Verse 1. - The parallel shows very little variation on this narrative. In its first verse it adds the words (Authorized Version), "concerning the Name of the Lord" (i.e. "to the glory of God"), after the words, the fame of Solomon. Sheba. This was the name of a descendant of Cush, a Hamite (Genesis 10:7; 1 Chronicles 1:9); also of a son of Joktan, a Shemite (Genesis 10:28; 1 Chronicles 1:22); also of a son of Jokshan, Abraham's son by Keturah (Genesis 25:3; 1 Chronicles 1:32). It is quite uncertain who of these constituted, or preponderated in, the country of Sheba here referred to. This is probably Saba, the capital of Yemen, an important province of Arabia, west of the Red Sea, north of the Indian Ocean, and extending upward nearly to Idumaea. The city was reputed splendid, the country wealthy, and long as the most southerly inhabited part of the world. If it were, as is believed, first occupied by Cushites it was afterwards peopled also by Joktanites and Jokahanites, as above. In addition- to the two celebrated allusions to it, ever memorable, see as other references, Job 6:19; Psalm 72:10, 15; Isaiah 60:6; Jeremiah 6:20; Ezekiel 27:22, 23; Ezekiel 38:18; Matthew 12:42; Luke 11:31 (see also Smith's 'Bible Dictionary,' 3:1232). The hard questions consisted in riddles (Judges 14:2) and enigmas and primitive casuistry, in which the Arabians found some considerable portion of their mental gymnastics These, no doubt, bore some mild cousinly relationship to the proverbs and songs of Solomon, and his treasures of botanical and natural history facts (1 Kings 4:29-32). Spices; Hebrew, בְּשָׂמִים, here as also in the parallel. This word is used twenty-one times, and in a slightly varied form (as in the ninth verse of this same chapter) nine more times. It is almost always translated (Authorized Version) by this same word "spice" or "spices" (except Exodus 30:23; 2 Chronicles 16:14; Esther 2:12; Isaiah 3:24). There are other Hebrew words for "spices," such as נְכות (Genesis 37:25; Genesis 43:11), סַמִים (Exodus 30:7), רֶקַח (Song of Solomon 8:2; Ezekiel 24:10); but the "spice" or "spices" designated by our present word, and the exact name or nature of which cannot be certainly pronounced upon, was in great request for domestic, ecclesiastical, funeral (2 Chronicles 16:14), and other purposes, and was a chief export from Arabia, Syria, and Persia. Gold in abundance. Of course, it is not necessary to suppose that the gold that came either now from Sheba, or even from Ophir, was obtained from the immediate region; as seen before, there may have been a special market or emporium for them there. Precious stones. These were used for sacred purposes, and for domestic and dress ornaments, and were graven upon in early times by the Hebrews The chief of those mentioned in the Old Testament are the carbuncle, sardius, topaz (Exodus 39:10; Ezekiel 28:13), diamond, emerald, sapphire (Exodus 39:11); Ezekiel 28:13), agate, amethyst, ligure (Exodus 39:12), beryl, jasper, onyx (Genesis 2:12; Exodus 39:6, 13; Ezekiel 28:13), ruby (Job 28:18; Proverbs 3:15), chrysolite, chrysoprasus (Ezekiel 28:13). The precious stones which the queen brought are likely enough, however, to have comprised other varieties (including the pearl from the Persian Gulf), such as Pliny describes; and see in particular 1 Chronicles 29:2; Ezekiel 27:16; and the art. "Stones, Precious," in Smith's 'Bible Dictionary,' 3:1382. All that was in her heart. The expression simply means all that she had so desired to get information upon, since she had heard of the fame of Solomon.

Verse 2. - Nothing hid from Solomon; i.e. nothing obscure to him - no question knotty for Solomon.

Verse 4. - The meat of his table (see 1 Kings 4:22, 23). Translating our thoughts rather violently into modern language, we might picture the queen inspecting the kitchens of the palace, and remember that the kitchens of an Oriental court did the work, not of an individual "table," but of those of a very large domestic and official retinue; much more these of Solomon now. Keil and Bertheau, however, with others, refer this expression to the set-out of one meal-table (as e.g. that of a modern banquet, wedding breakfast, or the like), where both the abounding lading of the table and the ample variety of the courses, and the rich foreign or home fruits, in season or out of season, and the furnishing and decorating of the table, all come in to add their contribution of effect; and they quote not inaptly our ver. 20, elucidated by 1 Kings 10:21. This was a daily glory with Solomon's palace-establishment. The immediate connection and the contents of this verse, though difficult, favour this direction of explanation, as will be seen in the succeeding clauses. The sitting of his servants. The word here used (מושָׁב) occurs forty-three times, and is rendered in the Authorized Version thirty-two of these times as "habitation" or "dwelling." Of the remaining eleven times, one or other of those words would be almost the synonym of the word used, and in every ease the rendering "dwelling," if kept to the general idea of a dwelling or resting-place more or less temporary, would not be inappropriate or inconsistent with the evident drift of the connection; only here and in the parallel is the inconvenient rendering "sitting" adopted by the Authorized Version. Hence we disagree with Professor Dr. Murphy's explanation, the sitting, i.e. "in council of his chief officers." What the nature of the location (to use a term least specific) of the servants pointed to here is, nevertheless, still not quite clear. It is evidently placed in some antithesis with the standing (i.e. the standing-place) here rendered 'inadequately or incorrectly, the attendance of his ministers. The attendance, i.e. "the station (מַעֲמָד) (see the four other occurrences of this' word: 1 Kings 10:5; 1 Chronicles 23:28; 2 Chronicles 35:15; Isaiah 22:19). Of his ministers; Hebrew, מְשָׁרְתָיו, participle of a piel verb, שָׁרֵת. This word, in an amazing majority of the hundred occurrences of it, expresses ministry of sacred service of some kind. It may, indeed, be said that the present passage, with only one or two others, are doubtful in this meaning or character of explanation. To our next clause, referring to their apparel, we find in the parallel mention, as here, of the cupbearers, though the matter of their apparel is not included as it is here. Part of the difficulty of the verse arises from the consideration that up to this point the contents of the successive clauses of it may compose possibly enough a sharp graphic description of the daily banquet scene. An apt reference to similar description of Arabian banquets is given in the 'Speaker's Commentary ' as to be found in vol. it. pp. 213-215 of 'Ancient Monarchies.' Our next clause, however, brings us back into difficulty by its reference to Solomon's ascent by which he went up into the house of the Lord (1 Chronicles 26:16 with our Exposition, 'Pulpit Commentary'), apparently so unseasonably; nor are we much helped by reading, with the Septuagint, "the burnt offerings which he offered at the house of the Lord." The obscurity and lack of coherence are not formidable, indeed, and perhaps may be with moderate satisfaction set down again to the account of the occasionally careless selection of the compilers from the material of the older work. Possibly the allusion in our ver. 11 to the terraces, or stairs, or highways (see margin) to "the house of the Lord," and to the king's palace, may hold some clue to the ascent being adverted to here.

Verse 8. - The abstinence on the part of the queen in her mention of the Lord God of Israel, and of the Lord thy God, of any indication of a desire that he should become her God, is as suggestive as it is noticeable (compare Hiram's language in 2 Chronicles 2:12).

Verse 9. - An hundred and twenty talents of gold. Putting the value of gold at £4 per ounce, the value of one talent would be £5476, making a total of £657,120. Poole makes it £1,250,000; S. Clarke, f 720,000. From our vers. 13, 14 we learn that in one year Solomon received 666 talents, beside what merchants brought. Any such spice. The parallel has "no more such abundance of spices," and "of spices very great store." The Arabian spices, and their land and even sea borne fragrance, as also the very lucrative trade they created, are often alluded to by historians (see, among many others, Herod., 3:113; Diod., 3:46; Strabo, 16:4, § 19). Much of all this so-termed giving was evidently matter of exchange. The queen got quid pro quo, while ver. 13 of the parallel (1 Kings 10.) seems to speak of the other truer giving.

Verses 10, 11. - Either these two verses are misplaced (with their parallel, 1 Kings 10:11, 12), or they ought to have, though unstated, some occult bearing on the queen. There are some slight indications pointing to this, and the meaning is perhaps that the terraces, balustrades, stairs (which possibly is the idea in the "ascent," ver. 4), pillars, etc., made of the wood which Hiram's and Solomon's servants had formerly brought with gold, were the artificial-work wonders which helped to astound the queen. Terraces to the house of the Lord, and to the king's palace. These so rendered terraces were probably stairs, and, as already intimated, may have composed the "ascent" (ver. 4), and explain the mention of it in ver. 4. The algum trees. This is the Hebrew text order of the lamed and gimel alphabet characters, as the Authorized Version order in the parallel almug is also the order of its Hebrew. The tree is mentioned only six times - three times in Chronicles (2 Chronicles 2:8; 2 Chronicles 9:10, 11) and three times in Kings (1 Kings 10:11, 12). Apparently this wood did grow in Lebanon (2 Chronicles 2:8), though we think this not certain. Kimchi thinks it was the bukkum (Arabic word), which Europeans call Brazil wood, and which (Keil) was found in Ethiopia, as well as India. Some think it the sandal-wood of Malabar. Whatever it was, it no doubt was to be purchased at the emporium of Ophir. The intrinsic nature of the wood, and its intrinsically valuable nature, may easily be inferred from its use for the woodwork and sounding-board woodwork of musical instruments like the harp and psaltery. This fact would much incline to the view that the red sandal-wood is what is here called algum. The 'Speaker's Commentary' quotes Max Muller ('Lectures on Language,' 1st series, p. 191) for the statement that the vernacular for this wood in India is valguka. Harps... psalteries (see our Exposition on 2 Chronicles 5:12, and articles in Smith's 'Dictionary of the Bible,' and others. The sentence, there were none such seen in the land of Judah, may Be read as an indication that they had been part of the exhibition made to the Queen of Sheba.

Verse 12. - Beside that which she had brought unto the king. The parallel has not this obscure clause, but has, "beside that which Solomon gave her of his royal Bounty." Professor Dr. Murphy explains our clause as purporting to say this: Solomon gave all the queen's desire in the way of bounty, "beside" all that belonged as an equivalent for "what she had brought." She got so much sheer gift, beside all that, according to the then Eastern custom, was her due.

Verse 14. - Beside, etc. The preposition (In.) left both here and in the parallel, before the words "men of," etc., in the compound English word chapmen (Authorized Version), shows clearly the construction of this and the following sentence; from the previous verse needs to come the words, after our "beside," "the weight of gold which came," etc. This gold probably came by way of tax payments from the merchant travellers, and as tribute money from the kings of the part of Arabia where the blood was mingled, Jewish and Arabian, and not exclusively and independently Arabian (see the word used in place of our Arabian in the parallel, and Jeremiah 25:24), and from those governors (perhaps in some cases superseding older kings) of adjacent countries, that had become in some part tributary to Solomon. Governors. For this unusual and un-Hebrew word (פַחות) see Ezra 5:6; Haggai 1:1; Nehemiah 5:14. Gesenius mentions Turkish, Persian, and Sanscrit derivations that would well suit it. It is very noticeable that it is employed also by the writer of Kings. It is used of a ruler in the Assyrian empire (2 Kings 18:24; Isaiah 36:9), in the Chaldean (Ezekiel 23:6, 23; Jeremiah 51:23), in the Persian (Esther 8:9; Esther 9:3), specially of the Persian governor of Judaea (Haggai 1:1, 14; Haggai 2:2, 21; Nehemiah 5:14, 18; Nehemiah 12:26; Malachi 1:8); while Gesenius reads this passage in our present text and its parallel, to speak of governors of Judaea (the country). See also 1 Kings 20:24, where the word is translated (Authorized Version) "captains," and is in the Syrian king's mouth. The word is not used before Kings. It is used by the writer of Kings three times; of Chronicles, once; by Ezra, six times; in Nehemiah, eight times; in Esther, three times; in Daniel, four times; and in the remaining prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Haggai, Malachi, ten times in all. The Authorized Version, out of the whole number of these occurrences of the word, has rendered it "captains" thirteen times; "deputies," twice; and "governors," twenty times.

Verses 15, 16. - Targets... shields. The Authorized Version "target" is unfortunate, though it may with somewhat grim truth represent fact. It was a very large solid shield, originally made of some common material, as basketwork or wood, and covered with leather; these with a plate of gold. The absence of the word "shekel" in each clause, both here and in Kings, leaves it open to us to suppose that the beka, or half-shekel, may be the right word. Now, the maneh (see 1 Kings 10:17), or pound, meant 100 bekas, i.e. 50 shekels. Thus the targets, or shields, had six manehs of gold to their plating each, and the lesser bucklers (as we may perhaps call them) three manehs each. On the estimate that the shekel weighed 9 dwt. 3 gr., since the maneh weighed fifty shekels (100 bekas, or half-shekels), the gold to a shield (target) may be put at something over 11 lbs. troy. The house of the forest of Lebanon; i.e. an armoury (see 1 Kings 7:2-5; 2 Samuel 8:7; Song of Solomon 4:4; Isaiah 22:8). Shishak took these when he conquered Jerusalem (1 Kings 14:26).

Verses 17-19. - It is not necessary to suppose that the throne was made of solid ivory (Psalm 45:9; Amos 3:15; Amos 6:4), or that the overlaying gold concealed the ivory, whether more or less of it. The parallel adds that "the top of the throne was round behind" (1 Kings 10:19). Comparing also the two accounts, it would appear that there were twelve lions on each side of the throne, i.e. two to each step. When it is said that there were two lions standing by the stays (or, arms) on each side of the sitting-place, we may easily imagine, from ancient modelled thrones, that of them the arms were themselves "no small part." It is remarkable that the parallel does not take cognizance of the footstool. The lion is, of course, as natural a symbol as it is an old one of sovereign power and place; and the use of the lion and the number of them, reminding of the tribes of Israel, were specifically justified to the people, whose oracles contained such words as those in Genesis 49:9; Numbers 23:24; Numbers 24:9. Josephus tells us that a golden bull supported the seat of the throne. If so, it is remarkable that the statement should be omitted in both of our Old Testament narrations. The dimensions of the throne we might have looked for, but they are not given. That they were well proportioned to the height, marked by six steps, may be taken for granted.

Verse 20. - The house of the forest of Lebanon, The circumstance of the vessels of this house being mentioned in such close connection with the drinking-vessels of Solomon, is another indication of the close connection of the buildings themselves (1 Kings 7:1, 2-5, 6, etc.); also that these" vessels of the house of the forest of Lebanon" were (as may be inferred naturally from the connection) like Solomon s drinking-vessels, infers the use of the apartments of the house for social or, at any rate, state occasions.

Verse 21. - To Tarshish. The parallel has, in both clauses of its verse (1 Kings 10:22), "ships of Tarshish." The order of the words in the former clause of our present verse, that compels us to read, "going to Tarshish," certifies the correct meaning. The word "Tarshish" (the subsequent Tartessus) covered a district in South Spain, as well as named a town and river, and stretched opposite the coast of Africa. Both coasts were beneath Phoenician rule, and a voyage to Tarshish would most naturally mean calling at many a port, and many an African port, from one and another of which all the imports here spoken of would be obtainable. The meaning of the Hebrew root of Tarshish is "to subjugate." The town lay between the two mouths of the river Baetis, now Guadal-quiver. Gesenius thinks that the writer of Chronicles says, in ignorance, "to Tarshish." and that the ships went to Ophir! These passages do not say that the voyage, whatever it was, took three years; much less that that length of time was necessary. Whether voyages were in Solomon's time made from the Red Sea, circumnavigating Africa, into the Mediterranean, is not certain. If they were such voyages, taken at a sauntering pace, with calls at many ports and easygoing delays, they may easily have consumed as long a space of time as three years! The theory that Tarshish was Tarsus in Cilicia is easily and conclusively negatived. The names in Hebrew of "ivory, apes, and peacocks" have been said to be of Indian origin. This is far from proved, and, as regards the first two, may be said to be sufficiently disproved. But if it all were so, still the fact that the Hebrew names were of an Indian language derivation would go very short way to prove that the Hebrew people got the things represented by them direct, or at all, from India. Ivory; Hebrew, שֶׁנְחַבִּים. The Authorized Version rendering "ivory" occurs ten times in the Old Testament, having for its original the Hebrew שֵׁן (1 Kings 10:18; 1 Kings 22:39; 2 Chronicles 9:17; Psalm 45:8; Song of Solomon 5:14; Song of Solomon 7:4; Ezekiel 27:6, 15; Amos 3:15; Amos 6:4). In all these cases, two of them being in closest juxtaposition with the present and its parallel occasion, the word speaks of ivory that is being used, i.e. as though it were manufactured material or ready for manufacture. But in our passage and its parallel, where the different word given above is found, it is manifest that it speaks of the material, so to say, in the rough, as just "tooth or tusk of ?;" but, further, what the חַבִּים is is not yet ascertained. It is not a word known in the Hebrew vocabulary. Gesenius finds the Sanscrit ibhas, which signifies an "elephant;" Canon Rawlinsen finds in some Assyrian inscriptions a word habba, used of both elephant and camel, but probably having for its generic signification "a great animal;" Keil (on the parallel) finds a Coptic word, eboy, the Latin elephas, to which he prefixes the Hebrew article ה. The Targum Jonathan shows at once שְֵׁןאּדּפִיל. Gesenius, in his 'Thesaurus,' calls also timely attention to Ezekiel 27:15, where we read, "They brought thee a present, horns of ivory and ebony" (Hebrew, Chethiv, וְהָובְנִים; Keri, קַרְנות שֵׁן וְהָבְנִים). But no use of "ebony" happens to be mentioned in the connection of our present passages or subject. Thus it will be seen that no little ingenuity has been employed to hunt down this little word, though as yet not quite successfully. More may be seen in Smith's 'Dictionary of the Bible,' 1:906. Apes; Hebrew, קופִים. Conder ('Handbook to the Bible,' 2nd edit., p. 390) says, "This word is identical with the name of the monkey in Tamil." Keil connects it with the Sanscrit kapi, but does not believe, with Gesenius, that the animal came from India, but Ethiopia. In a valuable note in the' Speaker's Commentary' we read, "It is found" (not stated where) "that the word was an Egyptian word, signifying a kind of monkey, in use in the time of Thothmes II., i.e. about the time of the Israelites' exodus." (For Herodotus's testimony respecting ivory and apes in North Africa, see his 'Hist.,' 4:91.) Peacocks; Hebrew, תֻּכִּיִּים. Conder ('Handbook to the Bible,' p. 393') says a Tamil word, tokei, means "peacock." Keil proposes to consider it one of the later Romans' luxurious delicacies, aves Numidicae, from Tuoca, a town in Mauretania or Numi-alia. Some translate it "guinea-fowl," and some "parrots." The peacock did not belong to Africa, yet still it may have been purchaseable at some port there.

Verses 22, 23. - All the kings of the earth; i.e. of the laud of tributary sovereignties, from Euphrates to the borders of Egypt, and to the Philistines (1 Kings 4:21; also note Genesis 15:18; Exodus 23:31; Numbers 22:5; Joshua 1:4; 2 Samuel 10:16).

Verse 24. - Every man his present; Hebrew, מִנְחָתי; which word represents the treats, paid partly in money, partly in kind (2 Samuel 8:2; 2 Kings 17:3, 4; and the parallel). A rate year by year; Hebrew, דְּבַר־שָׁנָח; which might be simply rendered, "a yearly thing."

Verse 25. - Four thousand stalls. Not forty thousand, as by error in 1 Kings 4:26. The parallel mentions one thousand four hundred as the number of the chariots (2 Chronicles 1:14). Both agree in twelve thousand as the number of horsemen. Chariot cities (1 Kings 9:19; 2 Chronicles 1:14). Some of the horse and chariot depots were kept near the king, but the rest in those specially chosen and prepared cities, which might be nearest or fittest against time of war-need.

Verse 27. The foundations of the evil of exceeding metropolitan centralization were being too surely laid now. Silver... sycomore trees (see 1 Chronicles 27:28; 2 Chronicles 1:16).

Verse 28. - The parallel mentions horses from Egypt only, but adds that "linen yarn" was brought. The all lands alluded to with us, would manifestly include Armenia (Ezekiel 27:14) and Arabia. The parallel also, in its ver. 29, states the prices of a chariot from Egypt as "six hundred shekels [qu. bekas] of silver" (i.e. about either £90 or £45); and of a horse for the cavalry, perhaps, not for the chariot, as "one hundred and fifty shekels [qu. bekas] of silver" (i.e. £22 10s. or £11 5s., estimating the shekel as worth three shillings with us). Other estimates (see 2 Chronicles 1:17) would make the prices £70 and £17 (see our Exposition, 2 Chronicles 1:15-17).

Verse 29. - Nathan the prophet... Ahijah the Shilonite... Iddo the seer. For these original authorities of the history, see our Introduction (vol. 1. p. 8:2, and p. 9:3). The present quotation of the name of Ahijah in connection with his work, and the brief allusion to himself in our 2 Chronicles 10:15, are the only appearances of Ahijah in Chronicles. He and the importance of his work are clear enough from 1 Kings 11:28-40; 1 Kings 14:1-20. As the compiler of Chronicles evidently by a law omits any even reference to the defection of Solomon, it is natural that the name and special ministry of Ahijah should fall into the shade with him. Uniformly it is observable in Chronicles that the personal is not enlarged upon where it is not directly and indispensably ancillary to the ecclesiastical and national history. On the other hand, the writer of Kings does not once mention Iddo the seer, whereas we read of him again twice in Chronicles (2 Chronicles 12:15; 2 Chronicles 13:22).