Ch. 1 Kings 10:1-13. The Queen of Sheba’s visit to King Solomon (2 Chronicles 9:1-12)

1. Now when the queen of Sheba heard] The ‘Sheba’, of which the queen is here mentioned, was that part of Arabia spoken of in the note on the last verse of the preceding chapter. It embraced the greater part of Arabia Felix. Josephus and many Jewish writers represent her as the queen of Egypt and Ethiopia, making שׁבא (Sheba) the same as סבא (Seba), and this tradition is firmly rooted among the Abyssinians (i.e. Ethiopians), but there is no ground at all for identifying Sheba with the Ethiopian kingdom of Seba. Moreover the presents which the queen brought with her bespeak the land from which she came. They are Arabian, certainly not African.

concerning the name of the Lord] From the expressions so frequent in chap. 8. about ‘a house built for the name of the Lord God of Israel’ (see 1 Kings 8:17-20; 1 Kings 8:29; 1 Kings 8:35; 1 Kings 8:43-44; 1 Kings 8:48) we may be sure that wherever the grand building was mentioned, there would be heard something about the name of Him to whose honour it was built. In like manner, at an earlier date, the people of Israel were known among other nations ‘because of the name of the Lord.’ See Joshua 9:9, where the Gibeonites say ‘we have heard the fame of Him, and all that He did in Egypt.’ Through caravans travelling hither and thither there can be little doubt that knowledge of Solomon’s works was widely spread, and communication with the Sabæans was a matter of no great difficulty. In the parallel passage (2 Chronicles 9:1) there is nothing said about ‘the name of the Lord’; the LXX. has ‘she had heard the name of Solomon and the name of the Lord.’

Some interpreters take the expression ‘concerning the name of the Lord’ to signify that the wisdom which Solomon had was derived from the Lord, and this made him famous. Some countenance is given to this opinion by the questions wherewith the queen essayed to test his wisdom, but it does not so well connect itself with ‘the name.’

she came to prove him with hard questions] Josephus (Ant. viii. 6. 5) says ‘she could not trust to hearsay, for the report might have been built upon false judgement, and might change, as it depended solely upon the persons who brought it.’ The ‘proving with hard questions’ recalls the story of Samson’s riddle (Jdg 14:12). The giving of such riddles was not an uncommon pastime among the ancients, and we have specimens among the Greeks, who called them γρῖφοι. Cf. Aristoph. Vesp. 20, and especially Athenæus 10. 69–78, where the author gives an account of the various kinds of riddles, and later in chap. 83 gives specimens of them. The Arabs were specially given to this kind of amusement, and we find in Josephus (Ant. viii. 5. 3) an account of a contest of wit of this nature between Hiram and Solomon, and he reports, on the authority of Dios, that a reason for Hiram’s large payments to Solomon was that he had been beaten in the encounter and unable to solve the riddles propounded. The queen of Sheba came prepared with a series of such difficulties. Josephus says she came λῦσαι τὸ ἄπορον τῆς διανοίας δεηθεῖσα, which would indicate more than mere subtle questions among the inquiries which she made. It does not follow, however, that her difficulties were of a religious character, though this has been inferred from Matthew 12:42.

2. spices] For which Arabia has always been famous.

3. there was not any thing hid from the king, which he told her not] i.e. Nothing was too deep for him in all she asked, he discovered the correct answer and gave it to her.

4. the house that he had built] This refers to his own palace, as is evident from the domestic details which immediately follow.

5. the sitting of his servants] Here ‘servants’ signifies the officers and distinguished persons who were privileged to sit at the king’s table, and were ranged according to rank and in large numbers at the royal banquets.

the attendance of his ministers] This refers most probably to those persons who stood to serve the guests. The Hebrew word rendered ‘attendance’ is literally ‘standing.’ See A.V. marg.

and his ascent by which he went up unto the house of the Lord] This passage is rendered by the light of the parallel place in 2 Chronicles 9:4. There the word ועליתו does mean ‘and his ascent’, but here the text gives ועלתו, which should be rendered ‘and his burnt offering.’ So that the margin of the R.V. (which is also accepted by Luther, Coverdale and the Geneva Bible) is correct for this verse, ‘and his burnt offering which he offered in the house of the Lord.’ If she had been present at a great sacrifice in the Temple it would doubtless have impressed her much. But it is possible that the scribe in one of these verses made a small error, and that they ought both to be the same. In that case we must decide whether it is more probable that after a list such as has gone before, about meat, servants, attendants, cupbearers, &c., there would follow some mention of a part of the building, a covered way or staircase by which the Temple could be reached from the king’s palace, or a description of a solemn act of religious worship. Most people will be inclined to agree that the A.V. and R.V. have exercised a correct judgement in disregarding the text here, and interpreting by the light of the verse in 2 Chron. The R.V. has however added the rendering of the Massoretic text on the margin, which had not been done in A.V.

The LXX. here gives ‘the burnt offering,’ τὴν ὁλοκαύτωσιν, but its rendering in 2 Chronicles 9:4 is the same τὰ ὁλοκαυτώματα, where certainly the present Hebrew text should be translated ‘his ascent.’ Apparently the Greek translators regarded the verse before us as the true reading.

there was no more spirit in her] Apparently the queen had come with some hope that she might get the better of Solomon, either in her display of queenly splendour, or in the questions which she propounded. What she found was so far in excess of what she had expected, that all thought of comparison of herself with Solomon’s state was gone, and she was lost in admiration. For the expression cf. Joshua 5:1.

6. of thy acts] The word may mean ‘sayings,’ as is represented on the margins of A. V. and R.V. But as she had seen all the king’s state, as well as listened to his answers, it seems better to refer this word to the buildings and other splendour; for the admiration of the king’s wisdom is expressed in the next words.

7. thy wisdom and prosperity exceedeth the fame] This is a good idiomatic representation of the Hebrew, which is literally ‘thou hast added wisdom and goodness to the fame &c.’ The ‘goodness’ here spoken of includes all material prosperity. Cf. Job 2:10, where the same word stands in the original, ‘Shall we receive good (i.e. such prosperity as Job had previously enjoyed) at the hand of God and shall we not receive evil?’ See also Psalm 104:28.

8. Happy are thy men] The LXX. reads here μακάριαι αἱ γυναῖκές σου, having read נשׁיך ‘thy wives’ instead of אנשׁיך ‘thy men.’ The Syriac and Arabic versions have the same variation.

9. Blessed be the Lord thy God] We need not suppose from the use of this language that the queen had become a convert to Judaism, any more than that Hiram was so from the words put into his mouth above in chap. 1 Kings 5:7. It could not matter, in the mind of the heathen queen, whether she included one divinity more or less in the number of those she honoured. To her, Jehovah was for Israel what her own divinity was for her own people, the national god to whom the prosperity of the king and his subjects had been a special care.

to set thee on the throne of Israel] In 2 Chronicles 9:8 the sentence runs ‘to set thee on His throne, to be king for the Lord thy God.’ This turn of the sentence harmonizes entirely with the tone of the Chronicler, who views everywhere the king as Jehovah’s representative and vicegerent.

The LXX. expands the closing words of the verse, but not in such wise as to change the sense.

10. And she gave the king an hundred and twenty talents of gold] Large presents of this nature are still the rule among Oriental princes when they visit one another. Josephus however, contrary to his wont, has a less sum here, making the gift only ‘twenty talents’ (Ant. viii. 6, 6). According to our text, the queen’s present was the same as that which Hiram gave (see above 1 Kings 9:14).

there came no more such abundance of spices] Josephus adds to this statement ‘and they say that the root of the opobalsamum (i.e. the balsam tree), which our land still produces, came to us among her gifts.’

And the navy also of Hiram] This verse and the next are a parenthetic insertion, brought in by the mention of the spices in the previous verse. Hiram’s fleet went to distant parts, and in the direction of Sheba, but for all that it brought back no such spicery among its imports. This navy is no doubt the same which was spoken of in the previous chapter (1 Kings 9:26-28). It is called Hiram’s because he supplied the wood for building it, and the sailors for its manning.

great plenty of almug trees] The name is spelt in the text of Chronicles ‘algum’ (2 Chronicles 2:8; 2 Chronicles 9:10-11), and is probably a word adopted from the language of the country where the wood was produced, and about the spelling of which Hebrew writers were not very sure, as Englishmen were not in former days about tea, which may be found spelt ‘tcha.’ What the wood was is a question of some difficulty. It was clearly an imported article, for what is said 2 Chronicles 2:8, ‘Send me algum trees out of Lebanon,’ must be understood not of trees growing there, but of wood which the Tyrians procured in their trade, and would send along with the timber which grew on Lebanon. The Rabbinical writers use almug for coral, and if this be an old Hebrew word, it may have been applied to these trees, because of the colour of their wood. But about the antiquity of the word we have no evidence. Most moderns incline to the opinion that sandal-wood is intended, though some, considering the words of 2 Chronicles 2:8 to imply a tree grown on Lebanon, prefer to regard it as a kind of cedar or cypress. Evidently the LXX. had no light on the subject, the renderings there given being πελεκητὰ (or ἀπελέκητα) and πεύκινα. The Vulgate renders it thyina, the wood of the θυία, which is akin to the Arbor vitœ. Some of the uses to which it was put, as mentioned in the next verse, seem to require a stouter material than sandal-wood.

Josephus (Ant. viii. 7, i) calls the trees ξύλα πεύκινα, but says it was unlike the wood which went by the name of pine in his day. ‘Let no one suppose,’ he says, ‘that this wood was like that called pine wood now, and which sellers call so for the bewilderment of buyers. The wood spoken of here resembles the wood of the fig tree, but is whiter and glitters more.’

12. pillars for the house of the Lord] The noun signifies ‘a prop,’ and it may be that some ornamental work like that indicated in the margin of the R.V. ‘a railing’ is intended. It was some later addition, not any part of the fabric, which was already completed. In the parallel place of 2 Chron. (1 Kings 9:11) there is a different word in the Hebrew, and one usually applied to a ‘highway.’ Both A. V. and R.V. have ‘terraces’ in that passage. If we combine the two narratives it may be that what is intended is a staircase with handrail and balustrade. The former word would suit in Chronicles, where A. V. has ‘stairs’ on the margin, and the latter here.

for singers] The word is definite, the singers. Cf. Ecclesiastes 2:8.

almug trees] Here the LXX. adds ‘unto the land,’ and the thought is perhaps of the things brought by the fleet of Hiram. In all their voyages they could not find the like.

13. besides that which Solomon gave her of his royal bounty] The Hebrew is literally ‘beside that which he gave to her according to the hand of king Solomon.’ For the phrase ‘according to the hand’ signifying ‘after the liberality’ compare Esther 1:7; Esther 2:18, where the same Hebrew is translated ‘according to the state of the king,’ i.e. ‘according to his bounty’ where the narrative relates to a magnificent feast, and presents given to the guests. In the parallel passage (2 Chronicles 9:12) we have ‘beside that which she had brought unto the king,’ which is very difficult to make any sense of.

14–29. Solomon’s revenue, his magnificence and his traffic (2 Chronicles 9:13-24)

14. six hundred threescore and six talents of gold] Taking the gold shekel at the value of £2, and 3000 shekels in one talent, the sum here spoken of would amount to nearly four millions of our money, which for the time of Solomon appears a very enormous revenue, especially when there are additions to be made to it, such as those spoken of in 1 Kings 10:15; 1 Kings 10:22; 1 Kings 10:25. There can be no doubt that Solomon was one of the wealthiest monarchs in the East at that date. But the taxation must have been crushing, and with all this Oriental splendour and luxury there was rottenness within. Solomon was the Jewish Louis 14.

15. beside that he had of the merchantmen] There are two kinds of traders specified in this verse, and the participle here used to describe the first signifies ‘those who go about’ with their goods, hawkers of their wares, which is a general characteristic of Oriental traffickers. Hence in R.V. the word chapmen has been adopted, and the clause a little differently worded. Literally it is, ‘beside (what came) from the men of the hawkers,’ and this is represented by ‘beside that which the chapmen brought,’ though the literal rendering shews that ‘brought’ might fairly have been printed in Roman and not in italics. The LXX. gives, apparently having read some other words in the original, ‘from the tribute of the subject people.’

and of the traffick of the spice merchants] A mistaken identification of the word descriptive of this second class of traders with a Syrian noun which means ‘a dealer in aromatic herbs’ has led to the rendering ‘spice merchants.’ The word merely implies another class of merchants, but whether more or less dignified than the former it is not easy to make out. The LXX. renders by ἒμπορος here and elsewhere, and gives here ‘the taxes on the merchants’. Render (as there is no preposition with this clause) and the traffick of the merchants.

and of all the kings of Arabia] R.V. ‘and of all the kings of the mingled people.’ The word in the original, though it has the same consonants, has not the same vowels as the proper name. In this text we have הָעֶרֶב, while the other word is עֲרַב = Arabia. That the two are distinct designations is proved by Jeremiah 25:24, where both occur in the same verse, ‘all the kings of Arabia and all the kings of the mingled people.’ The word in our text is used very early in the history of Israel (Exodus 12:38) of ‘the mixed multitude’ which came up with the Israelites out of Egypt, and afterwards of people who were in a sort of loose attachment to the kingdom. (Cf. Jeremiah 1:3-7.) In the parallel passage (2 Chronicles 9:14) the Hebrew text has the ‘kings of Arabia,’ but the form of the sentence is somewhat altered, and the close connexion of the two sets of persons in the verse already quoted from Jeremiah makes it not unlikely that both were under a sort of tribute to Solomon. The LXX. has τῶν βασιλέων τοῦ πέραν, but the Vulgate ‘reges Arabiæ.’

and of the governors of the country] Most likely those officers are meant whose positions were described 1 Kings 4:7-19. After the Oriental fashion such persons would pay for their posts by regular tribute to the king.

16. two hundred targets of beaten gold] The ‘targets’ here spoken of appear, from the gold consumed in them, to have been much larger than the ‘shields’ mentioned in the next verse. Both the names imply ‘protection,’ ‘covering,’ but give us no clue to their form. The LXX. makes these ‘targets’ three hundred in number, and gives three hundred shekels of gold to each.

six hundred shekels of gold] It was not unusual in Hebrew where it was well known what word ought to be supplied to omit the word ‘shekels’ as is done here. So Genesis 24:22; Exodus 30:23. No Englishman misunderstands such an expression as ‘three hundred a year.’

17. three pound of gold went to one shield] The word rendered pound here is ‘maneh,’ and according to the parallel passage (2 Chronicles 9:16) is equal to ‘one hundred shekels.’ There is no sufficient data for settling the value of these weights in terms of our English standards, but such computations as seem most trustworthy make the maneh equal to about 2½ lbs. The addition of three such maneh of gold to a shield need not make it unwieldy. Of course the gold was only the external covering, not the whole fabric of the shields, though Josephus says the king cast (ἐχώνευσε) these targets and shields of the precious metal.

in the house of the forest of Lebanon] On this see above 1 Kings 7:2. These golden shields were probably only used on grand occasions, and when not in use were suspended against the numerous pillars in the royal armoury, for which purpose the house of the forest of Lebanon appears to have been built. The shields were carried away in the succeeding reign by Shishak king of Egypt (1 Kings 14:26) and brazen ones were made by Rehoboam to be put in their place.

18. a great throne of ivory] Like Ahab’s ivory house, mentioned later on (1 Kings 22:39), the throne was no doubt only inlaid with ivory, in such a way that where the gold did not cover the framework there the ivory appeared. And we may suppose that the ivory was a very conspicuous part of the structure, or else the throne would not be called from it.

with the best gold] R.V. ‘finest gold.’ The Hebrew participle (which occurs in no other place) is from a root which signifies ‘to refine,’ ‘to purge.’ Hence the rendering of R.V. is preferable. The Hebrew word is ‘muphaz,’ and the excessive rarity of its occurrence has led some to conjecture that the reading here ought to be as in Jeremiah 10:9 ‘ma-uphaz,’ i.e. ‘from Uphaz.’ Uphaz is thought to be a later form of the word Ophir. It is found also in Daniel 10:5. But though the participle in the text is rare, there is a cognate word of frequent occurrence, meaning ‘fine gold,’ so that we need not doubt about the sense in this passage.

19. And the top of the throne was round behind] The word ‘top’ is literally ‘head,’ and points to some erection in the nature of a canopy or baldachino. The roundness here spoken of might either be from the sides of the back being curved inward as they rose up, or from the canopy being arched from behind. This portion of the description is omitted in 2 Chronicles 9:18, but there is added, what we have not here, that ‘a footstool of gold’ was joined to the throne. Josephus omits all mention of the throne, and the LXX. has προτομαὶ μόσχων, i.e. ‘heads (projections) of calves,’ having taken צָנוֹל = ‘round’ as if it were עֵנֶל ‘a calf.’

21. all king Solomon’s drinking vessels] The LXX. here leaves out the defining word, merely putting σκεύη = vessels, but adds afterwards, what has nothing to represent it in our Hebrew, καὶ λουτῆρες χρυσοῖ, ‘and golden la vers.’

22. For the king had at sea a navy of Tharshish] i.e. Of ships such as were used in the trade with Tarshish (cf. 1 Kings 22:48). These would probably be of the largest build then possible. Tarshish is most likely Tartessus in the south of Spain, with which place the Tyrians had considerable trade, and it is not difficult to understand how such a class of traffic would give a name to the vessels that bore it, just as we say now ‘an East Indiaman.’ Josephus explains the name by saying they were ships which plied ἐν τῇ Ταρσικῇ λεγομένῃ θαλάττῃ ‘in the Tarsic sea as it is called.’ But it is clear that the articles brought in Solomon’s fleet could not be found in the country about Tartessus, except perhaps some gold. It is better therefore to understand the name as derived from the character of the craft rather than from the place to which they sailed.

once in three years came the navy] The voyage here alluded to was most likely the voyage to Ophir mentioned in 1 Kings 9:28. The time consumed between voyage and voyage would be partly spent in loading and unloading, and in traffic at the various marts at which the fleet touched. Josephus explains that the things brought were procured by barter, though neither he nor the text tells us what was taken in the fleet when the voyage commenced.

ivory, and apes, and peacocks] The words used for the two first of these are most likely of Sanskrit origin, the second entirely, the first in part; and as peacocks are natives of India these names point to India as the source from which Solomon’s imports were drawn. Whether the ships visited India or collected their cargoes on the coasts of Arabia and in the Persian Gulf it is not easy to decide. The time occupied is enough for even a ship of that period to have coasted round India.

In the LXX. after 1 Kings 10:22 is inserted great part of the substance of that long omission noticed above from 1 Kings 10:15-25, in chapter 9; though there is no mention made of Pharaoh’s expedition against Gezer, nor of the daughter of Pharaoh coming out of Zion to dwell in the house built for her, nor of Solomon’s sacrifices thrice in the year.

24. And all the earth sought to Solomon] In 2 Chronicles 9:23 the words are ‘and all the kings of the earth sought the presence of Solomon,’ and, as the Hebrew of the last words is the same as here, the fuller form will be better in this verse as it comes more close to the original. The LXX., the Syriac and Arabic, have ‘all the kings of the earth.’

25. they brought every man his present] After the fashion in royal visits, but the close of the verse indicates that these gifts were from tributaries and came in at fixed times.

vessels of silver] These do not appear in the LXX., which also omits any notice of ‘armour,’ and for ‘spices’ gives στακτὴ καὶ ἡδύσματα.

garments] Changes of raiment formed a very common gift in the East, and were highly valued. Josephus describes those given to Solomon as ἁλουργεῖς ἐσθῆτες, ‘purple-dyed garments,’ perhaps because Tyre was famous for such dyeing.

26. And Solomon gathered together chariots and horsemen] By reason, as Josephus tells us, of the great number of horses which were brought to him in these yearly offerings. The word פרשׁ (parash) here rendered ‘horsemen’ means both the horse for riding and the rider. Just as we speak of so many hundred ‘horse’. סוס (sus) on the other hand was the draught horse.

Here we find the first institution of cavalry in Israel in defiance of the Deuteronomic law. If this book was compiled after Deuteronomy was written we should expect some reference to this violation. There is such a reference about another matter in 1 Kings 11:2.

a thousand and four hundred chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen] The LXX. gives for the first clause ‘four thousand mares for his chariots,’ which agrees as far as the number is concerned with 2 Chronicles 9:25, ‘four thousand stalls for horses and chariots’: though in 2 Chronicles 1:14 we have precisely the same number both of chariots and horsemen specified as is given here.

at Jerusalem] After this the LXX. adds ‘and he was chief over all the kings from the River even unto the land of the Philistines and to the borders of Egypt.’

27. silver] Here the LXX. has ‘gold and silver,’ and so too in the parallel passage 2 Chronicles 9:27, and where the passage is inserted 2 Chronicles 1:15 the LXX. reads τὸ ἀργύριον καὶ τὸ χρυσίον.

in the vale] The word (Shefelah) here rendered ‘vale’ is the name of that low-lying part of Palestine which stretches westward from the mountains of Judah to the Mediterranean (cf. Joshua 9:1; Joshua 12:8). The R.V. has always distinguished this as the lowland. It was a district fertile and specially well-wooded. The Hebrew word though at first only descriptive, became at last a proper name ‘Sephela.’ See 1Ma 12:38.

28. And Solomon had horses brought out of Egypt] The first clause of the verse ends here according to the Hebrew punctuation, and this appears to be a general statement, of which the particulars are given in what follows. But the literal rendering is ‘and the export of horses which was to Solomon (was) from Egypt;’ and this the R.V. represents by And the horses which Solomon had were brought out of Egypt.

and linen yarn] The word (מקוה) mikveh so translated, is derived from a verb which implies ‘a stringing together,’ and a kindred noun (תקוה) tikvah, is used (Joshua 2:18) for the line of scarlet cord which Rahab was ordered to bind in her window. From this connexion the rendering of the A.V. is derived. But the word in the text is used for gathering together in other senses, and here seems to be intended for ‘a string of horses,’ which sense the R.V. has represented by ‘a drove.’ The word occurs twice over and must have the same sense in both places of the same verse. The whole is rendered in R.V. and the king’s merchants received them in droves, each drove at a price. The Hebrew pointing represents the word מקוה in a form which may be considered in construction, though it need not necessarily be so. Hence some have given a double meaning to the word, referringit in the first place to the caravan of merchants, and only in the second place to the string of horses. The rendering then would be ‘And a company of the king’s merchants received a (each) drove of horses at a price.’ But it appears harsh to give two senses to the same word in the same verse.

What appears to be meant is that the king’s representatives dealt wholesale with the Egyptian breeders, contracting to take so many horses for a stipulated sum; afterwards they brought the droves away, and disposed of them, as retailers, and hence secured for king Solomon a considerable revenue by the profits.

The Vulgate takes the word ‘Mikveh’ ‘a drove’ as being a proper name preceded by a preposition, and renders ‘and from Coa.’ The LXX. has done something of the same kind, but has taken the word as ‘Tekoa’ καὶ ἐκ Θεκουέ.

29. And a chariot] The word is used (Exodus 14:25; Joshua 11:6; Joshua 11:9, &c.) for a ‘chariot employed in war,’ and that is probably the sense here. These also Solomon’s merchants supplied from Egypt, and in this verse we have the notice of their retail trade. It may be that these traders did not pay to the king according to their profits, but paid him a duty for the privilege of trading; but this does not appear.

The Hebrew word for ‘shekels’ is omitted here as in 1 Kings 10:16 above. See note there.

for all the kings of the Hittites] The Hittites were divided into numerous small kingdoms, situated in the country between the Euphrates on one side and Hamath and Damascus on the other. Their two chief cities were Carchemish and Kadesh. In the early times some Hittite settlements were made in southern Palestine, and we read of these people in the days of the patriarchs (Genesis 26:34, &c.).

and for the kings of Syria] Syria (Heb. Aram) is the name given in the Old Test. to all the country north-east of Phœnicia and extending beyond the Euphrates and Tigris. Sometimes the term includes the Hittite country. Mesopotamia is distinguished (Genesis 24:10; Deuteronomy 23:5, &c.) as Aram-Naharaim (i.e. Syria of the two rivers), and is sometimes called Padan-Aram (Genesis 25:20). Other portions were known by distinctive names, as Aram-Maachah (1 Chronicles 19:6), Arambeth-Rehob (2 Samuel 10:6), Aram-Zobah (2 Samuel 10:6; 2 Samuel 10:8). It was for the princes of these districts that Solomon’s merchants brought up horses and chariots from Egypt. All these small kingdoms became afterwards subject to Damascus.

by their means] Literally ‘in their hand.’ That is, these merchants were the agents through whom the various princes obtained their supplies. In 2 Chronicles 9:28 it is not only from Egypt, but from all lands, that horses for Solomon’s trade were brought, but 2 Chronicles 1:16-17 is word for word the same as the account in this chapter.