1 Kings 4:1–34

Original Meaning

The Chief Officials (4:1–6)

THE ROSTER OF chief officials mentions eight distinct offices as compared with five in 2 Samuel 8:16–18 and six in 20:23–25. The priest heads the list (1 Kings 4:2) as the most influential of the officials. The secretaries (v. 3a) keep records and prepare correspondence. The recorder (v. 3b, NIV) is an officer who makes the king’s name heard, either giving official notices to the people or bringing public affairs to the king’s notice. He is the protocol officer who regulates the ceremonies of the palace, introduces people to royal audiences, and serves as master of ceremonies on an official tour.

The commander of the army (4:4a) may have also served in administrative responsibility as a kind of secretary of war. The officer over the district governors (v. 5a) is responsible for the provisioning system for the palace. The personal advisor to the king (v. 5b) is the king’s most intimate confidant and perhaps a chief officer of government administration.3 The officer in charge of the palace (v. 6a) is responsible for all the royal property, including lands and buildings. The officer in charge of conscripted service for the king (v. 6b) is responsible to provide the necessary labor for the king’s projects.

The name Elihoreph (v. 3a) appears to be Egyptian in origin, corrupted in pronunciation to conceal its pagan origins; in Greek it is pronounced Eliaph, a reference to the Egyptian god Apis. Shisha (v. 3b) is a Hebrew way of saying the Egyptian word for scribe; Elihoreph and Ahijah belong to the scribal office; they are members of a guild. The Egyptian influence indicates that Solomon is reaching out to his Egyptian father-in-law for assistance in administering his realm.

The list has been transmitted with variations, the result of historical and textual developments.4 The LXX does not make mention of Benaiah as head of the army in verse 4, but the Old Greek translation has Eliab son of Joab over the army in verse 6. Benaiah takes control of the army after executing Joab; it is unlikely that Solomon has enlisted a son of Joab as military commander.5 The office of priest is mentioned twice: Azariah (v. 2) and Zadok and Abiathar (v. 4). Azariah succeeded his father Zadok as high priest; Abiathar was banished after siding with Adonijah (2:26–27). Zadok, Abiathar, and Benaiah go back to the time of David (2 Sam. 20:23, 25).6 The influence of Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet is evident in their sons continuing to hold high office.

The District Governors (4:7–20)

Bridging Contexts

THE VULNERABILITY OF success. The purpose of including all these details about Solomon’s wisdom, largesse, polity, and administration is not transparent.26 There is no clear development between the sections dealing with Solomon’s administration (4:7–19), empire (4:21–25), governors (4:27–28), wisdom (4:29–31), and science (4:32–34). Perhaps the author is simply following his sources, but this does not explain his own attitude toward these achievements.

Perhaps the author is emphasizing the wisdom of Solomon, an innovative sage of nature, who has advanced beyond Egyptian and Babylonian “enumerative science” by composing whole series of proverbs and songs.27 But the whole section is more than wisdom. The Deuteronomist presents a king and its nation flourishing together. There is no explanation for how Solomon comes to have dominion over such a vast realm. Since it corresponds to the areas taken over by David (cf. 2 Sam. 1–14) and Solomon himself never wages war, he must have received this as an inheritance from David. The conscious connection between the reigns of David and Solomon indicates that their reigns complement each other. What David only hopes for, Solomon achieves.

Solomon succeeds his father as the designated heir and achieves the peace and security promised to David in Nathan’s oracle (2 Sam. 7:10–12). Israel will live in security and no longer be troubled by its enemies; David is promised rest from all his enemies and a dynasty. As Solomon takes the next step in contacting Hiram to build the temple, explicit notice is made of the promise to David (1 Kings 5:3–4): Solomon has no adversaries or trouble. David was caught up in warfare and thwarted in his chief ambitions, battling foreign and familial foes. Solomon has a stable kingdom with officials in royal office, governors in all the districts, and a sound fiscal administration. He has security from foreign invasion, and all his citizens live with their own property (4:24–25).

Consistent with Near Eastern royal ideology, Solomon’s intelligent rule contributes to the wealth and stability of his realm. He not only benefits from the tribute of his own kingdom, but from the wealth of an empire stretching from the Euphrates River to the Philistines (4:21). Judah and Israel are “as numerous as the sand on the seashore” (v. 20), but Solomon’s wisdom is equal to the task, “as measureless as the sand on the seashore” (vv. 29–30). His wisdom exceeds that of the nations to the east and south. Solomon’s vast knowledge and wisdom is not an end in itself; for the Deuteronomist this perspicacity provides for unprecedented unity and repose.

The reigns of David and Solomon as the unprecedented era of economic, political, and religious success are developed extensively in Chronicles. The succession of Moses and Joshua becomes a paradigm for that of David and Solomon.28 Both Moses and David are disqualified from achieving their chief goals. Both designate and announce their successors (Deut. 31:2–3; 1 Chron. 22:6; 28:6–8). Both Joshua and Solomon enjoy the wholehearted support of the people (Josh. 1:16–18; 1 Chron. 29:23–24) and lead the people into rest (Josh. 21:44; 1 Chron. 22:8–9).29 This highly developed unity of the two kings as the ideal period in the history of Israel is not without basis in Kings. The Conquest was not Israel’s finest hour, and certainly not the period of the judges. The inauguration of Solomon’s reign is Israel’s cultural zenith. This view of the first part of Solomon’s reign as unmitigated blessing not only demonstrates the ideal of the monarchy, but the fulfillment of the divine promise to David.

This ideal of kingship depends on strict adherence to the requirements of the covenant. The problem for the Deuteronomist is that the success of the kingdom is the very thing that makes it vulnerable to demise. The king must not depend on military power or alliances, have many wives, or depend on wealth (Deut. 17:15–17). Wisdom brings Solomon wealth and power beyond that of any other king (1 Kings 10:23). While this is not stated in negative terms, this description of Solomon becomes the converse of what the covenant required (see 4:26–29). Solomon accumulates horses and chariots and makes silver in Jerusalem to be so plentiful it is like a common stone. Solomon goes to Egypt for his supply of horses, and he has many foreign wives (11:1–3). These statements reflect on the covenant requirement to trust God. While the statements about wealth and power may demonstrate the success of Solomon, they are also the point of his vulnerability.

The grace of God working through flawed people. In the context of the whole story of Solomon and the history of the nation, this period of Solomon’s glory is ambiguous. It is often assumed that when the Solomon story was incorporated into the final edition of the books of Kings, his reign was given a new assessment. There is no reason to think that it would take until the Exile before the reign of Solomon was evaluated critically in relation to the covenant.

Others find the elements of favor and failure in the structure of the story. Parker thinks that the negative assessment of 1 Kings 1–2 and 11:14–43 frame the story, and that within it chapters 3–8 are parallel to 9:1–11:13.30 The first unit approves Solomon, but the second is hostile. Brettler proposes a different division;31 the first section is Solomon’s accession (chs. 1–2), the second his faithfulness and blessing (3:3–9:23), and the final one his punishment for the violation of the code of the king (9:26–11:43). These literary divisions have merit, but one must ask whether the authors actually intend two different portrayals of Solomon. Numerous other versions of irony and ambiguity have been observed in the Solomon narrative.32 It is characteristic of the Deuteronomistic History to present the stark realities of failure of all the characters that in other respects are heroes.

Hays takes a different approach to the Solomon story. He thinks that what appears to be praise is in reality irony: “There are numerous clues that suggest to us that perhaps the narrator is playing literary games with his readers. He may be openly and overtly praising Solomon on the surface, but he does not tell the story with a straight face, and if we look closely, we see him winking at us.”33 The spectacular reign of Solomon has a subtheme that quietly points out the serious inconsistencies and serious problems that are not a part of the surface story. To use another metaphor, readers are given a tour of a spectacular and opulent mansion. However, without changing the inflection of his voice, the tour guide points out places where the façade has cracked. The guide uses nuances that tell us his glowing praise is not his honest opinion, and in the end tells us that the building is a fraud, covered with a thin veneer of glitz and hoopla.34

There certainly is plenty in the story from the start that is not complimentary to Solomon by the standards of Deuteronomy. The worship at the high places is not ideal, nor his marriage to Pharaoh’s daughter. The organization of Solomon’s empire, in being all an empire should be, has the very elements that Samuel warned about when Israel asked for a king. The king would take their sons and daughters, fields, vineyards, and flocks; the people would become slaves. When they would then cry out in distress because of their king, Yahweh would not hear (1 Sam. 8:16–18). Solomon’s governors are assigned to collect taxes (1 Kings 4:7, 27), and one of his officials is in charge of conscripted labor (v. 6). It is consistent with an important motif within the Deuteronomistic History to regard kingship as oppressive and contrary to God’s purpose.

If it was the sole purpose of the narrative to “bury” Solomon, then the Chronicler has developed a theology of the united kingdom that is completely contrary to that set out in Kings. If the glory of Solomon is a fraud, then the promise to David is never manifested within the history of the kingdom. The promise to David does survive in spite of Solomon, as it does during the reigns of other Judean kings, most notably Manasseh. Yet it is the viewpoint of the historian that God is actively at work directing the fulfillment of that promise. Solomon is a divine choice, just as the heroes of the past. In the days of the judges, the grace of God repeatedly ended in disaster, but that does not deny the reality of that grace at work through those who brought a temporary deliverance. The grace of God in Gideon ended with Abimelech, and the power of God in Samson ended with his death in the Philistine temple, but both were towering examples of missed opportunity.

All of the divinely chosen characters in the Deuteronomistic History, including David and Solomon, are flawed, but this is not to discount the grace of God at work through them. Whatever the failures of Solomon, his reign is a manifestation of God’s power for Israel. His kingdom is not his own achievement; it is the grace of God because of the covenant and the promise. Solomon fails, but he is not a failure any more than all the others who in one way or another betray the grace of God. The Chronicler chooses to emphasize the possibility of receiving God’s grace and properly finds in Solomon the most distinguished example.

The light and dark side of wisdom. The encomium to Solomon’s wisdom is a typical tribute of court circles to their monarch (4:29–34).35 At the time of Hezekiah, the fame of Solomon continues in collections of proverbs made and preserved in his name (Prov. 25:1). The whole story of Solomon can be read in terms of “Lady Wisdom” and the “foreign woman.”36 Wisdom and foreign women are significant and interrelated themes in the Solomon story, with ambiguous suggestive allusions. An irony of wisdom is that success in one realm endangers its application and function in another.

The wisdom of the Israelites is the teaching they receive through the covenant (Deut. 1–10). All nations marvel at the knowledge of life possessed by the Israelites (vv. 6–8); it enables them to be a great nation. The danger is that they will forget the source of their knowledge and blessings (vv. 9–10) and will subvert the very blessing that they have received.

The very passage that extols Solomon in the success of a vast empire (4:24–25) is implicitly a warning against the failure of wisdom. Administration, taxation, and military expertise require wisdom and are a necessary provision for an empire, but the success of these items brings reliance on them. The mention of the vast number of Solomon’s horses is both a statement of his success as a wise man and his failure as a foolish man. Life in this world is never safe. Wisdom may bring the success of wealth and security, but wealth and security induce a reliance on material well-being that is a failure of wisdom. Though it is possible to have the wisdom that leads to success and the wisdom that is faithful to a trust in God, it is not easy to maintain both. Wisdom may be a victim of its own success.

There is a dark side to wisdom in the Old Testament. Wisdom can be used to achieve dubious ends. The serpent, wiser than any of the other creatures, led Adam and Eve to rebel against God and claim knowledge to govern their own lives and make their own decisions. Jonadab was a clever man (2 Sam. 13:3), able to devise a means for his friend Amnon to obtain forced sexual relations with his half-sister Tamar. The deceptive powers of the success of wisdom are just a step away from wisdom itself being used toward deceptive ends.

Though Solomon is portrayed as exceedingly wise, little is said about his mastery of the kind of wisdom that understands the fear of Yahweh—that instinctive and intuitive recognition of the total claim of God that is felt in religious and moral issues. The disjunction between the wisdom of Solomon in Kings and that of wisdom literature has led to the conclusion that Solomon’s reputation as a wise man is simply legendary. It is asserts that the proverbs he composed are more like the lists of nature items found in Egypt and Mesopotamia (onomastica).37 A poetic ditty describes this aspect of Solomon’s wisdom:

He spoke about the trees,

From the cedar in Lebanon

To the hyssop that grows from the wall;

He spoke about the animals,

The birds, the reptiles, and the fish. (1 Kings 4:33)

It is possible these collections of nature have been transformed into poetic compositions for moral instruction. Though this may have happened in particular instances, the collections of proverbs have no similarity to such collections.

The Hebrew word for wisdom (ḥokmâ) has a wide and unrelated range of meanings.38 The wisdom of Solomon in Kings is regarded as superhuman, wisdom like that of God (3:28). Solomon asked for a “mind to listen” (3:9); knowing how to listen is an important component of proverbial wisdom (e.g. Prov. 12:15). Though the first datable identification of Solomon with proverbial wisdom is the collections of the men of Hezekiah (25:1), it is unusual for the court circles not to ascribe wisdom to their own king. The ruler of a vast empire and the builder of the nation’s temple is regarded as having the discerning mind of the wise and a special dispensation of vast knowledge and insight that is possessed by no other. When asked for a sign, Jesus gives his inquisitors the sign of Solomon (Matt. 12:38–42); the Queen of the South will stand in judgment over them, for she came to seek out the wisdom of Solomon, and now a greater than Solomon is in their midst. Solomon himself becomes a proverb, exemplifying what it is to possess wisdom.

The kingdom of Solomon began as a paragon of wise governance, making the demise of that kingdom so much more tragic. The authors of Kings regard the kingdom of Solomon as more than the achievement of good government. God has granted Solomon wisdom that gives him fame among all nations, including the renowned wise men of the east (4:29–31). His achievements are possible only through such divine provision. Mastery of the skills of governance lead to a reliance on that knowledge and a failure to depend on God. Wisdom of the fear of Yahweh is displaced with carnal pursuits. The lofty achievements of Solomon are subverted by his failure to live by the fundamental requirement that wisdom demands.

The wealth of Solomon and the splendor of his building projects are to be regarded as a virtue. These are the accomplishments of a wise king, and they are the gift of God. This is not the “prosperity gospel” in the sense that God blesses individuals because they trust him for the things they want. The kingdom of Solomon is an example of communal prosperity, which benefits a community and a nation when they are able to live together according to the virtues of wisdom and the fear of the Lord.

The wisdom of Solomon in the administration of his empire brings prosperity to the people. Wisdom as a “tree of life” brings long life in her right hand and wealth and honor in her left (Prov. 3:16–18). It is to understand the order of this world so that mortals (ʾādām) are able to live in harmony with the ground (ʾādāmâ) from which they have been taken. The function of such wisdom demands community. It is not good that man should be alone; as male and female they are to become a people who will appropriately exercise dominion and live for the benefit of each other. This is the knowledge that comes from God, the fruit of wisdom that brings favor and prosperity.

Contemporary Significance

TAXES AND FAIRNESS. “Religions should ‘rejoice’ at the chance to pay taxes,” writes John Longhurst in reference to the launch of “Taxation for the Common Good,” a forty-page document by the Roman Catholic Church designed to spark discussion about taxation and public services in the United Kingdom.39 Bishop Howard Tripp says, “Taxes are very much based on the principles of solidarity, which is based on the commandment to love your neighbour.” Christians should rejoice in the chance to contribute toward the sort of society that they want. “This document is suggesting taxes are a way to play our part and it is something we should be pleased to do,” according to Tripp. “It is all a part of our duty to our neighbour.” The Most Reverend Peter Smith, the Archbishop of Cardiff who headed the committee that created the report, said, “Taxation is a sign of social health, a moral good. Our willingness to pay it is a sign of our solidarity with one another, and of our humanity.”

The glories of the reign of Solomon are based on the solidarity of taxation for the common good. These are the means to the people of Judah and Israel being “as numerous as the sand on the seashore; they ate, they drank and they were happy” (4:20). It is possible for a contemporary society to reach the ideals expressed of Solomon’s reign: “During Solomon’s lifetime, Judah and Israel, from Dan to Beersheba, lived in safety, each man under his own vine and fig tree” (v. 25). The power of government must include the responsibility of taxation in order to achieve a society with equity and prosperity. As some wag has expressed it, “The government needs to be glad we’ve got what it takes.” Those who have the ability to pay taxes should be grateful for that capability and be willing to exercise it responsibly.

Longhurst reports on Alabama Governor Bob Riley, who attempted to implement the principle of taxation as a debt owed to fellow citizens.

Riley, an evangelical Christian and Republican, stunned many of his conservative supporters … when he advocated a tax reform plan that would have shifted a significant amount of the state’s tax burden from the poor to wealthy individuals and corporations.… Riley argued that it was a matter of Christian duty to reform a tax system in which a family of four making as little as $4,600 a year paid more in taxes, percentage-wise, than the richest of the state’s residents.

Riley made his case on the basis of the Bible. “I have spent a lot of time reading the New Testament, and it has three philosophies: love God, love each other, and take care of the least among you. It is immoral to charge somebody making $5,000 a year an income tax.” Critics called Riley’s proposal, “How Would Jesus Tax Us?” In his plan, just the top third of income earners, plus corporations and large farm and timber operations, would pay more taxes, while anyone earning less than $20,000 a year would pay no taxes at all.

The principles that Riley made on the basis of the New Testament for Christians in contemporary society are a prominent feature of the community ideal (Deut. 6:1–3; 14:28–29; 15:7–11). The tithe and the release of debts against property were part of the covenant of brothers and were not a matter of individual decisions of charity. Justice and economic equity were the responsibility of the king; their virtues were briefly achieved in the establishment of a united monarchy that brought all the regions together in one administrative system.

These values of collective responsibility to all society need to be fully appreciated by Christians in current times. Christians in Alabama were deeply divided over Governor Riley’s plan. John Giles, president of the Christian Coalition of Alabama, opposed it saying, “Never in scripture does it say ‘Render unto Caesar so he can take care of the poor.’ It’s the church’s responsibility.” Riley’s tax reform plan was defeated by Alabama voters in September, 2003, but one observer, reflecting on the opposition of some churches, observed that for all the moral high ground those Christians claimed, their opposition showed that “they hate taxes more than they love Jesus.”

There can be no simple comparison between a nation bonded by a covenant and the responsibility of the church. The church has a particular obligation to those who teach them the gospel and to those “of the household of faith” (Gal. 6:6, 10). The church cannot be responsible for all the poor of society, as was required in the old covenant. Neither can church members live in isolation from society, providing only for the poor in their own group. Christians are not only responsible for the benefits they derive from government. They are responsible to love their neighbors, in whom they encounter Christ, whoever they are and wherever they live. There is a moral foundation to taxation, to create a society that serves all, with a special concern for the most needy. There is no moral obligation to be happy when calculating tax, but it may help not to think of it as a burden, but as a way to serve God and neighbor.

In Judaism payment of taxes is a way to benefit all. Governments have a right to tax citizens, and anyone who doesn’t pay “has violated the Torah prohibition against theft.”40 Such a provision is certainly in keeping with the principles of Old Testament covenant requirement and was so understood in the reign of Solomon. Government in turn must tax people fairly, or it is stealing from the taxpayer; government must be responsible for the money it collects because it belongs to the taxpayers collectively.

One of the lessons of the rule of Solomon is that government would seem to be incapable of holding itself accountable. At the death of Solomon, answerability is so little understood that his son Rehoboam rashly follows the counsel of youthful advisors to heavily increase taxation. They sarcastically suggest that the little finger of Rehoboam will be thicker than the waist of his father (12:10). When Rehoboam sends Adoniram, the officer in charge of conscripted labor (4:6), to recruit the required labor from the northern tribes, they stone him (12:18). Rehoboam flees for his life and the kingdom is permanently divided (v. 19). The glory of the kingdom of Solomon is achieved at an unsustainable price.

In stating the glories of that kingdom so boldly, the narrative accentuates the dangers of political success. That danger may be summed up in the famous saying of English historian Lord John Acton (1834–1902): “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”41 The subversive corruption of power is often so subtle that it is unrecognized even by those with the best of intentions. The glory of the kingdom is equaled only in the tragedy of its demise, a factor that is of central concern to the Deuteronomistic Historian. The power of government control must be for the benefit of all those governed and not be controlled by the interests of those who govern.

Globalization and trade. Globalization, the phenomena of international trade agreements between virtually all industries, has created wealth that is unprecedented in human history. It also brings with it grave dangers that could end in a collapse no less spectacular than that of Solomon’s empire. It affects justice and prosperity for virtually every worker in every country. Kris Mauren, cofounder and executive director of the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty in Grand Rapids, Michigan, says that religious leaders in different parts of the world often misunderstand fundamental principles of free enterprise.

The United States government likes to talk about free trade with other nations, yet it basically prevents third world countries from trading their agricultural products. So, although you have American religious leaders promoting humanitarian aid to places like Kenya, what Kenyans really want is the opportunity to engage the world market.42

The Acton Institute challenges the status quo of all political parties, especially the abuses that go on in the name of free enterprise.

In the context of globalization, the challenge of economic justice extends beyond the authority of one government. Taxation and trade tariffs affect the exchange of all commodities for both producers and consumers of distant countries. Exchange of food was fundamental in Solomon’s administration, both for the supplies of his own palace (4:22–23)43 and for obtaining goods and services for his building projects (5:11). Initially at least, this was beneficial for all concerned. With globalization, food has come to be one of the most debated and disputed areas of justice. The issues range from fair trade of coffee beans to the exchange of ruminant animals affected by what is popularly called “mad cow disease,” a form of spongiform encephalopathy, which damages the central nervous system and brain tissue.

These issues are as disparate as they are complex. Trade regulations trap the producers of these products so their market value is less than what it costs to produce them. For example, trade barriers suddenly imposed on beef products, ostensibly because of health concerns, saddles farmers with the burden of having to feed animals that should be sold, and then selling them at a huge loss. Their fortunes are controlled by political factors completely out of their control. The issue is not health but the politics of food in the name of controlling disease. A part of the problem is that so little is known of the spread and danger of such diseases that it is difficult to set up reasonable regulations.

Fair trade is an ideal that good governments relentlessly pursue, with recognition of the limits to which it can be achieved. When a sector of industry suffers because of unanticipated and uncontrollable change, responsible governments come to the aid of the individuals affected as best they can. There is always a tendency for governments to seek retention of power as their first interest. When pursuit of power becomes a priority over pursuit of justice, the distress of those victimized by economic changes goes unaddressed. The beginning of the kingdom of Solomon is an example of wise and supportive administration for the citizens of the nation. But as so often happens with governments, the high ideals with which they begin is lost; the kingdom of Solomon exemplifies this hazard.

Wisdom is knowledge of how to live with other people and how to live in harmony with the world of nature. These two kinds of knowledge are the basis of getting on well in this world. Living in harmony with the world of nature is a continuing challenge. The “green revolution” has enabled the production of food many times beyond what previous generations could have imagined. It has also endangered plant species and polluted or dried up water supplies. The development of energy has been a vast resource, but there is the constant threat that demand will outstrip supply or that the consumption of energy will alter the earth so it becomes a much less hospitable place for human existence.

Wisdom of how to live with people is an even greater challenge. Conflict and violence are part of social relations from the smallest units of society to the largest: homes, communities, nations, and between nations. The ideals of Solomon’s wisdom and administration are rightly remembered as the goal to which every society must strive.

Original Meaning

The District Governors (4:7–20)

THE DISTRICTS OF Solomon’s administration are defined according to tribal territory and groups of cities. This is the only administrative document pertaining to the official organization of the kingdom. Certain other lists exist within the biblical narrative as boundary descriptions and rosters of towns. There is much disagreement about the degree of authenticity to be found in such documents. Since the time of Alt this list in Kings has been regarded as an official administrative document of ancient Israel,7 but it has recently been challenged by Ash as “the product of an oral/scribal transmission which selected, abbreviated, and garbled its source(s).”8

There are other comparable documents from this time that can serve as a basis for comparison with this list of Solomon’s reign.9 Some of these have a similar structure with a list of personal names of a governor, each followed by one or more place names.10 Others begin each line with a number, sometimes referring to persons, houses, grain, horses, sheep, donkeys, or quantities of silver. Several features of these lists parallel the list of Solomon’s governors. An introduction defines the contents of the list and designates the individuals listed; it is followed by a series of entries with a personal name and a place name, and finally there is a concluding entry distinctive from all its predecessors.

There are also other administrative lists that form part of a larger document. Solomon’s list is typical of other archival sources. It is distinctive in including notes about spouses and descriptions of additional territories. The administrative list in Kings has been incorporated into the narrative to show how the practical prudence of Solomon brings satisfaction to his citizens (4:20).

Five of the twelve names given in Solomon’s list have the simple form “son of” (“Ben”), six others have a name followed by “son of” with a further identification. Only Ahimaaz (4:15) lacks any complementary element. These name forms are typical of those in other West Semitic name lists.11 The element following “son of” may be a nickname, a tribal or national identity, or a place of origin. The form of these names does not provide any information about the social status of the individual.

Twelve individuals are named as governors over districts in northern Israel, but the text is uncertain. Judah is named as having a governor in the Greek text (4:19b),12 which seems to be the intended meaning of the Hebrew text (RSV). Alternately, Judah is left out of the list altogether, and the concluding phrase of verse 19 is applied to Geber as the “only governor” of Gilead (NIV).13 It is possible that Judah was regarded as a district using the expression “in the land” to describe the home territory.14 It is more likely that the name Judah has been accidentally omitted (haplography), since the next verse begins with Judah. Judah is required as a twelfth district to provide for each of the months of the year (v. 7). The governor of Judah is not named.

The division of Israel into districts for political purposes is according to geographical areas that traditionally formed agricultural, social, and ethnic units.15 It is most probable that Solomon follows and reorganizes David’s district system.

District 1 (v. 8) is the mountainous region of Ephraim, just north of Bethel and east to the Jordan Valley between Jericho and Jokmeam.

District 2 (v. 9) borders on the Mediterranean just north of Philistine territory and south of the Yarkon River (just north of Joppa); it was populated by Philistine and Canaanite clans who had no real connection to the mountain peoples.

District 3 (v. 10) is the coastal area north of the Yarkon, the Sharon plain. Only Socoh in the center of Sharon can be certainly identified. In ancient times this area was heavily forested with swamps on the coast and was not densely populated.

District 4 (v. 11) is the coastal area south of Carmel; the city of Dor was one of Solomon’s few ports on the Mediterranean.

The boundaries of District 5 (v. 12) cannot be precisely determined. It included Megiddo on the west side and the Jordan Valley to the south of Beth Shean. It consisted of lowlands and valleys that formed a geographical and economic unit.

District 6 (v. 13) is in Transjordan in the area of Gilead and north into Bashan; this territory extended to the areas under the control of Damascus.

District 7 (v. 14) is in the Transjordan south of the Jabbok River down to the area north of the Heshbon Plateau. Mahanaim was on the border between Manasseh and Gad (Josh. 13:30), indicating that this district included the middle and southern settlements.

District 8 (v. 15) is the northern tribal territory of Naphtali, extending to the sources of the Jordan. It included the famous fortress of Hazor.

District 9 is western Galilee, the territory of Asher (v. 16). It originally included Acco in the southern plain, the territory Solomon later gave to Hiram of Tyre as payment.

District 10 (v. 17) is the territory of Issachar, including the central and eastern part of the Jezreel Valley, the southeastern hills of Galilee, and probably the northern part of the Jordan Valley.

District 11 (v. 18) is the district of Benjamin in the south, a pre-Israelite political unity that by the time of Saul included the Gibeonite cities. Verse 19 describes the Transjordan territory of the old Amorite kingdoms of Sihon and Og, the territory already named in District 6.16 This district organization is distinct from the tribal system, which may have been the result of the geographical organization of various clan groups.

The district governors are to levy taxes and make provision for king and court (4:7). One of their duties is to provide the royal court with food and the draft animals with fodder (4:27–28). They also assist the official responsible for the forced labor (v. 6), required for the king’s projects. Each governor is assigned one month in the year so that no period of time is missed. It is often assumed that the officers worked on a twelve month calendar, each taking a month in turn, but this is not explicit. Each of the districts varies considerably in their potential to provide tribute, so it is unlikely that they provide equal services and goods. The divisions reflect social and political realities of tribes and territories that provided a reasonable division for administration and obligation, resulting in satisfaction for everyone (v. 20). Details of obligations are not given, so it is impossible to know how the various territories are taxed.

Provisions for the Kingdom (4:21–28)