But me, even me your servant, and Zadok the priest, and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, and your servant Solomon, has he not invited.
All Commentaries on 1 Kings 1:26 Go To 1 Kings 1
Athanasius the Apostolic
AD 373
Thus fathers often call their sons their servants, yet without denying the genuineness of their nature. In fact, they often affectionately call their own servants children, yet without losing sight of the fact they did purchase them originally. For they use the one appellation from their authority as fathers, but in the other they speak from affection. Thus Sara called Abraham lord, although she was not a servant but a wife. And while the Apostle joined Onesimus the servant to Philemon the master as a brother, Bathsheba called her son a servant even though she was his mother when she said to his father, “Your servant Solomon.” Afterwards also Nathan the Prophet came in and repeated her words to David, “Solomon your servant.” Nor did they mind calling the son a servant, for while David heard it, he recognized the nature of what they were referring to, and even while they said it, they did not forget genuineness [of his sonship], praying that the one they called a “servant” might be made his father’s heir; for to David he was his son by nature.
So then, when we read this we interpret it fairly without considering Solomon a servant because we hear him called this. Instead we understand him to be a natural and genuine son. In the same way, if the saints, when referring to the Savior who is confessed to be in truth the Son and the Word by nature, say, “Who was faithful to him that made him,” or if he says of himself, “The Lord created me,” and, “I am your servant and the Son of your handmaid,” and the like, no one should on this account deny that he is proper to the father and from him. Rather, as in the case of Solomon and David, let them think properly about the Father and the Son. For if, though they hear Solomon called a servant, they acknowledge him to be a son, are they not deserving of many deaths, who, instead of preserving the same explanation in the instance of the Lord, whenever they hear “Offspring,” and “Word,” and “Wisdom,” forcibly misinterpret and deny the generation, natural and genuine, of the Son from the Father; but on hearing words and terms proper to a work, immediately condescend to the notion of his being by nature a work and deny the Word—doing this even though it is possible, from his having been made man, to refer all these terms to his humanity? And are they not also proven to be “an abomination to the Lord,” when they use “differing weights” with them, using one set of measurements here and another there in order to blaspheme the Lord? But perhaps they grant that the word “servant” is to be understood in a certain way, but lay stress upon the phrase “who made” as some great support of their heresy. But this argument of theirs also is but a broken reed. For if they are aware of the style of Scripture, they must at once condemn themselves. For as Solomon, though a son, is called a servant, so, to repeat what was said above, although parents refer to the sons springing from themselves as “made” and “created” and “becoming”—in none of these do they deny their nature.
