The Pulpit Commentary — 1 Kings — Section 74

ministers, officers. Cf. 2 Se.m. viii. 15-18, considere.tions : (1) All the versions tranf' • e.nd xx. 23-26] which he had, Aza.rta.h the late the word by "priest," i.e., they under- son [i.e., deBCende.nt, probe.bly grandaon. stand by the term a. spiritual person. (2) See on 1 Chron. vi. 10] of Zadok the priest. ~a.tever may be the case with Jtl!l, [We e.re here confronted by two questions !D::liJ, "the priest" (par excelunce) can only of considerable difficulty. First, to whom does the title " priest " here belong, to be understood of the Mgh priest (eh. i. 8, Azarie.h or to Zadok? Second, what are 38; Exod. :uix. 30; Lev. ::.xi. 21; 2 Kings we_ to understand by the term, a spiritual, xi. 9, 15 ; :uii. 4, 8, 10, 12, 14. Comp. or a more or less secula.r person-iep£11t or 2 Chron. xxvi. 17),. (3) It is extremely f3ov"-wrfi,? As to 1, the Vulgate (sacerdctis) doubtful whether li]::l is ever used except in encl apparently the Authorized Version, with the sense of iepro,. Rawlinson, who says it the Babbins, Luther, and many later ex- sometimes indicates " a civil officer, with pounders, connect the title with Zadok (who perhaps a. semi-priestly character," refers to is mentioned as priest in ver. 4), and under- Gesenius sub hac voce, who, however, dis- stand that Azariah, the son of the high tinctly affirms that the word only means priest Zadok, was, together with the sons of priest, and accounts for the application of the Shisha, one of the scribes (ver, 3). It is term to the sons of De.vid (2 Sam. viii. 18) true that this view obviates some difficulties, on the supposition that the Jews had priests but against it are these considerations. (1) who were not of the tribe of Levi. The The accents. (2) The Chaldee and LXX. question is discussed with great learning by (o iEpro, Cod. AleL; Cod. Vat. omits the Professor Plumptre (Diet. Bib., a.rt." Priest"), words) Versions. (3) Hebrew usage, e.ocord- who suggests that "David e.nd his sons may ing to which the patronymic is regarded have been admitted, not to distinctively e.s almost parenthetical. (4) The fact that priestly functions, such as burning incense in every other case in this list the title is (Numb. xvi. 40; 2 Chron. xxvi. 18), but to predicate nominative (vers. 3-6). (5) The an honorary, titular priesthood. To wear position of Azariah's name, first in the list the ephod in processions (2 Sam. vi. 1'1) at -a position which would hardly be assigned the time when this we.a the special badge of to a scribe. (G) The absence of any copula the order (1 Sam. xxii 18), to join the (\), which, it is submitted, would be required priests and Levites in their songs and if Azariah and the sons of Shisha. a.like were dances, might ha.,e been conceded, with scribes. The question is one of some nicety, no deviation from the Law, to the mem- but the balance of evidence is distinctly in fav- bers of the royal house." There is one our of connecting the title with Azaria.h, i.e., difficulty however in the way of accepting "Azariah son of Za.dok was the priest." this ingenious and otherwise sufficient ex- This brings us to 2. Whe.t a.re we to under- planation, ne.mely, that it seems hardly stnnd by "the priest "-Jtl!liJ? It is urged likely that the title of priest would be freely accorded by Hebrew writers to men who by Keil, Biihr, al. the.t this ce.nnot mean were expressly excluded from e.11 "distinc- " priest " in the ordinary sense of the word, tively priestly functions," especia.lly after still less " high priest,'' for the following the use of the same word in the preceding reasons: (1) Because the high priests of verse (17) to designate the high priest. And Solomon are mentioned presently, viz., I venture to suggest that the discharge by Abio.thar and Ze.dok, and the Jews never De.vid's sons of the semi-priestly functions had three high priests. (2) Because tha just referred to occasioned so much remark Azariah who was high priest under Solo- as to lead to the e.pplication of the term mon-for the words of 1 Chron. vi. 10, "He "priest" to them in a. special conventional it is that executed the priest's office," &c,, sense ; in fa.et, that it became a sort of must belong to the Asa.ria.h of ver. 9, e.nd soubriquet, which rather implied that they have got accidentally misplaced-was the were not priests the.n that they were. (Notice son of Ahimaaz, not of Za.dok. (3) Be- the order of 2 Se.m. viii. 18, Heh.) Ancl ce.use no grandson of Zadok could then be old observe (4), if we a.re to understand by "the enough to sustain the office of high priest. priest" 10 ver. 2, " prime minister ; " by (4) Because in one pe.ssa.ge (2 Sam. viii. 18, "priests" in ver. 4, "high priests," and compe.red with 1 Chron. xvtii. 17) C')Q!l ie by "priest" in ver 5, "principal officer," used of privy councillors and of the sons of la.QgUage ha.a no certain meaning. (5) The David, who ce.nnot have been sacrificing mention of Aza.riah a.a " the priest " in the priests, Keil oonsequently would under- same list with Za.dok and Abiathar is ensily st!Lild the.t Azariah we.a "administrator of accounted for, We know that Abiathar was the kingdom, or prime minister." Simi- deposed at the beginning of Solomon's reign larly Biihr. But in favour of the ordinary (eh. ii. 27), and Zadok must then have been meaning of the word a.re these powerful an old man. Their names consequently a.ro 68 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [OB. IV. 1-19,