).<\/em><\/p>\n There are some of us who are perfectly willing to be regarded as belonged to Mediaeval times, if Mediaevalism takes the Scripture against the speculation of man and looks above for true wisdom instead of back, beneath, or below. If I could have my personal choice for every child born into my home, concerning the whole matter of education, I would rather have him or her begin the real battle of life begging for such a blessing and believing that God is capable of granting it, than to have him made familiar with all the sophistries and speculations of those modern text-books that turn men to believing that they are a big improvement on brute ancestors, and boasting the same. One thing is fairly clear, namely, that men who believe God and build life according to the laws of His Book, are the simple men of the centuries to which they belong, and become the inspiring examples to children born of later days.<\/p>\n He built not for self alone, but he remembered God.<\/strong> It is not difficult to believe, if one follows the personal history of this potentate, that his steps are determined by definite objectives. When all Israel had come under his sway, he appointed twelve officers, which provided victuals for the king and his household: each man his month in a year made provision (1Ki 4:7<\/em><\/span><\/em>).<\/em> In other words, he was a man who organized government and who organized finances, and witnessed the fruits of his organization in both fields by bringing the entire people to subjection and creating a palace of such splendor and attendants as the world has seldom seen. Forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen (1Ki 4:26<\/em><\/span><\/em>),<\/em> sound almost as extravagant as the years of Methuselahs life, and yet there is far less doubt of the latter than of the former. That he was not a mere indolent, daddled in the lap of a daily luxury wrung from unwilling taxpayers, is everywhere apparent. He was a man among men, a prince among thinkers, a king among courtiers. His fame was in all the nations. He spake 3,000 proverbs; he wrote 1,005 songs; he made all nature to contribute in illustration, and he compelled admiration from all the kings of the earth (1Ki 4:29-34<\/em><\/span><\/em>).<\/em> His banqueting halls assembled the worlds elite, his wisdom astonished the worlds wise.<\/p>\n His alliance with King Hiram, however, was made, not that he might further extend his kingly power, nor that he might exercise a wider world influence, but in the interest of A TEMPLE OF GOD<\/strong>. In the realms of Hiram were the cedars of Lebanon coveted for that sanctuary. In the able-bodied men of his own kingdom were the thousands he proposed to set at the task. He laid upon these competent builders a tax of time, tithing every three months, and builders in wood and stone wrought together that the temple might rise. And what a temple it was!<\/p>\n That sanctuary, glorious as is this description, requires many another line to do it justice. 2 Chronicles 3, 4<\/span> tells of the same great subject. The tabernacle was the prophecy of it, and the New Jerusalem to be let down from Heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband,<\/em> is the final substance of which this was the symbol. It arose without sound of a hammer; it excelled all the sanctuaries that the world had ever seen or has yet seen; its appointments were the most expensive and yet intended in every case to turn the mind to God, to teach the heart to pray, the feet to walk in the path of the just, and the tongue to sing.<\/p>\n There are some extravagances that are justified. It pays to put great sacrifice into the proper education of your child, for when the preparation days are over, life is to follow; and it pays to put thousands of dollars into a sanctuary, because when the men who sacrificed to erect it sleep in the dust, the sanctuary will live and pour upon the world streams of sacred influence.<\/p>\n There is, however, in the first verse of the 7th chapter a significant remark, But Solomon was building his own house thirteen years, and he finished all his house.<\/em> In other words, while he built for himself, he at the same time and on a vaster scale, built for God. There are people who think when they build for themselves that is all they can do. Gods house must wait until mine is finished! Divinely sacred obligations must be delayed until the domestic and secular are discharged. God cannot receive a gift until the grocer is fully paid. How strangely men reason! How quickly they forget revelation. Seek ye first the Kingdom of God, and His righteousness?.<\/em> It would be an interesting thing to investigate history to find whether Israel was impoverished by the erection of the Temple, or whether she was not enriched instead, to discover whether those were days of financial reverses or the one period of Israels material prosperity.<\/p>\n The reign of Solomon remains forever glorious and stands as a symbol of all material success. Sacrifices for the sanctuary do not impoverishthey enrich; they do not bleedthey bless! The only man who suffers when the sanctuary is going up is the man who withholdeth more than is meet, but it tendeth to poverty.<\/em><\/p>\n But an equally significant thing is found in another statement from this Scripture.<\/p>\nFuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n