7<\/strong>. twelve officers<\/em> ] The stations of these men were in different parts of the country, and each for his month had to gather from the district assigned to him contributions in kind for the royal household.<\/p>\n The requirement of a portion of their produce from subjects, in addition to money payments, is a common practice of Oriental monarchs. It obtained in ancient, and it still obtains in modern, Persia.<\/P> <\/p>\n Verse 7<\/span>. Twelve officers<\/B><\/I>] The business of these twelve officers was to provide daily, each for a month, those provisions which were consumed in the king’s household; see 1Kg 4:22-23<\/span>. And the task for such a daily provision was not an easy one.<\/P> <\/p>\n 7. Solomon had twelve officers overall Israel<\/B>The royal revenues were raised according to theancient, and still, in many parts, existing usage of the East, not inmoney payments, but in the produce of the soil. There would be alwaysa considerable difficulty in the collection and transmission of thesetithes (1Sa 8:15<\/span>). Therefore, tofacilitate the work, Solomon appointed twelve officers, who had eachthe charge of a tribe or particular district of country, from which,in monthly rotation, the supplies for the maintenance of the king’shousehold were drawn, having first been deposited in “the storecities” which were erected for their reception (1Ki 9:19<\/span>;2Ch 8:4<\/span>; 2Ch 8:6<\/span>).<\/P><\/p>\n And Solomon had twelve officers over all Israel<\/strong>,…. Not with respect to the twelve tribes of Israel, for it does not appear that they had each of them a tribe under them, but some particular places in a tribe; but with respect to the twelve months of the year, in which each took his turn:<\/p>\n which provided victuals for the king and his household: each man his month in a year made provision<\/strong>; furnished food of all sorts out of the country in which they presided for the space of one month in a year; by which means there was always a plenty of provisions at court for the king’s family, and for all strangers that came and went, and no one part of the land was burdened or drained, nor the price of provisions raised; these seem to be the twelve “phylarchi”, or governors of tribes, Eupolemus r, an Heathen writer, speaks of, before whom, and the high priest, David delivered the kingdom to Solomon; though in that he was mistaken, that they were in being then, since these were officers of Solomon’s creating.<\/p>\n r Apud Euseb. Praepar. Evangel. l. 9. c. 30.<\/p>\n Solomon’s Official Persons and Their Districts. – 1Ki 4:7<\/span>. Solomon had (appointed) twelve over all Israel, who provided ( ) for the king and his house, i.e., supplied provisions for the necessities of the court. These prefects are not to be regarded as “chamberlains,” or administrators of the royal domains (Michaelis and Ewald), for these are mentioned in 1Ch 27:25<\/span>. under a different title. They are “general receivers of taxes,” or “chief tax-collectors,” as Rosenmller expresses it, who levied the king’s duties or taxes, which consisted in the East, as they still do to the present time, for the most part of natural productions, or the produce of the land, and not of money payments as in the West, and delivered them at the royal kitchen (Rosenmller, A. und N. Morgenland<\/em>, iii. p. 166). It cannot be inferred from the explanation given by Josephus, , that they exercised a kind of government, as Thenius supposes, since this explanation is nothing but a subjective conjecture. “One month in the year was it every one’s duty ( ) to provide.” The districts assigned to the twelve prefects coincide only partially with the territories of the tribes, because the land was probably divided among them according to its greater or smaller productiveness. Moreover, the order in which the districts are enumerated is not a geographical one, but probably follows the order in which the different prefects had to send the natural productions month by month for the maintenance of the king’s court. The description begins with Ephraim in 1Ch 27:8<\/span>, then passes over in 1Ch 27:9<\/span> to the territory of Dan to the west of it, in 1Ch 27:10<\/span> to the territory of Judah and Simeon on the south, in 1Ch 27:11<\/span> and 1Ch 27:12<\/span> to the territory of Manasseh on this side from the Mediterranean to the Jordan, then in vv. 13 and 14 to the territory of Manasseh on the other side of the Jordan, thence back again in vv. 15 and 16 to the northern parts of the land on this side, viz., the territories of Naphtali and Asher, and thence farther south to Issachar in v. 17, and Benjamin in v. 18, closing at last in v. 19 with Gilead.<\/p>\n 1Ki 4:8<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> In the names of the prefects we are struck with the fact, that in the case of five of them the names given are not their own but their fathers’ names. It is very improbable that the proper names should have dropped out five times (as Clericus, Michaelis, and others suppose); and consequently there is simply the assumption left, that the persons in question bore their fathers’ names with Ben<\/em> prefixed as their own proper names: Benhur, Bendeker<\/em>, etc., after the analogy of Benchanan<\/em> in 1Ch 4:20<\/span> and others, although such a proper name as Ben-Abinadab<\/em> (1Ch 4:11<\/span>) appears very strange. Benhur<\/em> was stationed on the mountains of Ephraim. These mountains, here only the mountainous district of the tribe of Ephraim, were among the most fruitful portions of Palestine (see at Jos 17:14-15<\/span>).<\/p>\n 1Ki 4:9<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> Bendeker<\/em> was in Makaz<\/em>, a city only mentioned here, the situation of which is unknown, but which is at any rate to be sought for in the tribe of Dan, to which the other cities of this district belong. Shaalbim<\/em> has probably been preserved in the present Selbit<\/em>, to the north-west of Ylo<\/em> (see at Jos 19:42<\/span>). Bethshemesh<\/em>, the present Ain-Shems<\/em> (see at Jos 15:10<\/span>). Elon<\/em> ( ), which is distinguished from Ajalon<\/em> ( Jos 19:42<\/span> and Jos 19:43<\/span>) by the epithet Bethchanan<\/em>, and belonged to the tribe of Dan, has not yet been discovered (see at Jos 19:43<\/span>). The lxx have arbitrarily interpolated before Bethchanan<\/em>, and Thenius naturally takes this under his protection, and consequently traces Bethchanan<\/em> in the village of Beit Hunn<\/em> (Rob. Pal<\/em>. ii. p. 371), but without considering that yields no reasonable sense unless preceded by , (from; cf. 1Ki 4:12<\/span>).<\/p>\n 1Ki 4:10<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> Benhesed<\/em> was in Arubboth<\/em>, which does not occur again, so that its situation, even if it should be identical with Arab<\/em> in Jos 15:52<\/span>, as Bttcher conjectures, can only be approximatively inferred from the localities which follow. To him ( ), i.e., to his district, belonged Sochoh<\/em> and all the land of Hepher<\/em>. From Sochoh<\/em> we may see that Benhesed’s district was in the tribe of Judah. Of the two Sochohs<\/em> in Judah, that still exist under the name of Shuweikeh<\/em>, it is impossible to determine with certainty which is intended here, whether the one upon the mountains (Jos 15:48<\/span>) or the one in the plain (Jos 15:35<\/span>). The fact that it is associated with the land of Hepher<\/em> rather favours the latter. The land of Hepher<\/em>, which must not be confounded with the city of Gath-hepher<\/em> in the tribe of Zebulun (Jos 19:13<\/span>; 2Ki 14:25<\/span>), but was the territory of one of the Canaanitish kings who were defeated by Joshua, was probably situated in the plain (see at Jos 12:17<\/span>).<\/p>\n 1Ki 4:11<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> Ben-Abinadab<\/em> had the whole of the high range of Dor ( , Jos 12:23<\/span>), i.e., the strip of coast on the Mediterranean Sea below the promontory of Carmel, where the city of Dor<\/em>, which has been preserved in the village of Tantura<\/em> or Tortura<\/em>, nine miles to the north of Caesarea, was situated (see at Jos 11:2<\/span>). Whether this district embraced the fruitful plain of Sharon is not so clearly made out as Thenius supposes. stands at the head absolutely, without any grammatical connection with : “Abinadab: the whole of the high range of Dor,” etc. The person named was probably a son of David’s eldest brother but one (1Sa 16:8<\/span>; 1Sa 17:13<\/span>), and therefore Solomon’s cousin; and he had married Solomon’s daughter.<\/p>\n 1Ki 4:12<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> Baana<\/em> the son of Ahilud was most likely a brother of Jehoshaphat the chancellor (1Ki 4:3<\/span>). This district embraced the cities on the southern edge of the plain of Jezreel, and extended to the Jordan. Taanach and Megiddo, which have been preserved in the villages of Taanuk<\/em> and Lejun<\/em>, were situated on the south-western border of this plain, and belonged to the Manassites (see at Jos 12:21<\/span>; Jos 17:11<\/span>). “And all Bethshean,” in other words, the whole of the district of Bethshean, i.e., Beisan, at the eastern end of the valley of Jezreel, where it opens into the Jordan valley (Rob. Pal.<\/em> ii. p. 740ff.), “which (district was situated) by the side of Zarthan<\/em> below Jezreel, from (the town of) Bethshean (see at Jos 17:11<\/span>) to Abel-Mecholah, on the other side of Jokmeam.” Zarthan<\/em>, also called Zereda<\/em> (compare 1Ki 7:46<\/span> with 2Ch 4:17<\/span>), has probably been preserved, so far as the name is concerned, in Kurn Sartabeh<\/em>, in the neighbourhood of which the old city probably stood, about five miles to the south of Beisan, at a point where the Jordan valley contracts (see at Jos 3:16<\/span>). The expression “below Jezreel” refers to “all Bethshean,” and may be explained from the elevated situation of Jezreel, the present Zern<\/em> (see at Jos 19:18<\/span>). According to Rob. iii. p. 163, this is “comparatively high, and commands a wide and noble view, extending down the broad low valley on the east of Beisan and to the mountains of Ajlun beyond the Jordan.” The following words, “from Bethshean to Abel-Mecholah,” give a more precise definition of the boundary. The lxx have erroneously inserted before , and Thenius and Bttcher defend it on the strength of their erroneous interpretations of the preceding statements. Abel-Mecholah<\/em> was in the Jordan valley, according to the Onomast<\/em>., ten Roman miles to the south of Beisan (see at Jdg 7:22<\/span>). The last clause is not quite intelligible to us, as the situation of the Levitical city Jokmeam<\/em> (1Ch 6:53<\/span>, or Kibzaim<\/em>, a different place from the Jokneam<\/em> on Carmel, Jos 12:22<\/span>; Jos 21:34<\/span>) has not yet been discovered (see at Jos 21:22<\/span>). According to this, Baanah’s district in the Jordan valley did not extend so far as Kurn Sartabeh<\/em>, but simply to the neighbourhood of Zarthan, and embraced the whole of the tribe-territory of Manasseh on this side of the Jordan.<\/p>\n 1Ki 4:13<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> Bengeber was in Ramoth<\/em> of Gilead in the tribe of Gad (Jos 20:8<\/span>), probably on the site of the modern Szalt<\/em> (see at Deu 4:43<\/span>). “To him belonged the Havvoth Jair<\/em> (Jair’s-lives) in Gilead, to him the region of Argob<\/em> in Bashan, sixty great cities with walls and brazen bolts.” If we look at this passage alone, the region of Argob in Bashan appears to be distinct from the Havvoth Jair in Gilead. But if we compare it with Num 32:40-41<\/span>; Deu 3:4-5<\/span>, and Deu 3:13<\/span>, Deu 3:14<\/span>, and Jos 13:30<\/span>, it is evident from these passages that the Jair’s-lives are identical with the sixty large and fortified cities of the region of Argob. For, according to Deu 3:4<\/span>, these sixty fortified cities, with high walls, gates, and bars, were all fortified cities of the kingdom of Og of Bashan, which the Israelites conquered under Moses, and to which, according to Num 32:41<\/span>, Jair the Manassite, who had conquered them, gave the name of Havvoth Jair<\/em>. Hence it is stated in Jos 13:30<\/span>, that the sixty Jair-towns were situated in Bashan. Consequently the in our verse is to be taken as a more precise definition of , or a clearer description of the district superintended by Bengeber<\/em>, so that Gilead<\/em> is used, as is frequently the case, in the broader sense of Peraea<\/em>. Compare with this the Commentary on Deu 3:4<\/span>, Deu 3:13<\/span>, Deu 3:14<\/span>, where the names and are explained, and the imaginary discrepancy between the sixty Jair’s-towns in the passages cited, and the twenty-three and thirty cities of Jair in 1Ch 2:22<\/span> and Jdg 10:4<\/span>, is discussed and solved. And when Thenius objects to this explanation on the ground that the villages of Jair cannot be identical with the sixty fortified cities, because villages of nomads and strongly fortified cities could not be one and the same, this objection falls to the ground with the untenable interpretation of as applying to nomad villages.<\/p>\n 1Ki 4:14<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> Ahinadab<\/em> the son of Iddo received as his district Mahanaim<\/em>, a fortified and probably also a very important city to the north of the Jabbok, on the border of the tribe of Gad, which may perhaps have been preserved in the ruin of Mahneh<\/em> (see at Jos 13:26<\/span> and Gen 32:3<\/span>). , to Mahanaim (cf. Ewald, 216, a<\/em>., note), with local, probably referring to the fact that Ahinadab was sent away to Mahanaim.<\/p>\n 1Ki 4:15<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> Ahimaaz<\/em>, possibly Zadok’s son (2Sa 15:27<\/span>; 2Sa 17:17<\/span>.), in Naphtali<\/em>. This does not denote generally “the most northern portion of the land, say from the northern end of the lake of Gennesaret into Coele-Syria,” as Thenius supposes; for the tribe-territory of Asher, which had a prefect of its own, was not situated to the south-west of Naphtali, but ran along the west of Naphtali to the northern boundary of Canaan (see at Jos 19:24-31<\/span>). He also (like Ben-Abinadab, 1Ki 4:11<\/span>) had a daughter of Solomon, Basmath, as his wife.<\/p>\n 1Ki 4:16<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> Baanah<\/em> the son of Hushai<\/em>, probably the faithful friend and wise counsellor of David (2Sa 15:32<\/span>., 1Ki 17:5<\/span>.), was in Asher<\/em> and , a name quite unknown. If forms part of the word ( Baaloth<\/em>, according to the lxx, Vulg., Syr., and Arab.), we must take it as a district, since the preposition would necessarily have been repeated if a district ( Asher<\/em>) had been connected with a town ( Baaloth<\/em>). In any case, it is not the city of Baaloth in the Negeb of Judah (Jos 15:24<\/span>) that is intended.<\/p>\n 1Ki 4:17<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> Jehoshaphat<\/em> the son of Paruach, in Issachar<\/em>; i.e., over the whole of the territory of that tribe in the plain of Jezreel, with the exception of the cities of Taanach, Megiddo, and Bethshean, which were in the southern portion of it, and were allotted to the Manassites, and, according to 1Ki 4:12<\/span>, were put under the care of Baanah; and not merely in the northern part of Issachar, “with the exception of the plain of Jezreel,” as Thenius erroneously maintains. Zebulun may possibly have also formed part of his district, if not entirely, yet in its southern portion, provided that the northern portion was assigned to Ahimaaz in Naphtali, since Zebulun had no prefect of its own.<\/p>\n 1Ki 4:18<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> Shimei<\/em> the son of Elah, possibly the one mentioned in 1Ki 1:8<\/span>, in Benjamin<\/em>.<\/p>\n 1Ki 4:19<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> Geber<\/em> the son of Uri, in the land of Gilead<\/em>, i.e., as the apposition “the land of Sihon … and of Og…” clearly shows, the whole of the Israelitish land on the east of the Jordan, as in Deu 34:1<\/span>; Jdg 20:1<\/span>, etc., with the simple exception of the districts placed under Bengeber and Ahinadab (1Ki 4:13<\/span> and 1Ki 4:14<\/span>). , “one president was it who (was) in the land (of Gilead).” cannot signify a military post or a garrison here, as in 1Sa 10:5<\/span>; 1Sa 13:3<\/span>, etc., but is equivalent to , the president (1Ki 4:7<\/span>). The meaning is, that notwithstanding the great extent of this district, it had only one prefect.<\/p>\n Solomon’s Commissaries, Verses 7-19<\/strong><\/p>\n The land of Israel was divided into twelve areas, <\/em>with a commissary officer over every area, to take up food for the supply of the king and his immense court. The immensity of the task will be revealed in the verses which follow this section. Each man was charged with supplying provision for the king’s household from his particular area during one month of the year. Some of these had prominent names for the times, but none of them seem to be known in the Scriptures aside from their mention in the list of commissary officers. It is interesting to note the prestige which must have been attached to the office, since two of Solomon’s sons-in-law were among them (verses 11,15).<\/em><\/p>\n Roughly identified the twelve areas were: 1) <\/em>Mount Ephraim, in the central tribes; 2) the northwestern foothills of Judah and Daniel 3) the plain of Sharon; 4) coastal plain south of Mount Carmel; 5) the valley of Jezreel and surrounding area; 6) Bashan and Jair east of the Jordan; 7) Mahanaim in Gilead, and that area east of Jordan; 8) Naphtali, north and west of Chinerreth (Galilee); 9) Asher, in the northwest; 10) Issachar, southwest of Chinnereth; 11) Benjamin, west of the lower Jordan, northwest of the Salt (Dead) Sea; 12) southern Gilead, in the tribe of Reuben, east of the Jordan R may be noted that most of the tribe of Judah was excluded from the commisariat division. This may have been because it was the tribe of the king and, immediately adjacent to Jerusalem, may have furnished a large proportion of the supply without the need of an appointed official.<\/em><\/p>\n B. THE FINANCIAL OFFICERS 4:720<\/p>\n TRANSLATION<\/strong><\/p>\n (7) And Solomon had twelve officers over all Israel, and they supplied provisions for the king and his household; a month in the year it fell upon one to make provision. (8) And these are their names: The son of Hur in Mt. Ephraim; (9) the son of Dekar, in Makaz, Shaalbin, Beth-shemesh, and Elon-bethhanan; (10) the son of Hesed, in Aruboth (he had charge of Sochoh and all the land of Hepher); (11) the son of Abinadab, in all the region of Dor (Taphath the daughter of Solomon was his wife); (12) Baana the son of AhiludTaanach, Megiddo and all Beth-shean which is by Zartanah beneath Jezreel from Beth-shean to Abel-meholah unto beyond Jokneam; (13) the son of Geber, in Ramoth-gilead who had charge of the towns of Jair, the son of Manasseh which are in Gilead and the region of Argob which is in Bashansixty great cities with walls and bronze bars: (14) Ahinadab the son of Iddo, Mahanaim; (15) Ahimaaz in Naphtali (also he married Basmath the daughter of Solomon); (16) Baanah the son of Hushai, 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, in the hill country of Gilead, the country of Sihon, king of the Amorites and Og, king of Bashan, and he was the only officer who was in the land. (20) Judah and Israel were many, as the sand which is beside the sea in multitude, eating, drinking and rejoicing.<\/strong><\/p>\n COMMENTS<\/strong><\/p>\n Solomon is credited with originating the first scientific system of taxation. He divided his entire realm into twelve tax districts over which he set a governor or superintendent. Each governor was responsible during one month of the year to garner from his district the produce and meat necessary to sustain the kings household during that month (1Ki. 4:7<\/span>). Since the office of district governor was quite prestigious, those who were appointed over the several districts are accorded the honor of being listed in the inspired word. Rather than a verse by verse discussion, a few general comments regarding the list as a whole is more in order.<\/p>\n 1. The boundaries of Solomons taxation districts correspond roughly to the old tribal boundaries which were devised in the days of Joshua. Such alterations in these borders as do exist were probably made in order to balance the economic resources of the districts. [145] Hammond (PC, p. 69) has proposed that part of the document from which the author copied this list had been destroyed.<\/p>\n 5. Two of the governors are reported to have married daughters of Solomon (1Ki. 4:11<\/span>; 1Ki. 4:15<\/span>). While the appointments to these offices may have been made early in the reign of Solomon, the list could not have been compiled sooner than the middle of his reign when his daughters would have been old enough to marry. These men were officers in the districts farthest away from Solomon. This may have been part of Solomons strategy to assure the loyalty of these officers.<\/p>\n 6. Nine of the administrative districts were on the west and three on the east of the Jordan. [146] It could be that Judah had already been organized by David on a separate basis and hence is omitted here from the list. See de Vaux, AI, pp. 13335.<\/p>\n 8. The success of these administrative measures is brought out in 1Ki. 4:20<\/span>. The population of the nation was so numerous that it was easy for the people to pay and for the governors to collect the royal tribute. The expression numerous as the sand of the sea indicates that the promises made to the patriarchs (Gen. 22:17<\/span>; Gen. 32:12<\/span>) had been fulfilled. Apparently Solomons exactions did not deprive the people of necessary food; they had plenty to eat and drink.<\/p>\n (7) Provided victuals for the king and his household.<\/strong>This denotes the collection of revenuemostly, no doubt, in kindfor the maintenance of the Court and household and guards of the king; and perhaps may have included also the management of the royal domain lands, such as is described under Davids reign in 1Ch. 26:25-31<\/span>. It is curious that in five cases only the patronymic of the officer is given, probably from some defect in the archives from which this chapter is evidently drawn. The office must have been of high importance and dignity, for in two cases (1Ki. 4:11<\/span>; 1Ki. 4:15<\/span>) the holders of it were married into the royal house. The provinces over which they had authoritynine on the west and three on the east of Jordancoincide only in a few cases with the lands assigned to the several tribes. It is not unlikely that by this time much of the tribal division of territory had become obsolete although we see from 1Ch. 27:16-22<\/span>, that for chieftainship over men, and for levy in war, it still remained in force.<\/p>\n (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 their names: The son of Hur, in mount Ephraim: (9) The son of Dekar, in Makaz, and in Shaalbim, and Bethshemesh, and Elonbethhanan: (10) The son of Hesed, in Aruboth; to him pertained 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 Taanach and Megiddo, and all Bethshean, which is by Zartanah beneath Jezreel, from Bethshean to Abelmeholah, even unto the place that is beyond Jokneam: (13) The son of Geber, in Ramothgilead; 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 brasen bars: (14) Ahinadab the son of Iddo had Mahanaim: (15) Ahimaaz was in Naphtali; he also took Basmath the daughter of Solomon to wife: (16) Baanah the son of Hushai was 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 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.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Honourable account is also given of the purveyors of Solomon’s household, whose office it was to provide sustenance for the king’s table. Blessed Jesus! what an honour hast thou conferred on the ministers and stewards of thy mysteries, that they, as Scribes well instructed in thy kingdom, should bring out of thy treasury things new and old. Oh grant them grace, dearest Lord, all whom thou hast called and appointed to the work, that they may be found as is required of stewards, faithful! 1Co 4:1-2<\/span> .<\/p>\n 1Ki 4:7 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.<\/p>\n Ver. 7. And Solomon had twelve officers.<\/strong> ] Purveyors, which were to cater for the court, and send in provision. God hath taken the best of his creatures, and commanded them to cater for his people. Hos 2:21-22 <\/p>\n twelve officers. Compare David’s twelve captains (lChron. 1Ki 27:2-15). <\/p>\n officers: These are doubtless to be considered as general receivers; for, as Sir John Chardin observes, “the revenues of the princes of the East are paid in the fruits and productions of the earth: there are no other taxes on the peasants.” <\/p>\n each man: 1Ch 27:1-15 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: 1Sa 8:12 – and will set 1Ki 4:5 – the officers 1Ki 4:27 – those officers 1Ki 5:14 – a month 1Ki 12:4 – our yoke 1Ch 27:28 – And over Ecc 5:9 – the king Eze 48:19 – shall serve<\/p>\n Solomon’s district governors 4:7-19<\/span><\/p>\n These men were responsible for providing for the needs of Solomon’s large household, including his courtiers, and for his thousands of horses (1Ki 4:28). Two were Solomon’s sons-in-law (1Ki 4:11; 1Ki 4:15). The district arrangement seems designed to move Israel away from tribal independence to cooperation under the new centralized government, though the district boundaries approximated the tribal boundaries. [Note: See the map "Solomon’s 12 Districts and Surrounding Nations" in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament, p. 496.] <\/span><\/p>\n ". . . this was a radical and decisive step, and that not only because it imposed upon the people an unprecedented burden. It meant that the old tribal system, already increasingly of vestigial significance, had been, as far as its political functioning was concerned, virtually abolished. In place of twelve tribes caring in turn for the central shrine were twelve districts taxed for the support of Solomon’s court!" [Note: Bright, p. 201.] <\/span><\/p>\n The writer did not include Judah and Jerusalem in this list of areas that Solomon taxed. This gave Judah a great advantage economically. Perhaps Solomon favored Judah because it was his tribe. This favoritism may have been a factor in the revolt of the northern tribes later (1Ki 12:4).<\/p>\n Solomon’s throne exercised four spheres of political influence. First, there was the homeland. This was the geographical area Joshua had assigned to the 12 tribes. In Solomon’s day Israel occupied only this area. Second, there were adjacent provinces (i.e., Damascus, Ammon, Moab, Edom, et al.). Solomon taxed these and conscripted them for military service. They enjoyed protection and the benefits of Israel’s central government. Third, there were the vassal states (i.e., Zobah, Hamath, Arabia, possibly Philistia, et al.) that Israel controlled. These enjoyed some autonomy such as native rulers and internal fiscal policies. They recognized Solomon’s authority, however, provided some tribute, and pledged loyalty to him. Israel in return defended them from alien forces when necessary. Fourth, there were the allied states (i.e., Phoenicia, Egypt, et al.). These countries enjoyed equality with Israel. They defended each other as needed, traded with each other, and generally cooperated with one another. [Note: Merrill, pp. 300-302.] <\/span><\/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: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/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: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
2. Rather than being alphabetical or geographical, the list is chronological, i.e., the governors are listed in the order in which they were responsible for the royal provisions during the year.
3. No doubt the districts were mapped out and months assigned according to the capacity of the country to produce the monthly provisions of the king.
4. Of the twelve governors, five are only known by their patronymics (name of their fathers). No satisfactory explanation of this curious circumstance has yet been given.[145]<\/p>\n
7. Judah is omitted from the list of districts. Apparently Judah was exempt from providing supplies for the court and military. This favoritism no doubt engendered jealousy among the tribes.[146]<\/p>\nFuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n