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 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 chap. iv. 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 chap. ix. 20, but were an independent tribe, probably in the neighborhood of Syria, as 2 Kings vii. 6 mentions them as in alliance with the Syrians. opposite coast of Ethiopia. Though there was a mainder" (or surplusage) (Ewald) is no better than "species of tailed ape" in Ethiopia, there were no that given by some Rabbins, woven texture. The peacocks and no sandal-wood. Thenius very un-second can have no other meaning than that necessarily supposes that the same writer who wrote chap. ix. 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. Vers. 23-27. So king Solomon exceeded, &c. From vers. 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 vers. 23-24 cf. chap. iv. 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 ver. 26 cf. chap. iv. 26, and chap. ix. 19. In ver. 27 silver only is mentioned and not gold (which the Sept. unjustifiably adds here from 2 Chron. i. 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 ver. 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 (Isai. ix. 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 chap. iv. 20. Vers. 28, 29. And Solomon had horses brought, &c. Verses 28 and 29 contain supplementary remarks to the account given in ver. 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" (Ex. xiv. 6 sq.; xv. 1; 2 Kings xviii. 24; Isai. xxxi. 1; Jer. xlvi. 2, 4; Deut. xvii. 16). p, which occurs twice in ver. 28, is difficult; but it can only mean collection, collexio, multitude (Gen. i. 9, 10; Ex. vii. 19; Jer. iii. 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 as denoting locality, and connect it with ; the departure of horses from Egypt and from Coa (έK Oɛкovè 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 into vip; 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 "re HISTORICAL AND ETHICAL. 1. 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, chap. iii. 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 26). The reason that this glory, which here reaches 'glory" became proverbial (Matt. vi. 29.; Luke xii. its highest point, is depicted just before the account of his deep fall (chap. xi.), is to be found in the theocratic view of the historian, and is, in an historico. redemptive 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 caps by the New Tes tament; 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 кarà σáρкa, it can be but a glory ката σάрка, i. е., 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 king. HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. Ver. 14. (a) The glory of Solomon. Wherein it lay (Power, dominion, pomp, splendor, glory, and honor, everything that men wish or desire in this worldall 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 Soiomon himself confessed: All is vanity; I have seen all the works, &c., Eccles. i. 2; ii. 11; Ps. xlix. 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, Jno. xvii. 24. Scarcely one of many thousands can attain to the glory of Solomon, but to the glory of God we are all called, 1 Thess. ii. 12; if our life be hidden with Christ in God, then "shall we when Christ," &c., Col. iii. 3, 4. Therefore shall we rejoice in the hope of future glory, and not only so, but in tribulations also (Rom. v. 2, 3) for our "light affliction, which is but for a moment," &c., 2 Cor. iv. 17, 18). dom reached its greatest degree of glory, prepared | thousand (=144,000), and these are represented the way for its gradual decline, and no one preached by the twice twelve of the elders who stand before more powerfully the vanity and nothingness of all his throne (Rev. iv. 4, 10; vii. 4; xiv. 1). temporal splendor than he when proclaiming, it is all vanity (Eccles. i. 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 (Heb. ii. 9; v. 9; viii. 1; xii. 2; Luke i. 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 Gen. xlix. 9, nor from Isai. xxix. 1 and Ezek. xix. 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 chap. iii. 9). The lion is the strongest among beasts" (Prov. xxx. 30, 31), and his roaring announces the coming of judgment (Am. iii. 8; i. 2; Rev. x. 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 chap. vii. 25). The people chosen by God from among all people are a nation of kings and priests (Ex. xix. 6; Rev. i. 6; v. 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 (Rev. v. 5, 6), who is the Prince of earthly kings, and has made us kings and priests to His Father, God (Rev. i. 6; v. 6; vii. 10, 17). His people number twelve times twelve 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 xii. 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), Ps. lxii. 11; lii. 9; 1 Tim. vi. 9; Matt. xvi. 26. Therefore envy not the rich and powerful, for they are exposed to many temptations. But godliness with contentment, &c., 1 Tim. vi. 6. WÜRT. 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 ii. 8; Ps. 1. 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 con tent 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 (Prov. xxi. 31; cf. Ps. xxxiii. 16–19; Ia xxxi. 1). FIFTH SECTION. SOLOMON'S FALL AND END. CHAP. XI. 1 A.-The unfaithfulness towards the Lord and its punishment. CHAP. XI. 1-13. BUT King Solomon loved' many strange [t. e. foreign] women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh,' women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zi2 donians, and Hittites; of 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 3 clave unto these in love. And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and 4 three hundred concubines; and his wives turned away his heart. For 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 5 the heart of David his father. For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess 6 of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. And : Solomon did evil in the sight of the Lord [Jehovah], and went not fully after 7 the Lord [Jehovah], as did David his father. Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, 8 and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon. And likewise did he for all his strange [. e. foreign] wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods. 9 And the Lord [Jehovah] was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the Lord [Jehovah] God of Israel, which had appeared unto him 10 twice, and had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods: but he kept not that which the Lord [Jehovah] commanded. 11 Wherefore 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 12 thy servant. Notwithstanding in thy days I will not do it for David thy father's 13 sake: 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. TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL. Ver. 1.-[The Sept. renders here v boyúrns, 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 ver. 3, transposed from its place, but omits its last clause altogether. 2 Ver. 1.-[All the ancient versions class Pharaoh's daughter among the "strange wives," which sense our author, as also Keil rejects. See Exeg. Com. a Ver. 4.-The Vat. Sept. omits the middle clause of ver. 4, and mixes together vers. 6-8, omitting much of them. Ver. 5.-[Notwithstanding the arguments in the Exeg. Com. against the personal idolatry of Solomon, it is to be remembered that the phrase ', to go after other gods (vers. 4, 5, 10) is one already established as far back as the Pentateuch as an expression of idolatry. Ver. 13.-[For one tribe the Sept. have oxтpov ev, which is, however, probably to be understood in the same sense.-F. G.] EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. Vers. 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 Deut. xvii. in which, vers. 16 and 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, chap. x. 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 tnrning 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 (chap. x. 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 ver. 1 by ηv pinoyívawç kaì λaßɛ yvvaïkaç åkhorpias, 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 (ver. 4), and had reached the summit of his prosperity and power. For his marriage with the Egyptian, see above on chap. iii. 1; she did not rank among the other strange women, i. e., those whom it was forbidden in the law to marry, as ver. 2 expressly remarks (cf. Ex. xxxiv. 16; Deut. vii. 3, 4: Josh. xxiii. 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 thein, and the Edomites south; but the Zidonians and Hittites lived north of Palestine, where Phoenician worship prevailed. Cf. Deut. xxiii. 4; Ezra ix. 12; Neh. xiii. 23. Ver. 3. And he had seven hundred wives, &c. Ver. 3. i 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, Many 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. 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 Eccle. iv. 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. Eccles. vi. 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 (300 instead of D=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. iii. 24) that Darius Codomanus, on his with him. expedition against Alexander, carried 300 pellices of the present Turkish Sultan contains 1,300 women. The Augsb. Allg. Zeitung of 1862, No. 181, Nankin. is the head of her son's harem, a great says 'that the mother of the Taiping, emperor in establishment containing 3,000 women," whom the same "lady" has to keep in order. gives the same number, and adds that the emperor Magelhäus had never seen some of them in his life. 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 that were entertained about the state which a may be greatly exaggerated, but shows the notions stances in Rosenmüller, Altes und Neues Morgengreat ruler should maintain. Cf. also other inland, III. s. 181. The evident intention of the sensualists, but, on the contrary, to add to their narrator is, not to picture these rulers as brutal fame. An immense harem is held in the East to be as requisite to a splendid court as a large stud. Public accounts state that the harem ...... "The Ver. 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-condition- | went so far as to favor it by the building of ed women succeeded in turning away Solomon's "high-places" (ver. 36; chap. viii. 16; xiv. 21; 2 heart, i. e., in reducing his tone, making him in- Chron. vi. 6). So Hess (Gesch. Salomo's, s. 436), different towards the strict and exclusive religion and recently Vilmar (Pastoral-theol. Blätter, 1861, s. of Jehovah, and milder and more indulgent towards 179); Ewald also (Gesch. Isr. III. s. 378 sq.) says: the worship of their gods, yea, so to insnare him" there is no evidence from ancient documents that he favored the latter by the building of altars to idols. When the text adds, and his heart was not (any longer) perfect (y=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 Ex. xx. 3, 4, because this is the first and supremest will of God. To avoid any misunderstanding, ver. 6 repeats, he went not fully as in Num. xiv. 24; xxxii. 11, .sc מִלָּא) 12; Deut. i. 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 (y) strange gods (cf. chap. xvi. 31; xxii. 54; 2 Kings xvi. 3; xxi. 2-6; xxi. 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 Chron. xxviii. 2, 3; xxxii. 2 sq.; xxxiii. 22; xxxvi. 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 (chap. xlvii. 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 synretistic 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 that Solomon ever left the religion of Jahve, even in his extreme old age, or sacrificed with his own historical evidences of his times are against the hands to heathen deities; but, on the contrary, all 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" (chap. ix. 25). Cf. below on ver. 9 sq. &c. Vers. 5-8. Solomon went after Ashtoreth, hands, high-places for the heathen gods; but he al- stercora (Deut. xxix. 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 Königreiche Israel und Juda, s. 142), that our auferred to place the king in an unfavorable light thor, who was devoted to Jehovah's service, prerather than to let it be known how long the strange worship had existed among the people, and in which 5 and 7, cf. Movers, Relig. der Phönizier, s. 560-584, they took part. For the divinities named in vers. 602-608; Keil, bibl. Archäologie I. s. 442 sq.; Winer, R.-W.-B. under the appropriate names. Ashtoreth and 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 vers. 4 and 6 does not say: he served Jehovah and the idois 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 |