Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Kings 6:1
And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which [is] the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD.
Ch. 1Ki 6:1-10. Commencement and dimensions of Solomon’s Temple (2Ch 3:1-2)
1. in the four hundred and eightieth year, &c.] It is impossible to discover how this date is arrived at, or to make it fit in with other statements of the Old and New Testament. The LXX. has ‘the four hundred and fortieth year’, and Josephus ‘the five hundred and ninety second.’ If we put together the numbers which we find in the Old Testament record, we have 40 years between the Exodus and the death of Moses, 40 years peace after Othniel, 80 after Ehud; Jabin’s oppression lasted 20 years, there were 40 years of peace after Barak, 40 in Gideon’s time: Tola judged the land 23 years, Jair 22, Jephthah 6, Ibzan 7, Elon 10, Abdon 8: the servitude to the Philistines lasted 40 years, and Samson judged 20 years. After this we have as dates Eli 40 years, Samuel 20 (1Sa 7:2) at least, David 40, Solomon 4. These make a total of 498. But we cannot be sure that some of these judgeships were not contemporary with or overlapping one another, while there is no time specified for the duration of Joshua’s leadership, and for the events between his death and the judgeship of Othniel, nor yet again for the reign of Saul. So that it is utterly hopeless to settle any chronology under such circumstances. Moreover the frequent occurrence of the round number 40 gives the impression that no attempt has been made to fix accurate dates for any of the periods mentioned. Then in Jdg 11:26 we read that from the conquest of Gilead down to the time of Jephthah was 300 years. Taking the other dates in sequence this would make the period in the text consist of 529 years without counting the length of Saul’s reign. Once more (Act 13:20) according to the Text. Rec. there elapsed, between the partition of the land under Joshua and the days of Samuel, a period of 450 years. Adding to this the other numbers and 40 years for the reign of Saul, according to the chronology which St Paul used, we reach a total of 554. But we have no data whereby to confirm or contradict any of these totals.
It is most likely that the 440 years of the LXX. was arrived at by adding together the years assigned to the several judges and omitting the other events, the oppression of Jabin, and of the Philistines. This makes a total 206 years, which with 40 years for the sojourn in the desert, and 104 between Eli and the 4th year of Solomon brings the total to 440.
Origen on Joh 2:20 quotes from this verse and omits the words which refer to the time between the Exodus and the building of the Temple. Yet as these words are represented in the LXX. but would have given no point to Origen’s comment, it appears more probable that he omitted them on purpose, than that, since his day, these words have been added to the Massoretic text.
in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign ] This accounts for the mention in the LXX., at the end of the last chapter, that they spent three years in preparing the stone and timber.
in the month Zif ] This name for the month is found only here and in 1Ki 6:37 below. So that it appears not to have been the usual one. The word means ‘brightness’, ‘splendour’, and the Targum explains it of ‘the bloom of flowers’ at the time. It is said to have been between the new moon of May and that of June, though some place it a month earlier. A later name, Iyar, for the second month is found in the Targum on 2Ch 30:2, and Josephus ( Ant. viii. 3. 1) gives it as here.
he began to build ] This is a translation required by the sense. The Hebrew says simply ‘he built.’ In 2Ch 3:1, the Hebrew is expressly ‘he began to build.’ Hence the rendering here.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
In the four hundred and eightieth year – It is upon this statement that all the earlier portion of what is called the received chronology depends. Amid Minor differences there is a general agreement, which justifies us in placing the accession of Solomon about 1000 B.C. (1018 B.C. Oppert.) But great difficulties meet us in determining the sacred chronology anterior to this. Apart from the present statement, the chronological data of the Old Testament are insufficient to fix the interval between Solomons accession and the Exodus, since several of the periods which make it up are unestimated. Hence, chronologists have based entirely the received chronology upon this verse. But the text itself is not free from suspicion.
(1) it is the sole passage in the Old Testament which contains the idea of dating events from an era.
(2) it is quoted by Origen without the date, and seems to have been known only in this shape to Josephus, to Theophilus of Antioch, and to Clement of Alexandria.
(3) it is hard to reconcile with other chronological statements in the Old and New Testament.
Though the books of Joshua, Judges, and Samuel furnish us with no exact chronology, they still supply important chronological data – data which seem to indicate for the interval between the Exodus and Solomon, a period considerably exceeding 480 years. For the years actually set down amount to at least 580, or, according to another computation, to 600; and though a certain deduction might be made from this sum on account of the round numbers, this deduction would scarcely do more than balance the addition required on account of the four unestimated periods. Again, in the New Testament, Paul (according to the received text) reckons the period from the division of Canaan among the tribes in the sixth year of Joshua Jos 14:1-15, to Samuel the prophet, at 450 years, which would make the interval between the Exodus and the commencement of the temple to be 579 years. On the whole, it seems, therefore, probable that the words in the four hundred and eightieth year, etc., are an interpolation into the sacred text, which did not prevail generally before the third century of our era.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
1Ki 6:1-14
He began to build the house of the Lord.
The temple built
Solomons temple is the most wonderful and interesting building in the worlds history. It was the mysterious centre of Israel. It was far more to Israel than the Vatican is to Rome. It was, so long as it stood, Gods only earthly palace and temple. The Pyramids of Egypt were old when it was built, and they show no signs of decay. Solomons temple utterly perished after four centuries. Greek and Roman artists have given the laws of beautiful and stately architecture to the world, but no one has ever dreamed of copying, in any respect, the sacred building at Jerusalem. Brunellesehis dome at Florence, St. Peters at Rome, the Milan Cathedral are almost miracles of daring genius and patient toil. The temple was in comparison a homely and plain building in its style. Its size was, as compared with these, small and insignificant. Yet God in a peculiar sense was its architect. He filled it with His glory. His eyes and His heart were there. The simple description before us is greatly amplified in this Book of Kings, and in that of Chronicles, where there are differences noted. Our attention may rest at present on the–
I. Date of the temple. It is given with precision. Months and years are mentioned for the first time since the Exodus. Here we have one of the two or three points clearly made in the Scripture by which its chronology is determined. We can easily remember that Solomons reign began about one thousand years before Christ. Homer was singing of the Trojan war. Two and a half centuries must pass before Romulus and Remus founded Rome. It seems long since Columbus discovered America. Add a century nearly to this period, and you have the time between the Exodus and the temple. How long the decay! Wilderness wandering, rude days of the Judges,–nearly three hundred years. Samuel and the prophets, King Saul, and then David,–these all must come before God can have a permanent home on earth for men to see and admire and love.
II. The site of the temple. This is not mentioned in our text, because so familiar and so often recorded elsewhere. It was on Mount Moriah, to which Abraham centuries before had raised his eyes in sad recognition of the place for the sacrifice of Isaac.
III. The size and plan of the temple. Many a country church is larger than this famous edifice in its interior dimensions. The cubit is an uncertain measure; but allowing it the largest limit, we have a room inside of only ninety feet by thirty. It had three distinctly-marked parts. First, the temple of the house (verse 3), or holy place, sixty feet long by thirty wide. Then, second, came the oracle (verse 7), or most holy place, a perfect cube, thirty feet in each of its dimensions. This was perfectly dark. In front came, although part of the whole building, a porch fifteen feet deep, running across the whole east end of the structure. All this was of stone, covered, according to Josephus, with cedar. On the sides of this building there was what we should call a lean-to, i.e. sets of chambers, not for residence, but for some other purposes connected with worship. They were entered from without by a door and winding-stairs, so that the holy places themselves were always kept separate.
IV. Preparations for this work. They had been going on for thirty years, ever since the day when David conceived of giving the ark of God a suitable home. Money had been accumulating, and a special treasurer had charge of it. It amounted, perhaps, to eighty millions of dollars. Spoils of battles were brought to it, like the banners hanging in Westminster Abbey. Shields and vessels of gold and silver were gathered in great numbers. But the materials of the temple itself were all brought from afar.
V. The workmen and their work. They were largely foreigners, under Hiram, King of Tyre, or native Canaanites, reduced to practical slavery. Their numbers were immense, one hundred and fifty-three thousand Gibeonites alone engaging in the toil. Thirty thousand Jews, in relays of ten thousand, worked side by side with Tyrian and Sidonian. The significant statement is made that their work was so perfect that part came to its part without the sound of the axe or hammer. This is unparalleled in architecture. In boring the Mont Cenis Tunnel under the Alps, so exquisitely accurate were the engineers, that the two shafts begun at opposite sides of the mountain met each other with scarcely the variation of a line. The Brooklyn Bridge is a triumph of human courage and skill; but those silent seven years on Mount Zion, in which the house of God grew into form, each stone hoisted to its place without the shaping touch of the chisel, in which every beam sunk into its socket with no shading of its already true lines,–that perfect design, perfectly carried out,–where shall we find its equal? That silence was suggestive. It was Divine.
VI. The builder of the temple. Not David, the man after Gods own heart. Not the father, but the son; not the man of blood, but the man of peace. Thus one life completes itself in another.
VII. The uses of the temple. Here we must abandon our modern conceptions of a house of God. The temple was not a place for congregational worship. There was no such thing known in the world at that time. The congregation could assemble in the court before the temple, and witness the sacrifices of animals, but they could not enter there. Only the priests were seen within those mysterious portals. We must banish from our minds all conceptions growing out of the modern church, save as all churches are sacred to the worship of God. Solomon repeatedly says that Jehovah desired this place that His name might be there,–the name of His holiness. There God was to be represented in His true character,–merciful and gracious, but perfectly holy. Israel was to pray towards that place, but God was to hear in heaven, His dwelling-place.
VIII. The condition of Gods blessing on the temple. While Solomon was busy in the seven years work, he was reminded that all his toil and expenditure would be in vain unless he walked in the way of the Lord. Stones and cedars, gold and jewels, fine needle-work and silver could not enclose and secure a purely spiritual presence. God speaks to Solomon himself as if He held him alone responsible for the preservation of the temples sanctity.
IX. The temple a type and prophecy of the whole body of Christ. It expressed to the ancient people of God the idea of His dwelling amongst them. He ruled the world, even all the heathen nations; but Zion was His home. Israel was His abode. Amongst them His glory and power were to be displayed. Josephus and Philo thought that the temple was a figure of the universe. Others have thought it typical of the human form, others still a symbol of heaven itself; but we have the Scripture proof of its being a prophecy and type of that final temple silently reared by the Spirit of God,–each stone a living soul,–and the whole structure filled and glorified by Christ. (Monday Club Sermons.)
The temple built
I. The Lords house begun.
1. The date.
2. The doing.
(1) When Solomon was ready, and the right time had come, he began to build the Lord s house.
(2) Solomon did not begin to build the Lords house before he was ready. He did not rush into the Lords service without counting the cost.
(3) Solomon could the more readily build well for the Lords use, because his father had foreseen the needs of the work. The Christian parent can make much easier the childs entrance upon Christian service.
(4) Solomon began to build for the Lord, and he didnt stop with the beginning, as do some so-called servants of the Lord.
II. Gods house builded.
1. The size of the temple.
2. The porch of the temple.
3. The chambers of the temple.
4. The building of the temple.
(1) The temple was a magnificent one. Nothing was too good for the Lords use. Solomon did not belong to the class of men who put their punched coin into the contribution-box and give their unmarketable produce to the minister.
(2) The temple was a large one. But Solomon and the parish committee didnt commence to build until they had means to complete the Lords house without the assistance of a colossal mortgage.
(3) The temple was builded in silence. Many a great and grand Christian work is accomplished with little stir. For the time being a man may make as much noise in making a chicken-coop as in building a church.
(4) The temple was a permanent structure. Building for God is work that abides. And we may be stones in a temple of God that shall outlast the stars.
III. Gods promise to the builder.
1. The condition.
2. The conclusion.
(1) Performance promised.
(2) Presence promised.
3. Completion.
(1) The word of God came unto Solomon with the promise that his building for God should secure his up-building from God.
(2) The word of God comes unto us with the assurance that if we do a good work for Him and love Him, all things shall work together for good to us whom He loves.
(3) The word of God that came to Solomon comes to us, with the warning that even our temple-building will not avail unless we offer the sacrifices of obedience on its altars.
(4) The presence of God was specially promised to Solomon just after he had made special preparation for Gods worship.
(5) The presence of God in our hearts is assured to us so soon as we show suitable readiness to welcome His presence.
(6) The presence of God in some manifestation has never failed to His children. The temple of Solomon was destroyed; the later temple was burned. But their usefulness was over, for the presence of God now makes a temple of every believers heart. (S. S. Times.)
Church building
One of the greatest living architects, writing on church architecture says: I do not forget the profound emotion that an ancient church must still excite in any susceptible breast. We need not try to analyse it. But when we are building our sanctuaries to-day, we must ask ourselves how much of this is really religious, how much artistic or historic in its promptings; and further, how much of its really religious portion is genuine and personal, and how much merely sympathetic and imaginative?
Church architecture
Dr. Cuyler, in his Recollections of a Long Life, has some interesting remarks on church buildings. I fear, he says, that too many costly church edifices are erected that are quite unfit for our Protestant modes of religious service. It is said that when Bishop Potter was called upon to consecrate one of the dim religious specimens of medieval architecture, and was asked his opinion of the new structure, he replied: It is a beautiful building, with only three faults. You cannot see in it, you cannot hear in it, you cannot breathe in it!
The temple built
That temple, which Solomon built and dedicated, which was restored from its desolation in the time of Nehemiah, and which Herod the Great rebuilt, was known to all devout Israelites as the house of God. God by His prophets taught them so to regard it.
I. Devout intercourse of men with God is prayer. Prayer is an offering up of our desires unto God, in the name of Christ, by the help of his Spirit, with confession of our sins, and thankful acknowledgment of His mercies. In the ancient temple-worship God caused E is peoples prayers to be symbolised by the smoke of incense, the sweetest possible fragrance that could be devised and secured by the art of the apothecary (Exo 37:29; Luk 1:8-10). It is only trusting, submissive, unselfish prayer that we can offer up with any good hope of pleasing Him. Such prayer will not limit itself to the things which we feel the need of for ourselves–things which will do good to us.
II. This spiritual fulfilment is for all mankind.
1. This was plainly enough taught in the original declarations concerning the temple which we have in the Old Testament. The text (Isa 56:7) affirms that Jehovah called His house a house of prayer for all nations.
2. The dispensation which had its local seat at Jerusalem was predestined to be temporary, while the spiritual worship which it taught and temporarily helped was to be permanent and universal. This even pious Israelites were slow to learn, slow to believe. Ought our worship to be less reverent than that in the ancient temple? In these Christian synagogues ought not attention to the Word of God to be as serious and devout as in the Jewish synagogues? Our prayers and our service of song,–ought we not to be as careful that they be true and pure heart-worship, as of old they u ere careful not to offer strange fire or unhallowed incense? Are we keeping our dedicated sanctuaries quite clear of everything which would strike our Lord as unsuitable for His Fathers house of prayer? (H. A. Nelson, D. D.)
Solomons temple viewed as a type of the glorified Church
I. In this temple we have a Divine idea.
1. The church in heaven is a Divine idea of mercy. What St. Paul said to and of those who composed the church at Corinth is applicable to the redeemed in heaven–Ye are Gods building. The idea of forming a society of perfect spirits claims God for its Author. Roman force, Popish prescription, and philosophic reasoning have failed to weld together in blissful harmony the spirits of men. The Almighty Intelligence is at the foundation of the church of the firstborn. The plan of the building is Gods plan.
2. The church in heaven is a Divine idea of remedial mercy. Christ loved the church, and gave Himself for it, that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word, that He might present it to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy, and without blemish.
II. In this temple we have a Divine idea embodied.
1. The building of Solomon expressed the Divine contrivance or idea. It was Gods thought made palpable or visible. The Supreme Being gave Solomon the idea, and he gave visible effect to it; he prepared the materials. As the king found them, they were unfit for use. Man in his natural state is unfit for the church in heaven. A sinner in the building of the glorified church would disfigure the whole edifice. A change is necessary here before such an one is fit for the perfected church. The statement–Ye must be born again, is applicable to every man who has not experienced the change.
2. He prepared the materials at a distance from the temple. Lebanon was some distance from Zion, and here Solomons men shaped the stone and wood, and hence it was the scene of action and noise, but it was all quiet at Zion; there was not the sound of hammer nor axe, nor any tool of iron, heard at Zion. And in a religious sense, all the squaring and shaping of character for the temple in heaven must be done and is, done on earth. There is no Gospel-hammer used in eternity to break mens hearts; there is no fiery blaze of Christian truth in heaven to burn out depravity and sin from the soul.
3. He prepared the materials by different kinds of agency. The glorified people of God have been prepared by different agencies for their position in the heavenly temple, but all instrumentalities have been under Christ. He works all according to His purpose.
III. In this temple there is the union of a variety of materials.
1. The temple of redeemed spirits in heaven is composed of a great variety of character–the young, the old, the rich, the poor, the learned and unlearned are there built into a splendid edifice. No family can be pointed out which has not a member placed in that building.
2. This variety is blended in perfect harmony. Every character has been shaped by Divine skill for its exact position in the structure. Holiness to the Lord is inscribed upon every living stone therein. The abiding principle of pure love is the uniting and harmonising principle. Rome has a kind of outward union, but no incorporation or vital unity; but the perfected church is one vitality, and for ever.
IV. If this temple there is magnificence.
1. Look at it as a work of art. The temple upon Zion was the marvel of creation, and the church in heaven is, and ever will be, the wonder of the universe! What a blaze of concentrated glories is that celestial temple, what consummate purity and Divine art!
2. As a work of art executed upon the noblest principle. Love to God moved King David to suggest the building, and love to God impelled his son Solomon to carry out the work. The glorified multitudes before the throne are there through the love of God–love brighter, wider, deeper and higher than imagination in her loftiest–Divinest soarings has ever described or even conceived–love which only the greatness of a God could have displayed.
V. In this temple there is great value.
1. The temple church is composed of spirit–hence of greater value. The building at Jerusalem cost nearly nine hundred millions of money, but the treasures of creation are a mere bauble in comparison to the glorified church.
2. The temple church is composed of spirit, through a greater agency than the edifice at Jerusalem–hence of more value. The structure in Davids royal city was erected by Solomon, but the church is built into a holy temple by our Divine Saviour through the Holy Ghost. Solomon was a mat being, but behold a greater than Solomon is here, in the work of humanist roration.
3. The temple church is composed of spirit for immortality. The splendid fabric on Zion lasted upwards of four hundred years, and then it was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar. The glorified church, however, is to last for ever. I give unto My sheep, says Christ, eternal life. The good of all ages and climes are built into a habitation for God through the spirit, and this building will continue longer than the sun, even for ever.
VI. In this temple there is glorious purpose.
1. It was erected as a dwelling-place for God. On the mercy-seat of that hallowed building God met the high priest, and other men through him. Probably no higher end can be contemplated in any work than this–to make earth the house of God. The great purposes of the Incarnation are to make earth the residence of God–to eject Satan–to sap the foundations of his empire, and to turn this wilderness world into a Paradise, wherein innocence and God shall reign triumphantly for evermore.
2. As the dwelling-place of God for the good of mankind. What a sacred spot was the temple at Jerusalem! Here the Supreme and ever-blessed Potentate unfolded His purposes of mercy, and made man acquainted with redemption by blood. God dwells in the midst of disembodied spirits, as their Everlasting Light, and the Perennial Fountain of all their joy! A river of blessedness, pellucid and permanent, flows through the heavenly temple, and on either side of it grows the tree of life, whose fruits convey an element of immortality to the participants. We shall see God from every point of the glorious pavilion of redeemed and perfected men. (J. H. Hill.)
The heavenly temple
I. Of the materials of which it was built. Solomons temple was a type of the spiritual temple in the material of which it was built.
1. It was built of stone. The heart of man in its natural state is a heart of stone.
2. It was built of stones brought a long distance. God might have made His temple out of materials on the spot. He might have chosen angels and archangels and seraphs, and beings who had never sinned. But such was not His purpose. He selected the stones from a distant country, the souls of man from earth rather than the angels of heaven. It was made of stones, made ready before they were brought to the spot. The stones of the heavenly temple are prepared before they are removed to their eternal position. We must be hewn out of the rock,–converted here; we must be prepared on earth, and fitted to occupy the exact spot intended for us before the time comes for us to be taken away.
II. In the manner in which it was constructed.
1. That it proceeded gradually. It was impossible for a building to be made all at once, when the materials were brought from a distance and one by one fitted together. The temple of God has been going on ever since Abel the first righteous man was admitted to heaven.
2. That it was carried on according to a plan. It was impossible that each stone could fit into its appointed place unless that place was pre-arranged and foreseen. Nay, every detail must have been provided for, and all the parts accurately suited one to another. So the wisdom of Almighty God has foreseen and provided for every detail connected with His heavenly temple. Not only have those been selected who shall form part of the building, but every stone is numbered and has its appointed position assigned to it
3. It was carried on in solemn and mysterious silence. A fit type of the mysterious work of God in the construction of His temple in heaven.
III. Solomons temple was a type of the great spiritual temple in the object for which it was ordained. This was the glory of God. It was not for the pleasure of the king, or for manifesting the beauty of the carved stones–it was for the praise, the worship, and the glory of the Almighty. Let us remember that the end of our salvation is not merely, or even chiefly, our own advantage. There is a higher, a nobler object to be obtained–the praise of God. Conclusion:–
1. In all buildings, there are stones of all sorts, shapes, and sizes required. There are the massive pillars, the keystones to the arches, and the small rubble to fill up the courses. These may not all occupy so prominent a position, but they are all essential to the construction of the building. So the humblest Christians are required in the temple above as well as the more prominent and important.
2. In all buildings there must be builders. So God is the great Master Builder and the Divine Architect. He superintends the work. The under builders in this work are His ministers.
3. The foundation is Christ. The topstone is Christ. He is the Alpha and the Omega–the beginning and the end. He is the basis and the glory of the whole building. (J. S. Bird, B. A.)
Character
There is an eminent satisfaction in reading this terse sentence. King Solomon not only began the house; he finished it. I have often thought that the temple was a fit emblem of a true mans character, and Solomons action and energy a fit example for a true man to follow.
I. A mans character must be built upon a solid foundation. The foundation of a mans life must not and dare not be a thing of chance. The ancient temple taught us that. It was founded through agony, its position was indicated by an angel, itself was consecrated by sacrifice. Life and character stand upon great, solid, permanent principles. No opportunism is of any use. Quick methods, suggested by selfishness, and attempted by inexperience and ignorance, will give us a house of cards to be blasted by a breath. What is more, a temporary success upon any other foundation than these enduring principles is worthless. It has no true element of success. It is like a gilded ball for a baby; or a bubble to be pricked by the first chance and disappear. Eternal principles must be our foundation. Let me point out a few.
1. The deepest down must be truth. Without moral truth no man is tolerable to others or sure of himself. Moral truth teaches him to say what he believes, and upon no plea whatever to say anything else.
2. Another principle is honesty. A large portion of honesty is candour, for a mysterious person, with secret designs and practices, is never altogether honest.
3. Another principle is purity. This lies deep, but it is a sweet, enjoyable, and beautiful rule. There is no section or class to whom it ought not to be dear. It is very close to truth and to honesty, and without it no character can be strong. It belongs to ourselves, our thoughts, imaginings, wishes, and motives. It has a kind of chemical action going out through our whole nature, and so belonging to others so far as we belong to them and affect them. It is a function of our bodies, our intellects, and our souls. It wears the sunlight of holiness, for the perfectly pure is God.
4. Deeper yet, for Jerusalem was built upon the foundation of the hills; and mans foundation is God. Jesus is the foundation which lies eternal. Religion is our relation to Jesus.
II. The character must be built up for a high purpose. It was the consciousness of this which added the factor of greatness to the work of Solomon. The father of the work was the Tabernacle. That, at all events, provided the outline. But circumstances had shifted and lifted themselves during the four hundred years which stood between. New possibilities had arisen, and therefore larger and richer work must he effected. Here the ideal of character comes forward. That shows what we wish; the possible translates the vision into what we can. Therefore the purpose of our life aims at the highest service we can conceive and hope to render; such service contemplates God as its object–its highest is found in Him only. Hence, the character that is to be built is built for these:–
1. For Sacrifice.
2. A second purpose must, like that of Solomon, be Thanksgiving, for thanksgiving is as much a duty as prayer.
3. The Residence of God. It is almost astounding in its presumption. The heaven, even the heavens of heavens, cannot contain Him. We is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity, and how shall He come into perpetual association with it? Yet God vouchsafed to come down within a dwelling-place formed by these hands of sinful men; He was openly seen there, and His presence remained. Nor will He disdain the work which is of His own hands, nor refuse to dwell in the fleshy and spiritual temple which we consecrate to Him.
III. The character must be built up with large and noble ideas. It was a huge undertaking. The quarries and the forests of Lebanon, the raising and shaping of the stones, the conveying of the cedar to the sea and then to Joppa, and thence to Jerusalem, the textile work probably from foreign looms, the brass, the silver, and the gold, all expressed–and as they seem to us, exhausted–the grandest conception of the eleventh century before our Lord. Such are to be the kind of ideas that go to make up our character: the greatest we can, with all of care, all of patience, and all of completeness we may add. (W. M. Johnston, M. A.)
The law of beauty
When the marble, refusing to express an impure or a wicked thought, has fulfilled the law of strength, suddenly it blossoms into the law of beauty. For beauty is no outward polish, no surface adornment. Workers in wood may veneer soft pine with thin mahogany, or hide the poverty of brick walls behind thin slabs of alabaster. But real beauty is an interior quality, striking outward and manifest upon the surface. When the sweet babe is healthy within, a soft bloom appears upon the cheek without. When ripeness enters the heart of the grape, a purple flush appears upon the surface of the cluster. When the vestal virgin of beauty had adorned the temple without, it asks the artist to adorn his soul with thoughts and worship and aspirations. Ii the body lives in a marble house, the soul should revolt from building a mud hut. The law of divine beauty asks the youth to flee from unclean thoughts and vulgar purposes as from a bog or a foul slough. It bids him flee from irreverence, vanity, and selfishness as men flee from some plague-smitten village or a filthy garment. Having doubled the beauty of his house, having doubled the sweetness of his music, having doubled the wisdom of his book, man should also double the nobility and beauty of his life, making the soul within as glorious as a temple without. (N. D. Hillis, D. D.)
The souls temple
If Milton says that a book is the precious life-blood of a master-spirit embalmed and treasured up on purpose for a life beyond life, and affirms that we may as well kill a man as kill a good book, then the Divine voice whispers that the soul is the precious life-temple into which three score years and ten have swept their thoughts, and dreams, and hopes, and prayers, and tears, and committed all their treasures into the hands of that God who never slumbers and never sleeps. Slowly the souls temple rises, slowly reason sad conscience make beautiful the halls of imagination, the galleries of memory, the chambers of affection. Character is a structure that rises under the direction of a Divine Master-Builder. Full oft a Divine form enters the earthly scene. Thoughts that are not mans enter the mind. Hopes that are not his, like angels, knock at his door to aid him in his work. Even death is no Vandal. When the body has done its work, death pulls the body down as Tintoretto, toiling upon his ceiling, pulled down his scaffold to reveal to men a ceiling glorious with lustrous beauty. At the gateway of ancient Thebes, watchmen stood to guard the wicked city. Upon the walls of bloody Babylon soldiers walked the long night through, ever keeping the towers where tyranny dwelt. And if kings think that dead stones and breathless timbers are worthy of guarding, we may believe that God doth set keepers to guard the living city of mans soul. Mans soul is Gods living temple. It is not kept by earthly hands. It is eternal in the heavens. (N. D. Hillis, D. D.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
CHAPTER VI
In the four hundred and eightieth year from the exodus, in the
fourth year of Solomon’s reign, and in the second month, he
laid the foundations of the temple; the length sixty cubits,
the breadth twenty, and the height thirty cubits; besides the
porch, which was twenty cubits in length, and ten cubits in
height, 1-3.
A description of its different external parts, 4-10.
God’s promise to Solomon, 11-13.
Description of its internal parts and contents, 14-36.
Temple finished in the eighth month of the eleventh year of
Solomon’s reign, being seven years in building, 37, 38.
NOTES ON CHAP. VI
Verse 1. In the four hundred and eightieth year] The Septuagint has the four hundred and fortieth year. It need scarcely be noticed, that among chronologists there is a great difference of opinion concerning this epocha. Glycas has 330 years; Melchior Canus, 590 years; Josephus, 592 years; Sulpicius Severus, 588; Clemens Alexandrinus, 570; Cedrenus, 672; Codomanus, 598; Vossius and Capellus, 580; Serarius, 680; Nicholas Abraham, 527; Maestlinus, 592; Petavius and Valtherus, 520. Here are more than a dozen different opinions; and after all, that in the common Hebrew text is as likely to be the true one as any of the others.
The month Zif] This answers to a part of our April and May; and was the second month of the sacred year, but the eighth month of the civil year. Before the time of Solomon, the Jews do not appear to have had any names for their months, but mentioned them in the order of their consecutive occurrence, first month, second month, third month, c. In this chapter we find Zif and Bul and in 1Kg 8:2, we find another, Ethanim; and these are supposed to be borrowed from the Chaldeans; and consequently this book was written after the Babylonish captivity. Before this time we find only the word Abib mentioned as the name of a month, Ex 13:4. Whether there were any others at that time, or whether Abib was really intended as the name of a month, we cannot absolutely say. The present names of the Hebrew months are:-Tisri, answering to a part of September and October, Marchesvan, Cisleu, Tebeth, Shebat, Adar, Nisan, Ijar, Sivan, Tamuz, Ab, and Elul.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
This chronological difficulty is too vast and comprehensive to be fully discussed here, or to be determined by unlearned readers; and for the learned, I refer them to what is largely digested in my Latin Synopsis upon this place. It may suffice at present to suggest these particulars:
1. That Israels coming out of Egypt is variously understood in Scripture, and with some latitude, so as not only to note the time when first they came out of Egypt, but the time of their being in or coming out of the wilderness; as is manifest from Deu 4:45, where the words in the Hebrew are not after, &c., as we translate it, but in their coming forth out of Egypt; and Psa 94:1-3, When Israel came forth &c., Heb. their coming forth &c. And it is not impossible it may be so understood here, after they were come out&c., to wit, completely, i.e. towards the end of their expedition out of Egypt into Canaan. Nor doth the difference between the Hebrew prepositions lamed and beth, which a learned man objects, hinder this sense; for as beth signifies (as he saith) after, so also doth lamed, Gen 7:4,10; Num 33:38.
2. That whereas the times of the judges do chiefly cause this difficulty, there are many things which will relieve us therein; as,
1. That divers of the years there mentioned belong to one and the same time, as is evident from Jairs twenty-two years, within which fell out, as divers learned chronologers agree, the eighteen years of the oppression of the Ammonites, and several years of the Philistine tyranny, who oppressed Israel in the west, whilst the Ammonites vexed them in the east; and the like might be observed in other cases.
2. That the years of rest are not necessarily to be understood of so many distinct years, besides those of war and servitude; and those words which are generally rendered the land had rest forty or eighty years, or the like, may be thus rendered, and that very agreeable to the Hebrew, The land had rest, or began to rest, or recovered its rest, in the fortieth or in the eightieth (the cardinal numbers being frequently put for the ordinal, especially where the number exceeds ten) year, to be computed from some remarkable time; and so that phrase doth not note how long time, or till what time, the rest continued, but at what time it began. As for instance, in Jdg 3:11, the land had rest, not forty years, as it is in our translation, but in the fortieth year, to wit, from and after their first rest in, or quiet possession of, the land of Canaan, which Joshua gave them; which time may very probably be made up of the days of Joshua, after he had settled them in a state of rest; and of the elders that outlived him, Jdg 2:7, and the time of their corruption after the death of those elders; and the eight years of servitude under the king of Mesopotamia. So Jdg 3:30, The land had rest in the eightieth year, to wit, from and after that rest which Othniel obtained for them, Jdg 3:11. And Jdg 5:31, It rested in the fortieth year, to wit, after that rest got by Ehud, Jdg 3:30. And Jdg 8:28, It rested in the fortieth year, to wit, from the last rest got by Deborah. And thus the computation of years is more plain and certain, being thus made from rest to rest, than theirs that proceed the other way. And this is the more considerable, because it was the opinion of that fatuously learned and pious bishop of Armagh. All which considered, it will be very easy to contain all the parts and passages of sacred story, from the coming out of Egypt to this time, within the compass of four hundred and eighty years; of the several parcels whereof, see my Latin Synopsis. And as for other scriptures, which some conceit to be contradictory to this, I shall by Gods help vindicate them in their several places.
In the fourth year of Solomons reign; his three first years being spent partly in settling the affairs of his kingdom, without which neither civil nor ecclesiastical concerns could have any consistency; and partly in making necessary preparations for the work. He began to build; for so it is expressed 2Ch 3:1; and so it is explained here below, 1Ki 6:37, The foundation of the house was laid; though in the Hebrew it be only be built. Thus active words are oft understood of the beginning of the action, as Gen 5:32; 11:26.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt,…. The Tyrian writers k make it five hundred sixty years from hence; but this no doubt is tightest, which Junius reckons thus; forty years Israel were in the wilderness, seventeen under Joshua, two hundred ninety nine under the judges, eighty under Eli, Samuel, and Saul, forty under David, add to which the four years of Solomon, and they make four hundred eighty l; they are somewhat differently reckoned by others m from the coming out of Egypt to Joshua forty years, from thence to the first servitude under Cushan twenty five, from thence to the death of Abimelech two hundred fifty six, under Thola twenty three, from thence to the Ammonitish servitude four, under that eighteen, under the judges, Jephthah, Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon, thirty one, Samuel and Saul forty, David forty, and Solomon three, in all four hundred eighty;
in the, fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel; when he was clear of all disturbers of his government, and had got all things ready for the building of the temple, and had gathered together gold and silver enough of his own to defray the expenses; for, as for what David gave him, he put that into the treasury of the Lord’s house, see 1Ki 7:51;
in the month Zif, which [is] the second month; and so must be Jiar, for Abib or Nisan was the first, and Jiar was the second, which answered to part of our April and part of May; called Zif either from the splendour of the sun, being now higher, and so the greater; or from the trees and flowers of the field being in all their glory; and so the Targum here calls it, the month of splendour of flowers: and it was on the second day of it,
that he began to build the house of the Lord: and a very fit and proper season of the year it was to begin it in, see 2Ch 3:2.
k Apud Theophil. ad Autolyc. l. 3. p. 131. l So Gerard. Voss. Chron. Sacr. Isagoge, dissert. 8. c. 7. p. 128. m Vid. Vitring. Hypotypos. Hist. Sacr. p. 43.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The Outside of the Building. – 1Ki 6:1. The building of the temple, a fixed and splendid house of Jehovah as the dwelling-place of His name in the midst of His people, formed an important epoch so far as the Old Testament kingdom of God was concerned, inasmuch as, according to the declaration of God made through the prophet Nathan, an end would thereby be put to the provisional condition of the people of Israel in the land of Canaan, since the temple was to become a substantial pledge of the permanent possession of the inheritance promised by the Lord. The importance of this epoch is indicated by the fact, that the time when the temple was built is defined not merely in relation to the year of Solomon’s reign, but also in relation to the exodus of the Israelites out of Egypt. “In the 480th year after the exodus of the sons of Israel out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign, in the second month of the year, Solomon built the house of the Lord.” The correctness of the number 480, as contrasted with the 440th year of the lxx and the different statements made by Josephus, is now pretty generally admitted; and we have already proved at Jdg 3:7 that it agrees with the duration of the period of the Judges when rightly estimated.
(Note: In opposition to the hypothesis of Bttcher, which has been repeated by Bertheau, viz., that the number 480 merely rests upon the computation of 12 x 40 years, or twelve generations of forty years each, Thenius himself has observed with perfect justice, that “ where both the year and the month of the reign of the king in question are given, the principal number will certainly rest upon something more than mere computation; and if this had not been the case, the person making such a computation, if only for the purpose of obtaining the appearance of an exact statement, would have made a particular calculation of the years of Solomon ‘ s reign, and would have added them to the round number obtained, and written ‘in the year 484. ‘ Moreover, the introduction to our chapter has something annalistic in its tone; and at this early period it would be undoubtedly well known, and in a case like the present a careful calculation would be made, how long a time had elapsed since the most memorable period of the Israelitish nation had passed by. ” Compare with this Ed. Preuss ( Die Zeitrechnung der lxx, p. 74ff.), who has endeavoured with much greater probability to show that the alteration made by the lxx into 440 rests upon nothing more than a genealogical combination.)
The name of the month Ziv, brilliancy, splendour, probably so called from the splendour of the flowers, is explained by the clause, “that is, the second month,” because the months had no fixed names before the captivity, and received different names after the captivity. The second month was called Jyar after the captivity. – The place where the temple was built is not given in our account, as having been sufficiently well known; though it is given in the parallel text, 2Ch 3:1, namely, “ Mount Moriah, where the Lord had appeared to David” at the time of the pestilence, and where David had built an altar of burnt-offering by divine command (see at 2Sa 24:25).
1Ki 6:2-4 Plan and dimensions of the temple-house. – The measure of the temple-house and its several subdivisions are all given in the clear, i.e., as the spaces were seen. The house, i.e., the main building of the temple (lit., as for the house, or shell of the building), its length was sixty cubits, its breadth twenty cubits, and its height thirty cubits, and that, according to 2Ch 3:3, “after the earlier measure,” i.e., after the old Mosaic or sacred cubit, which was a hand-breadth longer, according to Eze 40:5 and Eze 43:13, than the civil cubit of the time of the captivity. The Mosaic cubit, according to the investigations of Thenius, was 214,512 Parisian lines long, i.e., 20 1/2 Dresden inches, or 18 1/2 Rhenish inches (see at Gen 6:10).
1Ki 6:3 The porch (lit., hall) in the face of ( , i.e., before) the Holy Place of the house was twenty cubits long, before ( ) the breadth of the house, i.e., it was just the same breadth as the house. The longer line, which ran parallel to the breadth of the house, is called here , the length, though from our point of view we should call it the width. And ten cubits was its breadth, i.e., its depth in front of the house. The height of the court is not given in our text; but in 2Ch 3:4 it is said to have been 120 cubits. This is certainly an error, although Ewald ( Gesch. iii. p. 300) still joins with Stieglitz ( Baukunst, p. 126, and Beitrr. zur Gesch. der Bauk. i. p. 70) in defending its correctness. For an erection of such a height as this could not possibly have been designated as (a hall or porch), but would have been called , a tower. But even a tower of 120 cubits in height in front of a temple which was only thirty cubits high, would have shown a greater disproportion than our loftiest church towers;
(Note: In the Strasburg cathedral and that at Freiburg in Breisgau the proportion between the height of the tower and that of the church, together with the roof, is about 3 1/4 to 1; it is only in the cathedral at Rouen that the proportion would have been almost 4 to 1 if it had been carried out to the very top. At the same time, in making this comparison it must be borne in mind that these Gothic towers taper off into slender points, whereas in the case of Solomon ‘ s temple we must assume that if the porch was carried up to the height supposed, it finished in a flat truncated tower; and it is this which would chiefly occasion the disproportion.)
and such a funnel-like erection with a base of only ten cubits in breadth or depth would hardly have possessed sufficient stability. We cannot certainly think of an intentional exaggeration of the height in the Chronicles, since the other measures agree with the account before us; but the assumption that there has been a corruption of the text is rendered natural enough by many other errors in the numerical statements. This still leaves it undecided whether the true height was twenty or thirty cubits; for whereas the Syriac, Arabic, and lxx (Cod. Al.) have twenty cubits, the height of thirty cubits is favoured partly by the omission of any statement of the height from our text, which is much easier to explain if the porch was of the same height as the temple-house than if the heights were different, and partly by the circumstance that the side building had an external height of twenty cubits, and therefore the porch would not have stood out with any especial prominence if its elevation had been just the same.
1Ki 6:4 After the account of the proportionate spaces in the temple-house, the windows through which it received light and air are mentioned. does not mean fenestrae intus latae, foris angustae (Chald., Ar., Rabb., Luther, and others), but windows with closed beams, i.e., windows the lattice-work of which could not be opened and closed at pleasure, as in ordinary dwelling-houses (2Ki 13:17; Dan 6:11). For signifies beams overlaid in 1Ki 7:4, and beams in 1Ki 7:5. The opening of the windows was probably narrower without than within, as in the older Egyptian buildings, as the walls were very strong; and in that case such windows would more thoroughly answer their purpose, viz., to admit light and air, and let out the smoke, so that the interpretation given by the Chaldee is most likely founded upon an ancient tradition, and is in accordance with the fact, though not with the words. It is a disputed point among the commentators where the windows were placed: whether merely in the front over the porch, provided, that is to say, that this was ten cubits lower than the temple-house, or on the side walls above the side stories, which were at the most about twenty cubits high, in which case the Most Holy Place, which was only twenty cubits high, remained quite dark, according to 1Ki 8:12. We regard the latter view as the correct one, inasmuch as the objections to it rest upon assumptions which can be proved to be false.
1Ki 6:5-8 The side building. – 1Ki 6:5. “He built against the wall of the house an outwork round about (i.e., against the two longer sides and against the hinder wall, and not against the front also, where the porch was built), against the walls of the house round about, against the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies, and he made side chambers round about.” (written constantly in the Keri) signifies literally stratum, here the lower building or outwork erected against the rooms mentioned. The word is gen. comm., but so construed that the masculine is used in a collective sense to denote the whole of the outworks, consisting as they did of three stories, whereas the feminine is used for one single story of the building (1Ki 6:6). On this use of the masculine and feminine genders to distinguish the whole mass and the individual parts, which is very common in Arabic, though it is rare in Hebrew, in which the distinction is generally expressed by a peculiar feminine form. as for example a fleet, and a single ship, compare Ewald, Lehrbuch der hebr. Spr. 175, d., and 176, a., and gramm. crit. ling, arab. i. 295. does not mean cum parietibus (Seb. Schmidt and J. H. Michaelis), but is a sign of the accusative, “as for the walls,” and introduces the more precise definition. signifies, both here and in Eze 41:6., side chambers or side stories, from , to incline to one side, hence to limp, i.e., to lean constantly to one side. From this there were derived for the meanings side, side piece or side wall, e.g., of the ark, Exo 25:12, Exo 25:14, etc., of the dwelling, Exo 26:20, Exo 26:26, etc., of the altar, Exo 27:7, etc., the side wall or slope of a mountain, 2Sa 16:13, the side portion of the human body, i.e., the rib, Gen 2:21-22, the sides or leaves of a door in 1Ki 6:34 of the present chapter, and when used of buildings, the side pieces or portions built out which lean against the main building; and lastly, the idea of a piece which shows a large side, i.e., a broad plank (1Ki 6:15-16). The meaning planks or beams, as it were ribs or rib-work, is unfounded.
1Ki 6:6 The (internal) breadth of the lower side story was five cubits, that of the middle one six, and that of the third seven cubits; “for he (they) had made shortenings (i.e., rebates) against the house round about on the outside, that (there might be) no insertion into the walls of the (temple-) house.” The meaning is that rebates were attached against the temple wall, at the point where the lower beams of the different side stories were to be placed, so that the heads of these beams rested upon the rebates and were not inserted in the actual wall of the temple-house. These rebates are called very descriptively , deductions or contractions of the thickness of the wall. We may assume that there were four such rebates: three for the three floors of the side stories, and one for the roof. It still remains doubtful, however, whether these rebates were merely laid along the temple wall, or along the outer wall of the side building as well, so as to ensure symmetry and make each of the two walls half a cubit thinner or weaker at every rebate. The former is the more probable. And accordingly the temple wall was one cubit weaker at each rebate, that is to say, in four places. If, therefore, it still remained two cubits thick at the top, it must have been six cubits thick below. This extraordinary thickness, however, would be quite in keeping with the remains of buildings of great antiquity, the walls of which have generally a colossal thickness, and also with the size of the square stones of which the wall was constructed, as described in 1Ki 7:10.
1Ki 6:7-8 1Ki 6:7 contains a circumstantial clause, inserted as an explanation of 1Ki 6:6: “The house, (namely) when building, was built of perfectly finished stones of the quarry, and hammer and axe; no kind of instrument whatever was heard at the house when it was building.” (on the construction see Ges. 114, 1, Erl., and Ewald, 339, b.) does not mean stones quite unhewn, which God had so caused to grow that they did not require to be hewn (Theodoret); for although is used in Deu 27:6 (compare with Exo 20:25) to signify uninjured, i.e., unhewn stones, yet this meaning is precluded here by the context (cf. 1Ki 5:18). signifies finished here, that is to say, stones which were so perfectly tooled and prepared when first broken in the quarry, that when the temple walls were built no iron instruments were required to prepare them any further. , an axe, here a stone-mason’s cutting tool corresponding to the axe. – In 1Ki 6:8 the description of the side building is continued. “A door ( , a opening for the entrance) to the middle side chamber (of the lower story) was on the right side (the southern side) of the house, and a winding staircase led up into the middle (room of the middle story) and out of the middle into the third rooms,” i.e., the rooms of the third story. This is the rendering according to the Masoretic text; and the only thing that appears strange is the use of first of all for the middle room of the lower story and then for the middle story; and the conjecture is a very natural one, that the first may have been an error of the pen for , in which case does not signify the side room, but is used in a collective sense for the row of side rooms in one story, as in Eze 41:5, Eze 41:9, Eze 41:11. That this door was made from the outside, i.e., in the outer wall of the side building, and did not lead into the side rooms “from the interior of the Holy Place,” would hardly need a remark, if Bttcher ( Proben alttestl. Schrifterkl. p. 339) and Schnaase ( Gesch. der bildenden Knste, Bd. 1) had not really supported this view, which is so thoroughly irreconcilable with the dignity of the sanctuary.
(Note: The perfectly groundless assumption of Thenius, that the outer building had most probably an inner door as well, which connected it with the temple, does just as much violence to the decorum of the Holy Place.)
The only question is, whether it was made in the middle of the right side or in the front by the side of the porch. If the Masoretic text is correct, there is no doubt about the former. But if we read , the text leaves the question undecided. The winding staircase was not constructed in the outer wall itself, because this was not thick enough for the purpose, and the text states pretty clearly that it led from the lower story into the middle one, and thence still higher, so that it was in the centre of the building.
1Ki 6:9-10 In 1Ki 6:9 and 1Ki 6:10 the description of the exterior of the temple building is brought to a close. “So he built the house, and finished it, and covered the house with beams and boards of cedar.” is not to be understood as relating to the internal panelling of the temple-house, for this is spoken of first in the section which follows (1Ki 6:15), but to the roofing; means to conceal (Deu 33:21) and cover in all the other passages, even in Hag 1:4 and Jer 22:14, where is generally, though incorrectly, translated “panelled.” As a verb signifying clothing, it is construed with the accusative. does not mean boards, but beams, though not “an arched covering” (Thenius), because beams cut in the form of an arch would have been too weak in the middle, nor yet rafters (Bttcher), because the roofs of oriental buildings are flat. , “rows, i.e., tablets (consisting) of cedars,” i.e., cedar tablets, which were inserted in rows between the beams. This cedar-work was certainly provided with a strong covering to protect the roof and the building itself against rain; and at the sides it had no doubt a parapet, as in the case of dwelling-houses (Deu 22:8).
1Ki 6:10 “And he built the outbuildings to the whole house (i.e., all round the temple-house, with the exception of the front: see 1Ki 6:5); five cubits was its height,” i.e., the height of each story, the suffix in being made to agree with through an inaccuracy which has arisen from condensation, although, as in 1Ki 6:5, it denotes the whole of the side buildings, which consisted of three stories. The height given must also be understood as referring to the height within. Consequently the side buildings had an internal height of 3 x 5 cubits, and reckoning the floorings and the roof of the whole building an external height of 18 or 20 cubits; so that the temple-house, which was thirty cubits high within and about thirty-two without, rose about twelve or fourteen cubits above the side building, and there was plenty of room for the windows in the side walls. : “and it (the side building) held to the house with cedar beams.” The meaning is, that the building was fastened to the house by the joists of the cedar beams belonging to the different stories, which rested upon rebates of the temple wall, so that it was firmly attached to the temple-house, without any injurious insertions into the sanctuary itself. This is apparently the only explanation, that can be grammatically sustained, of words that have received such different interpretations. For the translation given by Thenius, which coincides with this, – viz., “he fastened it (each separate story of the building) to the temple-house with cedar wood, namely, with the cedar beams which formed the flooring and roofing of the three stores,” – is exposed to this grammatical objection, that the suffix is wanting in , and that is never followed by in the sense of with. All the other explanations are unsuitable. signifies neither “he covered the house” (Chald., Vulg., Luther), nor “he overlaid the house;” moreover, the roofing of the house has been already mentioned in 1Ki 6:9, and there is no trace to be found of any overlaying or covering of the outside with cedar wood.
If, therefore, we reckon the thickness of the temple wall at six cubits, and that of the outer wall of the side building and the front wall of the porch at three cubits each, the whole building would be ninety-three cubits long (externally) and forty-eight cubits broad. The height of the temple-house was about thirty-two cubits externally, and that of the side stories from eighteen to twenty cubits, without the socle upon which the whole building rested. This is not mentioned indeed, as being a subordinate matter, but would certainly not be omitted.
(Note: Thenius, on the other hand, reckons the length of the whole building at a hundred cubits and its breadth at fifty-two, because, on the unfounded assumption that the temple in Ezekiel ‘ s vision was simply a copy of Solomon ‘ s temple, he sets down the thickness of the temple wall in front and along the two sides at six cubits, and that of the hinder wall at seven. Moreover, he not only reckons the internal length of the house at sixty-two cubits, in opposition to the statement in the text, that the length of the house (which was divided into the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies) was sixty cubits; but in opposition to v. 16, according to which the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies were separated by boards of cedar, he assumes that there was a wall of two cubits in thickness between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies, according to Eze 41:3; and, lastly, for no other reason than the wish to get the round number 100, he takes for granted that the hinder wall of the temple was a cubit thicker than that on the other sides.)
The number of rooms in the side buildings is not given, but may be set down at thirty in each story, if their length corresponded to their breadth in the lower story. These rooms had of course windows, although they are not mentioned in the account, but each one would have only a small window sufficient to give it the requisite light. And as to the number of the temple windows also, we can simply make conjectures. We can hardly assume that there were more than six on each side, and there were probably none at the back.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| The Building of the Temple. | B. C. 1011. |
1 And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD. 2 And the house which king Solomon built for the LORD, the length thereof was threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof twenty cubits, and the height thereof thirty cubits. 3 And the porch before the temple of the house, twenty cubits was the length thereof, according to the breadth of the house; and ten cubits was the breadth thereof before the house. 4 And for the house he made windows of narrow lights. 5 And against the wall of the house he built chambers round about, against the walls of the house round about, both of the temple and of the oracle: and he made chambers round about: 6 The nethermost chamber was five cubits broad, and the middle was six cubits broad, and the third was seven cubits broad: for without in the wall of the house he made narrowed rests round about, that the beams should not be fastened in the walls of the house. 7 And the house, when it was in building, was built of stone made ready before it was brought thither: so that there was neither hammer nor axe nor any tool of iron heard in the house, while it was in building. 8 The door for the middle chamber was in the right side of the house: and they went up with winding stairs into the middle chamber, and out of the middle into the third. 9 So he built the house, and finished it; and covered the house with beams and boards of cedar. 10 And then he built chambers against all the house, five cubits high: and they rested on the house with timber of cedar.
Here, I. The temple is called the house of the Lord (v. 1), because it was, 1. Directed and modelled by him. Infinite Wisdom was the architect, and gave David the plan or pattern by the Spirit, not by word of mouth only, but, for the greater certainty and exactness, in writing (1Ch 28:11; 1Ch 28:12), as he had given to Moses in the mouth a draught of the tabernacle. 2. Dedicated and devoted to him and to his honour, to be employed in his service, so his as never any other house was, for he manifested his glory in it (so as never in any other) in a way agreeable to that dispensation; for, when there were carnal ordinances, there was a worldly sanctuary,Heb 9:1; Heb 9:10. This gave it its beauty of holiness, that it was the house of the Lord, which far transcended all its other beauties.
II. The time when it began to be built is exactly set down. 1. It was just 480 years after the bringing of the children of Israel out of Egypt. Allowing forty years to Moses, seventeen to Joshua, 299 to the Judges, forty to Eli, forty to Samuel and Saul, forty to David, and four to Solomon before he began the work, we have just the sum of 480. So long it was after that holy state was founded before that holy house was built, which, in less than 430 years, was burnt by Nebuchadnezzar. It was thus deferred because Israel had, by their sins, rendered themselves unworthy of this honour, and because God would show how little he values external pomp and splendour in his service: he was in no haste for a temple. David’s tent, which was clean and convenient, though it was neither stately nor rich, nor, for aught that appears, ever consecrated, is called the house of the Lord (2 Sam. xii. 20), and served as well as Solomon’s temple; yet, when God gave Solomon great wealth, he put it into his heart thus to employ it, and graciously accepted him, chiefly because it was to be a shadow of good things to come, Heb. ix. 9. 2. It was in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign, the first three years being taken up in settling the affairs of his kingdom, that he might not find any embarrassment from them in this work. It is not time lost which is spent in composing ourselves for the work of God, and disentangling ourselves from every thing which might distract or divert us. During this time he was adding to the preparations which his father had made (1 Chron. xxii. 14), hewing the stone, squaring the timber, and getting every thing ready, so that he is not to be blamed for slackness in deferring it so long. We are truly serving God when we are preparing for his service and furnishing ourselves for it.
III. The materials are brought in, ready for their place (v. 7), so ready that there was neither hammer nor ax heard in the house while it was in building. In all building Solomon prescribes it as a rule of prudence to prepare the work in the field, and afterwards build, Prov. xxiv. 27. But here, it seems, the preparation was more than ordinarily full and exact, to such a degree that, when the several parts came to be put together, there was nothing defective to be added, nothing amiss to be amended. It was to be the temple of God of peace, and therefore no iron tool must be heard in it. Quietness and silence both become and befriend religious exercises: God’s work should be done with as much care and as little noise as may be. The temple was thrown down with axes and hammers, and those that threw it down roared in the midst of the congregation (Psa 74:4; Psa 74:6); but it was built up in silence. Clamour and violence often hinder the work of God, but never further it.
IV. The dimensions are laid down (1Ki 6:2; 1Ki 6:3) according to the rules of proportion. Some observe that the length and breadth were just double to that of the tabernacle. Now that Israel had grown more numerous the place of their meeting needed to be enlarged (Isa 54:1; Isa 54:2), and now that they had grown richer they were the better able to enlarge it. Where God sows plentifully he expects to reap so.
V. An account of the windows (v. 4): They were broad within, and narrow without, Marg. Such should the eyes of our mind be, reflecting nearer on ourselves than on other people, looking much within, to judge ourselves, but little without, to censure our brethren. The narrowness of the lights intimated the darkness of that dispensation, in comparison with the gospel day.
VI. The chambers are described (1Ki 6:5; 1Ki 6:6), which served as vestries, in which the utensils of the tabernacle were carefully laid up, and where the priests dressed and undressed themselves and left the clothes in which they ministered: probably in some of these chambers they feasted upon the holy things. Solomon was not so intent upon the magnificence of the house as to neglect the conveniences that were requisite for the offices thereof, that every thing might be done decently and in order. Care was taken that the beams should not be fastened in the walls to weaken them, v. 6. Let not the church’s strength be impaired under pretence of adding to its beauty or convenience.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
First Kings – Chapter 6 AND Second Chronicles – Chapter 3
Temple Structure, Commentary on 1Ki 6:1-10; AND 2Ch 3:1-14
Again the Levitical authors of Chronicles are more explicit in their description of the building of the temple and its furniture. They are careful to note that Solomon constructed the temple on the site which David had chosen for it. This was the place on Mount Moriah were David had seen the angel poised with the drawn sword to destroy Jerusalem during the time of the plague for David’s numbering of the people (2Sa 24:15-17). Here David had purchased the threshingfloor of Araunah (Ornan, in Chronicles) and made sacrifice to the Lord. At that time he had chosen the site for the temple. The construction began four hundred eighty years after Israel had come out of Egypt. It was in the second day of the second month of the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel.
The overall dimensions of the temple are described first. In English measure it was ninety feet long, by thirty feet wide, by thirty feet high. A porch extended the width of the temple at its front, the depth of which was fifteen feet. The Kings account notes that it was lighted by narrow windows which seem to have been in the sides of the house near the roof. This would be necessitated by the construction of chambers around the perimeter of the walls.
The Kings account continues to describe the building of the chambers (small rooms), while the Chronicles account goes into detail to describe the skilled work which went into its embellishment. The chambers were built in three stories around the south, west, and north sides of the temple. The lower chambers were seven and a half feet broad, the middle eight feet, and the upper ten and a half. This was necessitated by the manner of construction, whereby the beams which supported the roofs and floors of the chambers were not fastened into the temple wall itself, but had revetments built on the walls to support them. The manner of their construction also accounted for the stories being ascendingly larger. These were entered by a central door at the lower story which admitted to a stairway which led up to the middle and upper stories. The stones for this building were ready squared and fitted for placement in the building so that no sound of ax or hammer was heard in its construction. When finally completed it was covered with cedar beams and boards.
The Chronicles account speaks of the greater house (the holy place, or first room in the sanctuary) and the most holy house (the holy of holies, or second room of the sanctuary). The greater room was cieled with fir (or cypress), overlaid with fine gold and garnished with engraved palm trees and chains. Fine stones were also set in it with gold of Parvaim (thought to be gold from countries of the east).
The holy of holies was foursquare, thirty feet by thirty feet, all overlaid with six hundred talents of fine gold (in today’s values, over 650 million dollars). The golden nails weighed fifty gold shekels ($18,000). Inside the holy of holies also was constructed two angelic figures, cherubim (-im is the Hebrew plural and does not need the English -s). These faced the front of the temple with outstretched wings meeting in the center between them and extending thus from wall to wall of the most holy place. These also were overlaid with gold. To separate this most holy place form the larger room there was constructed a vail of the beautiful colored cloth, of blue, purple, crimson, and fine linen with embroidered cherubim on it.. It was doubtless a magnificent structure, as history attests.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
SOLOMON AND THE SACRED TEMPLE
1 Kings 1-11.
IN previous discussions, we have called attention to the chronology of the Old Testament, and have shown that the Books are correctly placed from the standpoint of history. Certainly the Books of the Kings belong where found in the Sacred Canon. David has held the field of view in the Books of Samuel, and I Kings opens with a record of his age, infirmity and approaching death.
The Books of Biblical history make up, for the most part, an unbroken series. The events reported as attending the kings death are at once natural, in keeping with the times and customs of that far-off century. The scramble between the sons as to succession in office and the inheritance of riches and honor, are easily believable because they belong to every century, and abate not. The methods of Adonijah, amounting to merely a repetition of Absoloms abortive attempt, reveal the mental inability and moral and political incapacity of that ambitious boy. His neglect to take Nathan, the Prophet, into counsel, or to seek advice from Benaiah and other mighty men, or even regard his brother Solomons claims, reveal the fact that he knew himself to be indulging a political plot that could succeed only in shadows and secrecy.
The opening chapter makes clear the fact that the Prophet of God is a capital statesman, for it was Nathan who brought this whole matter to the attention of Bathsheba, the mother of Solomon; and through her, reached the king and settled the question, and seated Bathshebas son on the throne.
An interesting study is excited by those verses in this same first chapter which reveal two things; first, that the dying man is far more interested in things eternal than in things temporal (1kings 1:29); more deeply concerned in permanent Israel than in his own passing throne (1 Kings 1:30); more alive to the moral and spiritual interests of his country than to its material and political supremacy; and in proportion to that interest, anxious to be succeeded in office by the one man to whom he could intrust both Gods people and Gods truth (1Ki 2:2 fol.).
With this introduction, we come naturally to three themes that compass somewhat clearly the chapters of our text: Solomons Succession to the Throne; Solomons Greatest Single Achievement; The Secrets of Solomons Signal Failure.
SOLOMONS SUCCESSION TO THE THRONE
Then sat Solomon upon the throne of David his father; and his kingdom was established greatly (1Ki 2:12).
In coming to this office, he came as his fathers favorite. In the establishment of Israel, Isaac desired the line through Esau, and Rebecca contrived to secure it through her favorite, Jacob; but in this instance, father and mother agree as to the son who shall stand in the fathers stead. It is not at all likely that this choice was wholly a result of the certain influence exerted over the king by the beautiful Bathsheba. That impulse was doubtless present, but the controlling sentiment of the matter rested upon a firmer foundation. A father knows his own children. He knows their weaknesses and their strength; their abilities and their disabilities; their traits of dependableness and their habits of deceit. As between Adonijah and Solomon, David did not need to debate. From the days when as infants they lay in his arms until now, he had studied them, and doubtless often with this very hour in view; and his judgment was already made and had been communicated to both Bathsheba and the Prophet. It is difficult for children to imagine that their parents understand them, properly estimate them, justly judge them; but practically every family furnishes a positive proof that the best judges of character are the very people who have sought to control conduct and direct endeavor. The after history of Solomon is not all the Christian reader could wish. Had David lived on for two-score more years, feeble, infirm, having surrendered the reigns of rule into Solomons hands, he would have seen much come to pass that would have grieved his aged soul; but in spite of all that, he still would have gone to his grave, convinced beyond debate that Adonijah would have fallen shorter still, and Israels interests suffered more deeply in his hands.
These facts are the basis of a second reason why the rulership went to Solomon.
He was the Lords chosen. Men easily make mistakes in judging their fellows. Fathers even fall short in truly estimating the worth or worthlessness of their own, but God, who looketh on the heart rather than on the outward appearance, and who knows what is in man, as against what man imagines and announces himself to be, makes no such mistake. With the discernment of an infinite wisdom, Jehovah saw in Solomon mental traits, moral convictions, spiritual aspirations, that led Him, as He was led in the case of David, the father, to elect this man from among many sons.
The reaction in my mind, on reading the first chapters of I Kings, was a revolt. In my haste I came near questioning the wisdom of God to set such a man as Solomon on the throne, or to lend His approval to his methods of government. That grew out of the slaughters recorded in chapter 2. My soul sickened when he sent his servant Benaiah to slay his brother, and he fell upon him that he died (1Ki 2:25); when Joab was taken from the horns of the altar and slain without mercy (1Ki 2:30-34); when Shimei perished at Benaiahs hands and by the kings command (1Ki 2:39-41), I confess I came to the phrase, And the kingdom was established in the hand of Solomon, with a sickening sense, asking myself, Can one cement the foundations of a true throne with the blood of his brothers, and be under a Divine benediction?
But I am glad for further study. Our judgments are often immature; our speech is often hasty, and when we take issue with the Divine will, our way is always mistaken. I had overlooked for the time that each of these men had not only courted death, but practically compelled it, and had compelled it by the violation of the Law of the Lord. For instance, the one of them to whom the readers sympathy goes out most quickly is Joab, the warrior, the man who had once favored David and fought for him; but alas, when one reviews the history of Joab, he consents to the justice of his fate. How many he had slain, and with what perfidy he had performed these slaughters! Guile had been his brutal instrument. He took Abner aside in the gate to speak with him quietly, and smote him there under the fifth rib, that he died (2Sa 3:27). He concealed his sword while whispering in Amasas ear and yet ripped him until his bowels fell to the ground (2Sa 20:10). The Law of the Lord was, If a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from Mine altar, that he may die (Exo 21:14); and the Law of the Lord is living still and Solomons servant is merely executing the same.
Slaughter is horrible; battle and death wound and offend our spirits; but battle and death and slaughter are not, when all are combined, the undermining factors of civilization, the fiends of successful rebellion against all moral worth, that disregard of Divine law and disobedience to the same, surely effect. It is important, I grant you, that men shall live their natural days, but far more important is it that the law of God shall live. In the last analysis, death is the natural incident of disobedience, so that the brutal features of Solomons reign are features intended to end the shedding of blood. It was a war against war; it was a just judgment against unjust judgments; it was a capital punishment of most capital crimes.
Solomon also became the choice of the people.
And Zadok the priest took an horn of oil out of the tabernacle, and anointed Solomon. And they blew the trumpet; and all the people said, God save king Solomon.
And all the people came up after him, and the people piped with pipes, and rejoiced with great joy, so that the earth rent with the sound of them (1Ki 1:39-40).
It is a great sequence when the public acclaims the will of the Lord. The government chosen of God and clearly accepted by the people has magnificent promise, and holds momentous prospects. It is fairly evident from the whole text that Solomon had those personal traits that rendered Absalom popular in his daythe traits of physical beauty and prowess; but in Solomons case, intellectual acumen and even a certain spiritual power added to his acceptance with the people. It may be true that the designing politician easily deceives the public and often experiences undeserved popularity; but few uninspired sentences are more true than Abraham Lincolns, You cannot fool all the people all of the time.
We are not enamored of the notion of the old Latin proverb, Vox populi, vox Dei, for it is a rule that has more exceptions than applications! But on the other hand, the final judgment of man is compelled to conform to the judgment of God, for what God sees and understands by His infinite wisdom becomes increasingly evident by the action that makes history; and sooner or later the voice of the people will second the voice of God.
Victory ought to be comparatively easy for a young man entering upon an important office with the backing of a kingly father, an infinite Lord and the will of the people. At many points Solomon witnessed success; his rule was long continued; his material prosperity became the amazement of the age; his political powers rapidly increased, while his mental and spiritual perceptions were the envy of kings and queens.
I think, however, it is well to dwell upon
SOLOMONS GREATEST SINGLE ACHIEVEMENT
This was not his alliance with Pharaoh, nor his marriage into the kings house, nor the political supremacy to which he attained, nor the luxurious living in which he indulged himself, nor the splendors of his court! On the other hand, it was the creation of the temple of God. That achievement is as easily linked up, however, with some facts of his mental and spiritual existence as it is with his political and religious supremacy.
He laid for lifes fabric a true foundation. When God appeared to him in Gibeon in a dream at night, and said, Ask what I shall give thee (1Ki 3:5), the answer revealed the soul of the youth. Give * * Thy servant an understanding heart to judge Thy people, that I may discern between good and bad (1Ki 3:9). A prayer like that could result only in the Divine favor; yea, even in the Divine affection. So far as the record goes, the boy Solomon had been a beautiful lad, his life clean, his conduct upright, his character above reproach; and now to have such a prayer emanate from his lips invites both human and Divine love. We are compelled to think that the principles which compel Gods love are not wholly different from those which control human affection. When the rich young ruler, white-souled, intellectually accomplished, spiritually enthusiastic, fell at the feet of Jesus to inquire what good thing he could do to inherit eternal life, Christ looked upon him to love him. It may be true that by the deeds of the Law there shall no flesh be justified in the sight of God; but it is not true that God disregards the deeds of the Law, looks with contempt or indifference upon high human conduct, takes no vital concern in beautiful character. The whole Scripture seems to clearly intimate that upright conduct linked with spiritual expression is lovely in the sight of God.
Neither the Bible nor Spirit-instructed men imagine, with the author of a certain University textbook, that the human intellect is merely a brute mind greatly developed, nor do they hold with another author, compulsory upon students study in some institutions, that the soul is accounted for by the development of the social in brute life.
On the contrary, the Bible teaches that God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, including intellect and spirit, his reasoning powers and his capability of receiving revelation.
If Solomon lived now and was a student in certain departments of the University, they would be teaching him that the only possible way of having wisdom is to evolve the ape intellectuality to a higher plane; but suffering the misfortune of living and dying before Darwins day, the great soul of the worlds wisest man knew no better than to look upward instead of downward for such acquisition, and pray, Give * * Thy servant an understanding heart to judge Thy people, that I may discern between good and bad (1Ki 3:9).
There are some of us who are perfectly willing to be regarded as belonged to Mediaeval times, if Mediaevalism takes the Scripture against the speculation of man and looks above for true wisdom instead of back, beneath, or below. If I could have my personal choice for every child born into my home, concerning the whole matter of education, I would rather have him or her begin the real battle of life begging for such a blessing and believing that God is capable of granting it, than to have him made familiar with all the sophistries and speculations of those modern text-books that turn men to believing that they are a big improvement on brute ancestors, and boasting the same. One thing is fairly clear, namely, that men who believe God and build life according to the laws of His Book, are the simple men of the centuries to which they belong, and become the inspiring examples to children born of later days.
He built not for self alone, but he remembered God. It is not difficult to believe, if one follows the personal history of this potentate, that his steps are determined by definite objectives. When all Israel had come under his sway, he appointed twelve officers, which provided victuals for the king and his household: each man his month in a year made provision (1Ki 4:7). In other words, he was a man who organized government and who organized finances, and witnessed the fruits of his organization in both fields by bringing the entire people to subjection and creating a palace of such splendor and attendants as the world has seldom seen. Forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen (1Ki 4:26), sound almost as extravagant as the years of Methuselahs life, and yet there is far less doubt of the latter than of the former. That he was not a mere indolent, daddled in the lap of a daily luxury wrung from unwilling taxpayers, is everywhere apparent. He was a man among men, a prince among thinkers, a king among courtiers. His fame was in all the nations. He spake 3,000 proverbs; he wrote 1,005 songs; he made all nature to contribute in illustration, and he compelled admiration from all the kings of the earth (1Ki 4:29-34). His banqueting halls assembled the worlds elite, his wisdom astonished the worlds wise.
His alliance with King Hiram, however, was made, not that he might further extend his kingly power, nor that he might exercise a wider world influence, but in the interest of A TEMPLE OF GOD. In the realms of Hiram were the cedars of Lebanon coveted for that sanctuary. In the able-bodied men of his own kingdom were the thousands he proposed to set at the task. He laid upon these competent builders a tax of time, tithing every three months, and builders in wood and stone wrought together that the temple might rise. And what a temple it was!
That sanctuary, glorious as is this description, requires many another line to do it justice. 2 Chronicles 3, 4 tells of the same great subject. The tabernacle was the prophecy of it, and the New Jerusalem to be let down from Heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband, is the final substance of which this was the symbol. It arose without sound of a hammer; it excelled all the sanctuaries that the world had ever seen or has yet seen; its appointments were the most expensive and yet intended in every case to turn the mind to God, to teach the heart to pray, the feet to walk in the path of the just, and the tongue to sing.
There are some extravagances that are justified. It pays to put great sacrifice into the proper education of your child, for when the preparation days are over, life is to follow; and it pays to put thousands of dollars into a sanctuary, because when the men who sacrificed to erect it sleep in the dust, the sanctuary will live and pour upon the world streams of sacred influence.
There is, however, in the first verse of the 7th chapter a significant remark, But Solomon was building his own house thirteen years, and he finished all his house. In other words, while he built for himself, he at the same time and on a vaster scale, built for God. There are people who think when they build for themselves that is all they can do. Gods house must wait until mine is finished! Divinely sacred obligations must be delayed until the domestic and secular are discharged. God cannot receive a gift until the grocer is fully paid. How strangely men reason! How quickly they forget revelation. Seek ye first the Kingdom of God, and His righteousness?. It would be an interesting thing to investigate history to find whether Israel was impoverished by the erection of the Temple, or whether she was not enriched instead, to discover whether those were days of financial reverses or the one period of Israels material prosperity.
The reign of Solomon remains forever glorious and stands as a symbol of all material success. Sacrifices for the sanctuary do not impoverishthey enrich; they do not bleedthey bless! The only man who suffers when the sanctuary is going up is the man who withholdeth more than is meet, but it tendeth to poverty.
But an equally significant thing is found in another statement from this Scripture.
Solomon knew that an elegant Temple was inadequate without God. One no sooner reads, So was ended all the work that king Solomon made for the house of the Lord (1Ki 7:51), than he finds the same king exercising some of the wisdom that had come in answer to his prayer. That wisdom voiced itself in the decision to bring up the ark of the covenant of the Lord out of the city of David, which is Zion. That ark of the covenant represented the Divine Presence and the expression of the Divine favor. Until it came into the Temple, the Temple itself, with all its splendid proportions and appointments, was destitute of spiritual power. There is no advantage resident in an elegant house called a church of God. There are many fanes that are cold, ceremonious, spiritually dead. In all their splendid precincts there is not the sound of an angels wing, nor the sense of a spiritual presence. The most pathetic sight in the world is the stately sanctuary out of which God has gone, or into which He has never come.
I have seen, in the Old World, cathedrals that were merely show-houses open to the eyes of American visitors; but few folk ever gathered in their spacious halls, and even those who came had not sufficient spiritual life to start one sleepy rivulet of praise, and the consequence was that a vested choir of boys were salaried to provide a substitute. They are elegant sarcophagi, enshrining the dead forms of a former faith; and we rehearse all of this to remind those who worship in this house of God and by whose splendid and heroic sacrifices these buildings are rising at this city centerhouses better adapted to Divine worship than any I have ever seen besidethat they could and would become mausoleums and empty ones at that, if out of them we lost God, or into them we failed to bring the ark of the covenant with its Shekinah glory, symbol of the Presence of God, and its typical content, Aarons rod that budded, sign of life coming out of death; the pot of manna, type of the bread from Heaven, and the tables of the Law, a faithful transcription of the Divine Word.
I say it solemnly and with the profoundest conviction that these buildings will mean to us and to our children and to our city and country and to the world, exactly as much as may be measured by the Divine presence in them, and the emanation of the Word of God from them. They are not an end in themselves, but a medium instead; and the medium of a message Divine. If God be here, and here His Word be preached and believed and practised, then the untold ages will unfold the influences of this sanctuary and the nations of the world will feel it.
SOLOMONS SECRETS OF SIGNAL FAILURE
The Bible is unique in that it as faithfully presents the secrets of failure as it does those of achievement. Its photographic effects reveal blemishes as surely as beauty, and make as evident the sins of men as they make clear the sanctity of God. Through these same chapters there runs an undertone, a minor key, a note set to sobs, and Solomon is the subject of this as well.
He started wrong by a compromise of his convictions. Life is a composite! Conduct is paradoxical! Character itself is unnatural compromise! The good and bad mix together. Successes and failures are sometimes so interwoven that the lesser is not seen in the light of the greater.
In the 3rd chapter we read, And Solomon made affinity with Pharaoh king of Egypt, and took Pharaohs daughter (1Ki 3:1). That is a significant step. Its original objective may have been political, but politics and morals cannot be divorced; life and religion cannot be separated. We are told that Solomon loved the Lord, walking in the statutes of David his father, but there must be added, only he sacrificed and burnt incense in high places (1Ki 3:3). How significant! An unholy alliance results in disloyalty to the Divinest, and in partial departure from the plain Word of God. Thereby a question is raised, Which of these elements will conquer at last? As Joseph Parker says: There may be but a semi-colon between that one path of life and the other in the verbal record of the two, and yet that semi-colon is finally swelled to an infinity of distance and only time will tell which triumphed the statutes of the Lord or the incense of idolatry. When one leaves the incense of idolatry for the statutes of the Lord, he faces away from the morning twilight to a perfect day; but when one leaves the statutes of the Lord for the incense in high places, he is faced from the evening twilight toward utter and increasing darkness.
There is a wonderful psychology in one of Davids prayers, Who can understand his errors? cleanse Thou me from secret faults. Keep back Thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression (Psa 19:12-13). There is no doubt whatever that that very utterance describes the intimate and progressive relation between a mere error in judgment or thought, and that final sin described as the great transgression or the iniquity unpardonable.
A second secret of his failure was pride in culture and possessions. His wisdom went on exhibit (1Ki 4:34). The kings and queens of the earth came to Jerusalem (1 Kings 10), not merely to study and admire the material possessions of King Solomon, but to sit under his scintillating genius, give audience to his matchless moral maxims known as proverbs and applaud his superior and almost unnumbered songs. The most insidious temptations of modern times take those two identical forms, the exhibit of wisdom on the one side, and of wealth on the other. It is a serious question now which pride is the more arrogant, that of culture or of wealth. Through the first, men reject God and set themselves above the stars. Through the second, men neglect God and degrade themselves below demons.
Criticism is easy and men can be found who pass unsparing censure upon Solomon, but when we see the millions going down before one or the other of these temptations, why should we be surprised that Solomons feet slid under the shove of both?
Education is a great thing, but when education brings a man to be wise above what is written, it converts him into a cultured fool.
Material wealth has its advantages, but when riches result in luxuries that pander only to lust, then indeed they prove themselves the root of all evil.
I shall not stop now to elaborate on the dedication of the Temple, to remark upon the prayers made in the place, and the promises of God uttered for its good. The service of dedication, in which we now engage together, affords us further opportunity for such study.
But I want to conclude by calling your attention to the contents of the 11th chapter. It might be named The Eclipse of Solomons Sun!
Through unholy alliances he lost out with God. The chapter not only records his love of many strange women, Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, Hittites, etc., but as one author has said, lays emphasis upon the fact that they were strange women, not in the ordinary sense of scarlet, but in the Bible sense, strangers to God and His Word. The alliance was not so much a personal one, with wives and concubines, as it was an irreligious one with false systems.
The Lord had warned the Children of Israel concerning the nations about, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods; and yet it is written, Solomon clave unto these in love; and again, his heart was turned from the Lord God of Israel. No wonder it was said, And the Lord was angry with Solomon, nor yet further theatened concerning his kingdom, I will rend it out of the hand of thy son.
Whatever the alliance is that turns one from God and His Word, that is unholy, and in the end, destined to destroy.
The 11th chapter of I Kings is pathetic in that it records the down-going of Solomon. He not only worshipped at false shrines but even consented to construct the same (1Ki 11:7). To turn from God is eventually to turn against God. To admit a false shrine into your life is to cease from worship at the true one, and who will tell the final result? With Solomon the foundations crumbled. His religion wrong, his kingdom rent; his religion wrong, his friends turned to enemies, and his lovers sought his life, and when the day broke that personal, political, fraternal and domestic disaster swept over his soul, wave upon wave, it was the same day in which he must prepare to meet his God, for the record concludes, And Solomon slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David his father: and Rehoboam his son reigned in his stead (1Ki 11:43).
It will forever remain a question as to what that sleep meant for the soul of the matchless man. Theologians will always dispute whether he was saved or lost and whether he went to his grave in calm confidence or with cringing and justifiable fear.
But human judgment is inadequate, superficial, even censorious. How blessed the circumstance that Divine judgment is after another manner! If our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things. Personally, I believe that Solomon was a saved man, whose weaknesses, incidental to the flesh, never wholly eclipsed his faith in God, and whose disloyal acts were Divinely judged, and sentence executed even while he lived, whose soul was saved; yet so as by fire, and many of whose works were burned even before his very eyes. The pathos of his death is not in the danger that for him to be dead is to be in hell. It is in the failure to so fight the battle of life as to come to a victorious close, to a triumphant entry, to the shout of a Paul, I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day (2Ti 4:7-8).
It is worth an eternal contest against the adversary and his multiplied forms of temptation, to be able to come to the last hour as Dwight L. Moody met the last enemy, when, silencing his daughters prayers, he said, No, no, Emma; dont ask that. The earth is receding; the heavens are opening; God is calling. I am going!
Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley
THE BUILDING OF SOLOMONS TEMPLE
CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES.
1Ki. 6:1. Began to build the house of the LordThe chronological year is carefully noted, and no criticism supplies reason for changing the figures here given. The Sept. reads 440 instead of 480, but is supported by no ancient MS. The site was Mount Moriah (2Ch. 3:1). The uneven rock of Moriah had to be levelled, and the inequalities filled by immense substructions of great stones, costly stones, and hewed stones (1Ki. 5:17).Stanley.
1Ki. 6:2. CubitsThe ancient standard length of a cubit was one foot six inches English measure. The structure is separated into three main architectural divisions: the house (1Ki. 6:2), the porch (1Ki. 6:3), and the chambers round about (1Ki. 6:5). The house was constructed of massive atone walls (1Ki. 6:6-7), and included two compartments; the front is called (1Ki. 6:5) the temple of the house and the oracle (1Ki. 6:6) in the rear,
1Ki. 6:4. WindowsOf their number, situation, and shape or size no information is given, none therefore possessed. With narrow lightsProbably lattices.
1Ki. 6:5. Chambers round aboutOn three sides of the house there were chambers in three stories.
1Ki. 6:11. And the word of the Lord came to Solomoni.e., during the erection of the sacred structure, in order to encourage the king in his work, and remind him of the solemn conditions under which he reared a temple for Jehovah. The word if thou wilt (1Ki. 6:12) would warn the king and people against assuming that God would be satisfied with a magnificent building. He required spiritual consecration: without that in them He would never dwell among them (1Ki. 6:13) in His manifested glory over the mercy seat
1Ki. 6:15. The cedar was used for the inner walls and ceiling, the cypress (fir) for the floor.
1Ki. 6:16. The whole internal space of the house was divided by a cedar wall from the floor to the ceiling, this partition consisting of folding doors, drawn to and fro by golden chains (1Ki. 6:21); these two apartments were respectively the front, measuring forty cubits square, the holy place, , and the rear, measuring twenty cubits square, the most holy place,
1Ki. 6:18. Knops and open flowersBitter gourds and opened buds.
1Ki. 6:21. He made a partition by the chains of goldi.e., he made the partition to go upon golden chains; or worked the partition by golden chains.
1Ki. 6:22. The whole house he overlaid with goldi.e., the entire interior of the holy place, and the altar, and the holy of holies.
1Ki. 6:23. Two cherubim of olive treeThese were of a form which can only be conjectured by us. In Ezekiel 41 and Revelation 4 further descriptive indications are given; but the cherub is represented variously, with one, two, and then four various faces; and with two, four, or six wings; probably colossal figurative images of manifold and majestic life. Standing on the highest step of created life, and uniting in themselves the most perfect created life, they are the most perfect revelation of God and the Divine life.Bahr. Olive wood was employed in their construction, as being most solid and durable. Their outspread wings spanned the entire breadth of the temple from side to side, meeting and touching in the centre of the holy oracle (1Ki. 6:27).
1Ki. 6:29. Carved all the walls within and withoutlit., from within to without, i.e., from the inner oracle, the holy of holies, to the outer compartment, the holy place.
1Ki. 6:34. The two leaves of the one door were foldingIt seems from this that the door consisted of two wings, or halves, and these were made like leaves of the wild olive tree, either longitudinally like leaves bound together, or the two leaves were the upper and lower halves of each door wing.
1Ki. 6:37. In the fourth year, &c.The time occupied in erecting the temple was from the second month of the fourth year to the eighth month of the eleventh year of Solomons reign; i.e., about seven years and a half; a short period for so magnificent an edifice; but the large number of workmen employed, and the vast preliminary preparation of stones and timber which were used, explain the comparative speed with which this temple of Jehovahs glory was reared and finished.W. H. J.
HOMILETICS OF 1Ki. 6:1-38
THE TEMPLE OF SOLOMON AN EMBLEM OF THE CHURCH OF GOD
I. The Church of God, like the Temple of Solomon, rests on a solid foundation. In forming the sub-basement of the gorgeous temple on Mount Moriah huge stones were quarried, carefully chiselled and squared, and laid deep in the earth with the utmost precision (1Ki. 5:17). Josephus says: The king laid the foundation of the temple very deep in the ground, and the materials were strong stones, and such as would resist the force of time. These were to unite themselves with the earth, and become a basis and sure foundation to sustain with ease those vast superstructures and precious ornaments whose own weight was to be not less than the weight of those other high and heavy buildings which the king designed to be very ornamental and magnificent. So the church of God is securely settled on a foundation of truths that know no decay, and which shall survive the wreck and ruin of the most solid structures of earth. In vain tempests rage, or earthquakes rumble, or enemies assailthis foundation is immovable: the truth of God is unalterably the same.
II. The Church of God, like the Temple of Solomon, is composed of a great variety of materials. The stone, the wood, the gold, the brass, the iron, and the textile fabrics used in the construction and beautifying of the material temple point out the great diversity of moral character which now constitutes the temple of God (Luk. 13:29). The stars that glitter in the firmament vary in magnitude, in motion, and in embellishments; but their light is one, and they together form the same grand temple of the skies. Diversity in unity is the leading characteristic in all the works of God.
III. The Church of God, like the Temple of Solomon, is gradual and silent in its erection (1Ki. 6:7.) When Bishop Heber read to a friend his poem on Palestine, he was reminded that in describing the Temple of Solomon he had made no reference to the silence in which the building proceeded. The poet turned aside, and in a few minutes struck off the beautifully expressive line:
Like some tall palm the noiseless fabric sprang.
In order to reconcile the spirit of the new architecture as nearly as possible with the letter of the old law (Deu. 27:5-6), the stones were hewn in the quarries and placed with reverent silence one upon another without sound of axe or hammer, and the temple rose as if by the gradual growth of nature. The work was not done in haste. Years had been spent in thoughtful and substantial preparations; and more than seven years were occupied in the actual building (1Ki. 6:1; 1Ki. 6:37-38). Some of the greatest movements are for a time veiled in obscurity until the right moment comes, when the obscurity vanishes, and the vastness and splendour of the work elicit the wonder and admiration of the age. We are familiar with this process in the natural world and in the progress of individual history. The fruits of the earth do not reach maturity at a bound. Slowly and in secret the bud is rounded, then comes the delicately-tinted blossom, and afterwards the glossy, mellow fruit. The same may be said of the growth of human character. It reaches the higher grade of mental and moral excellence by slow and silent stages, and advances in the same ratio with the fidelity and energy with which the man carries out the great plan of his life-career. The plan and scope of our individual life is often obscure to us; but as we endeavour to work out that part that is clear, the whole gradually becomes more distinctly defined. And so in rearing the temple of God, the work proceeds deliberately and noiselessly. Such a method is an education and discipline to the church. The grandest truths of God are not comprehended suddenly by the weakness of man: inquiry is provoked and faith in the divine wisdom and power encouraged.
IV. The Church of God, like the Temple of Solomon, is the scene of hal lowed worship.
1. There the truth of God is deposited. The oracle he prepared in the house within, to set there the ark of the covenant of the Lord (1Ki. 6:19). The ark contained the two tables of stone, inscribed with the ten commandments which testified to the nature of the covenant existing between Jehovah and his people. Over the ark stretched the wings of the cherubim (1Ki. 6:23-27). This was the very throne of Jehovah, who was said to dwell between the cherubim. It was also called the Mercy Seat or Propitiatory, because Jehovah there revealed himself, especially on the great day of atonement, as God pardoning iniquity, transgression, and sin. Nor was it without the profoundest allusion to the coming dispensation of the gospel that Gods throne of Mercy covered and hid the tables of the law. The attitude of the cherubim was significant of the desire of angelic intelligences to learn the gospel mysteries that were hidden in the law. The more complete revelation of the divine will is committed to the custody of the Christian church, and it is her function to disseminate the knowledge of that will. Acquaintance with divine truth is essential to intelligent and acceptable worship.
2. There praise is offered. The devout Israelite rejoiced to praise God in His sanctuary. Praise is the essence of all true worship. Should be offered continually (Psa. 34:1). Should be intelligent and fervid (1Co. 14:15). Is often the precursor of special blessing (compare 2Ch. 5:13-14; Neh. 9:6; Neh. 9:9; Neh. 9:12; Neh. 9:17; Neh. 9:25-26; Act. 16:25-26). Should always follow the reception of blessing (Act. 2:46-47). The prophetic description of the heavenly temple designates its walls salvation, and its gates praise.
3. There the divine glory is manifested. The Temple of Solomon was the scene of revelations of overpowering splendour (2Ch. 5:14). The glory of Jehovah shone forth from between the cherubim (Psa. 80:1). The sanctuary has ever been the place where the soul has beheld its brightest visions (Psa. 63:2). The church is the repository of heavenly mysteries and the academy where they are explained. Here many a dark mind has been illumined, many a burdened soul relieved, many a strange providence interpreted, many a tangled question settled. The manifestation of Jehovah to the soul fills it with solid satisfaction and radiant joy.
V. The Church of God, like the Temple of Solomon, is the dwelling place of Jehovah (1Ki. 6:11-13). The presence of Jehovah is the charm, the life, and the glory of the church. Methinks, says Bishop Hall, I see four temples in this one. It is but one in matter, as the God that dwells in it is but one; three, yet more in resemblance, according to the division of them in whom it pleases God to inhabit; for wherever God dwells, there is His temple. O God! Thou vouchsafest to dwell in the believing heart. The heaven of heavens is not able to contain thee, and yet thou disdainest not to dwell in the strait lodgings of our renewed souls. So, then, because Gods children are many, and those many divided in respect of themselves, though united in their head, therefore this temple, which is but one in collection, as God is one, is manifold in the distribution, as the saints are many; each man bearing about with him a little shrine of this Infinite Majesty. This temple of stone, though most rich and costly, yet what is it to the living temple of the Holy Ghost, which is our body? What is the temple of this body of ours to the temple of Christs body, which is His church? And what is the temple of Gods church on earth to that which triumpheth gloriously in heaven?
VI. The Church of God, like the Temple of Solomon, is permanent in its reputation. Notwithstanding the chequered history of the Templethe glory of its prime, the humiliation of its decay; its disasters, its transformations, its demolitionit retains to this day a conspicuous place in the veneration of the wandering and scattered Israelites, and in the esteem and marvel of the religious world. Its memory will never perish: the material type has vanished; the spiritual antitype endures. So the church of God, alternating with the ebb and flow of reverses and triumphs, is ever advancing more distinctly into view, is gaining on the admiration and affection of the race, and is winning for herself immortal renown.
THE BUILDING OF THE HEAVENLY TEMPLE (1Ki. 6:7)
The house built in this mysterious silence was the first temple at Jerusalem. Of all earthly objects this, to the ancient Jew, was the most sacred and dear. If he loved his God, it was the scene of his sweetest joys. If he loved Him not, he loved His temple. The men who wrote the Scriptures partook of this feeling. Would they raise the believer in Jesus to his highest honour? Know ye not, says one, that ye are the temple of God? Would they describe the church in her brightest glory? The beauty of Zion is made an emblem of her; the church is represented as an holy temple, designed and builded for its Creators praise. The subject before us is a view of the redeemed church as a temple now building by God in an eternal world.
I. The materials of which it is composed. And what are they? They came to it from a very far country. Heaven itself could not supply them. In themselves, they are worthless; but the means which have been employed to remove them thither have made them costly, precious. They are an innumerable multitude of sinners, brought from the fallen world on which we are standingmaterials strange indeed to be employed in such a place, but better calculated than any other to manifest the wisdom and the power of God. They are well described as stones made ready. A stone, in its original state, is rough and unshapen, incapable of separating itself from its native rock, and, even if separated, unfit for the workmans use. It may serve for the wall of a mean and humble structure; but the builders of a temple will not touch it. Now, this is precisely our natural state. It was once the state of all the redeemed. But a blessed change at length transformed them. These stones were made ready for a glorious building; these senseless, mean, sinful beings were prepared for heaven; and the work was Gods. He selected them, chose them out from among their fellow-sinners, and then formed them a people for himself. The exterior of the earthly temple at Jerusalem was of polished marble; it glittered, we are told, with a snowy whiteness; and nothing was seen within but cedar and gold; but as for this heavenly house, he calls its walls salvation, and its gates praise. Here stands revealed that truth which every view that we can take of heaven confirms, Ye must be born again. The stones were made ready, not in this house, but before they were brought thither. No axes or hammer were found there to prepare them. Nor are any means of grace to be found beyond the skies. There no preacher warns, no afflictions soften, no patient Saviour entreats, no spirit strives.
II. The foundation of this heavenly building. And how wonderfully adapted is this to the materials of which it is composed! The sinners who are now rejoicing in glory had another world once given them. It was a good, a fair, and happy world: but they lost it; at least they lost its happiness, and covered it with misery and death. They have now another kingdom bestowed upon them; but will they not lose this also? The fallen angels once possessed it; but though they excel in strength, they kept it not. How, then, shall worms of the dust be safe in so high a station? The same omnipotent Being who redeemed their souls from destruction, and formed them for heaven, has covenanted, pledged Himself, to keep them secure for ever. Hence, if we speak of them as a building, the Holy Spirit testifies of Him as the foundation on which it stands. He is its chief corner stone, its sure foundation; the support, the security, the immovable resting place, of the whole fabric. He sustains this relation now to the church on earth, and He is as ready in His love, as able in the greatness of His strength, to bear the weight of the far happier and wider church above. The convulsions that shake the worlds from their places will not throw down a pillar, nor even loosen a stone, of this mighty structure; the events of eternity will not move it. There is underneath it a living, an everlasting Rock, on which it is not only built, but to which it is united. It is in it, become a part of it; so that it can no more be torn from it than that Rock itself can be shivered and destroyed. In Jesus Christ, says St. Paul, all the building groweth. In Him ye also are builded together.
III. The manner in which this temple is built.
1. Like almost every work of its great author, it is accomplished gradually. The first stone of it was laid when righteous Abel found himself in glory; and since that period, another and another has been added, according to the good pleasure of Him who worketh all things after the council of His own will. Sometimes it has risen slowly; at other times it has advanced with wonderful rapidity; but at all times the God of all grace has been employed on it, so that the building has increased in height and glory through all generations. In the present day the Lord is hastening His work. He is adding to His church daily such as shall be saved; and after He has made them ready, He takes them from this His earthly habitation, and fixes them, one after another, in their places, in His fairer temple above.
2. This temple is building also constantly, steadily, surelywithout interruption or hindrance. Earthly structures do not proceed thus. Unforeseen difficulties embarrass, and unavoidable delays retard. Sometimes the design of the builder is changed; at other times he is baffled in carrying it into effect. It is not so, however, when God builds. His purposes never change; they can never be frustrated. Before the mountains were brought forth, He formed the stupendous plan of His heavenly house. It was the work, the masterpiece, of His infinite skill; and it contains treasures of wisdom and knowledge, which angels cannot explore, nor eternity unfold. The directions given for the Jewish temple were minute; but in this most glorious edifice nothing was overlooked. It was ordered in all things, and sure. We know but little of the magnificence of this plan, but were it possible that it could be yet more vast, we know that there is ability in Christ to perform it all. His people, though more numerous than the stars of heaven, shall all be willing in the day of His power; and as for His enemies, they can no more impede His designs, than a host of worms could delay the rolling of the glorious sun.
3. Thus goes the building on, gradually, constantly; but yet, all this time, silently. Turn again to the Jewish temple. There was neither hammer, nor axe, nor any tool of iron heard in the house while it was building (1Ki. 6:7). This silence has something in it deeply mysterious. It could not have happened from mere chance. It was undoubtedly enjoined by God, and intended to convey some important truth. The question is, What is that truth? And this is not easily answered.
(1.) It intimates, the unnoticed and secret manner in which God carries on His purposes of grace in a tumultuous world. What is the history of the world? A history of commotions. Its great men have seldom moved, but confused noise and garments rolled in blood have marked their footsteps. They have struggled till whole kingdoms have resounded with their deeds, and this poor distracted earth has resembled the troubled sea when it cannot rest. But God, in the midst of them, unperceived and almost unthought of, is bringing His own purposes to pass; is making the wrath of man to praise Him, and the wickedness of man to do His will. He presides in the storm. The waves thereof toss themselves, but He turns every billow that swells to the furtherance of His own glory.
(2.) The silence in this temple may remind us of the secret operations of God in the souls of men. Sometimes He turns their thought to Himself by the wind, the earthquake, or the fire, by means which are visible and striking; but it is generally in the still small voice that He manifests Himself as the God of their salvation. The seed is sown in their hearts, they know not when; it groweth up they know not how; it brings forth fruit of which they themselves are often unconscious. They are ripened for heaven in a way which they understand not, and then they die, and go there by a road which none can discover. They lie down in the grave, and all is silence. And what a peaceful world do they enter!
(3.) The stillness among the Jewish builders might be designed to remind us of the peace of heaven. All there is unbroken calmness. Changes and afflictions have ceased. The souls they so often assailed and wrought on, need them no more. No longer earthly, they are now heavenly and faultless. All is purity, and perfection, and brightness. The work is done; the instruments thereof are cast aside; and not a sound is heard but the voice of overflowing blessedness, and the songs of adoration, and the shout of praise. Now what may we learn from this part of our subject? We are taught not to despair of the cause of God even in the darkest scenes. Look where we will, the state of the world is indeed deplorable. But amid all its clamour and strifes, the work of God is going gradually, surely, silently on. We hear the voice that is lifted up in the streets, the conquerors shout, the wranglers curse, and the worldlings song, but we hear not the prayer of the broken heart, we see not the bended knee, we mark not the spirit that in this cottagers hut, or in that poor mans dwelling, bursts joyfully from its prison of clay, and is carried home by the angels of God. We may learn here, too, the character of true religion. Nothing is more common in some parts of our land than an ostentatious, noisy display of affected piety. Beware of a love of display. Beware of a bold, forward, unmeaning tongue. It will please, it will deceive, none but the simple; it will disgust all the wise. Let your tempers, let your lives, speak with a louder voice than your words. True religion is a silent, humble, retiring thing. It is as modest as it is bold. It will come into public notice, rather than leave misery unrelieved, ignorance unaided, or any duty undone; it will brave the opposition and cruelty of a whole world, rather than sin; and then it will retire into its closet, and be seen only by its God.
IV. The great end for which this heavenly temple is raised. And this, perhaps, is too often overlooked. The temple of Solomon was not built for this single purpose, that it might be a house of prayer for all nations. It was designed to be the habitation of God, the seat of His presence, and a monument of His name. And this heavenly temple is erected for the same purpose; not so much for the sake of the living and shining stones that compose it, as for the honour of its great builder; not so much for the salvation of the poor outcasts of the earth, as for the glory of the power, wisdom, and grace of the great God of heaven. Brethren, will this blessedness be ours? The edifice of which you have been hearing is not a creation of fancy, the baseless fabric of a dream. It is as true that there are pardoned sinners joyful in heaven, as that there are dying, suffering sinners within these walls. It becomes a question, then, and a very solemn one, Shall we ever see this glorious temple? Shall we ever form a part of it? To answer this question we must ask another: Are our souls emblems of this great building? Are we now the temples of the Holy Ghost?habitations of God through the Spirit? With such a weight of glory before us, shall we repine at the strokes which are making us ready for its honours and happiness? What if the blows fall heavy and fast? The sound of the axes and hammers will the sooner cease; if not, the more honourable will be our place in the building, the more shall we show forth in heaven the glory of the Lord.C. BRADLEY.
HOMILETICS OF 1Ki. 6:23-28
THE CHERUBIM EMBLEMATIC OF THE HIGHEST FORMS OF LIFE
THE doctrine of the CHERUBIM has elicited a great variety of views among the ablest expositors. By some the symbol has been made to signify either the four covenants; or all the creatures; or the four cardinal virtuesjustice, wisdom, fortitude, and temperance; or the four faculties in the soulrational, irascible, concupiscible, and conscience; or the four chief passionsjoy, grief, hope, and fear; or the four great monarchies; or the four elements; or the four evangelists. Others have contended that the cherubic figures were intended to symbolize the Divine Persons in the Sacred Trinitythe figure of the lion being associated with the human form to indicate the promised incarnation; or that they were glowing emblems of the character and modes of operation of the Third Person of the Trinity; or that the cherubim were no other than holy angels, and the figures of them in the Temple were symbolical representations of their nature and ministry. Dr. Kitto argues in favour of the opinion that the cherubim represent the whole multitude of the redeemed from among men, not of any section of the church, nor of any class of its members, but of the great body of believers in the Atonement throughout all ages, countries, and nations. In the immediate application of this symbol, he writes, it may be said that, when the High Priest entered the Most Holy Place of the Tabernacle, which he never did without the blood of atonement in his hands, and looked upon the Ark of the Covenant with its cherubic appendages, with the Shekinah enthroned between, he beheld, in fact, but a miniature model of what he saw on a large scale without, when standing amidst the many thousands of Israel abiding in their tents. Here were the cherubic symbols resolved into their constituent multitudes; and over the host rested in calm majesty the pillar of cloud, the visible external token of the Divine presence permanently residing among the tribes. And even this was, as our further light indicates, but a type of that which the Israelites could not see, and would not like to have seen, of multitudes redeemed to God, out of all nations, by the blood of atonement, forming the Church of God among whom He should dwell. For homiletical purposes, the more practical views entertained on this subject may be combined by regarding the Cherubim as emblematic of the Highest Forms of Life.
I. The cherubim were emblematic of life in general. A conspicuous and extraordinary feature of the cherubim was their wings (1Ki. 6:24; 1Ki. 6:27, compared with Isa. 6:2; Eze. 1:23-25). Wings are suggestive of motion, and motion of life. As the eye of the devout worshipper rested on the figures of the cherubim carved on the cedar walls of the temple and on the folding doors of the oracle (1Ki. 6:29-35), he would be reminded that life in its lowest forms had its origin from that Being before whose awful presence he bowed. The world teems with evidences of life. The swarming insects, the merry, fluttering birds, the gleaming, trembling waters with their countless inhabitants, display to the observer that earth, air, and sea, are pregnant with vitality. Life at all times and in any aspect is full of mystery; it eludes the keenest search and puzzles the ablest analyst. The ancients recognized the Divine origin of life in their story of Prometheus, who climbed the heavens by the assistance of Minerva, and stole fire from the chariot of the sun, which he brought down in a hollow stick or ferule to animate his man of clay. The genius of man may construct mechanical marvels, but it cannot inspire life. All life depends for its origin and perpetuity on the will of God. This seems the first and most elementary truth suggested by the cherubic symbol, and its surrounding decorations of palm tree and open flowers (1Ki. 6:29).
II. The cherubim were emblematic of manifold forms of life. The cherubim were composite images significant of all forms of creature life, and symbols of the living presence of Jehovah in all departments of the animal world. Their form is described in the opening vision of Eze. 1:5-11. Each cherub had four faces and four wings, and every part of their appearance seems to have been symbolical of some aspect or manifestation of Divine energy and power in creature life. A Jewish proverb says, concerning the cherubim: Four are the highest things in the world: the lion amongst the wild beasts, the bull amongst cattle, the eagle amongst birds, the man is over all, but God is supreme. God, on the other hand, is common to these four, and the life uniting them, which they have not of themselves, but from Him who is the source of all lifethe Creator, and hence stands and is enthroned above them all. The distribution and limitation of life are among the mysteries and wonders of creation. The character of each individual plant or animal is decided and shaped by the measure of life-force it contains. This accounts for the endless variety to be found in nature. But life, in whatever form or degree manifestedwhether in the crawling worm or the majestic lion, in the slimy frog or the stately bull, in the humble sparrow or the soaring eagle, in the sluggish octopus or in divinely-imaged manhas but one source in God. This idea of the cherubic figures, as representative of multiform life, was evidently embodied in the mythologies of the ancients, though travestied by many an extravagance. We observe it in the Egyptian Sphinx, or Serapis, compounded of the human and the quadruped; in the Persian Mithra, sun and bull; and in the Roman Diana, horse, dog, and man.
III. The cherubim were emblematic of the higher forms of spiritual life. These cherubim, observes Bahr, as beings standing on the highest step of created life, and uniting in themselves the most perfect created life, are the most perfect relation of God and the Divine life. This life is enjoyed in a very lofty degree by the angels, who are frequently represented in Scripture by cherubic symbols; but the higher possibilities of the spiritual life are reserved for those who accept, by faith, the blessings of the atonement, shadowed forth by the teachings of that mercy-seat on which the cherubim bent their meditative gaze. The first mention of the cherubim in Gen. 3:24 is suggestive. Man had fallen; transgression had brought its penalty: he was already subject to the fear of death. Still, between him and this issue stood the tree of life; he might still eat and live for ever. God saw his wretchedness, and in mercy interposed; for what would life be but one protracted curse beneath the frown of the angry and unpropitiated Deity? A voice is heard, but it is from the Shekinah; communion may be held, but it must be from between the cherubim; a more spiritual economy is already inaugurated; mans attention is to be turned from the paradise of earth to the paradise of heaven; sacrifices already foreshadow the mediatorial atonement, and the first development of the Spirits operations is seen in restraining man from impending evil, and conducting him to a holier and more spiritual life. The cherubic symbols were but figures borrowed from nature to represent great spiritual qualities, and they were eminently adapted to do so. What better type could be found of intelligence, wisdom, sympathy, and every generous and tender emotion, than the face of man; of strength, courage, and magnanimity of spirit than the body of the lion; of patient endurance, unwearied service, and meek submission to the yoke, than the face of the ox; and of an active, fervent, soaring spirit, than the wings of an eagle?
IV. The cherubim were emblematic of the operations of the Third Person in the Trinity as the source of the highest kind of life. Some writers have contended that the vision of cherubic splendour recorded in Ezekiel 1 symbolizes the offices and work of the Holy Spirit; that not more fully are the glowing pages of Isaiah occupied with a delineation of Christs birth, life, sufferings, death, and the glories which should follow, than is the sublime and majestic scroll of Ezekiel, full from end to end of the illustration of that mighty agency, the Holy Ghost, whether viewed under the emblems of fire, air, or water. This argument is ingeniously set forth in a lecture on the cherubic symbol, delivered before the Young Mens Christian Association in London, by Dr. J. B. Melson, in summarizing which he observes, We have seen this symbol restraining our first parents in paradise; witnessing to the acceptance of the sacrifice of Abel; assuring Abraham of his inheritance in Mamre; connected with the commissioning of Moses, in which we have a type of that commission which every faithful minister of God must receive; guiding, defending, and comforting the children of Israel in their wanderings; and showing forth the very method in which the Spirit still guides, defends, and comforts Gods Israel in our day. We have entered Solomons temple, and seen it beautifying the place of the Divine residence with its infoldings and its unfoldings until the priests could no longer minister by reason of the glory. We have seen the same symbol mysteriously connected with the revelation of Gods will to Ezekiel, Daniel and Isaiah, and with the glowing representations of regenerating, quickening, and sanctifying energy with which the pages of the prophet of Chebar abound. Daniel saw the glory in its cherubic chariot ascending into heaven, the shepherds beheld it returning again to earth. This glory conducts the wise men to Bethlehem, and clothes the top of Tabor with its fleecy light; it receives the conqueror as he rises triumphant, enriched with the spoils of death and of hell. The glory carries him up into heaven from the heights of Olivet, and descends in flame upon the heads of the disciples at Jerusalem, filling the room where they were sitting. In this view, the work of the Holy Spirit is brought more vividly and constantly before the mind than a cursory student of Scripture would observe; it localises and embodies the spiritual and unseen; it helps to differentiate the subtlest influences; it strengthens faith, and stimulates the soul to seek after a more intensely spiritual life.
LESSONS.
1. It is the tendency of all life to assume some visible form.
2. Great spiritual truths are strikingly represented by well-known material symbols.
3. The spiritual life of the believer is a grander reality than its most imposing emblems.
GERM NOTES ON THE VERSES
1Ki. 6:1; 1Ki. 6:38. Why was the time for building the Temple so exactly specified?
1. Because it was a most important event to Israel. It points to the final aim of the leading out of Egypt, the land of bondage. The time of the wandering, of unrest, and of battle, is over; Israel is in possession of the whole of the promised land; the time of the kingdom of peace is come. The temple is a memorial of the truth and mercy of God, who ever fulfils his promises, albeit after many long years (Exo. 3:17), supplies all wants, and governs things excellently. The word of the Lord is sure. After long wandering, after many a cross, many a tribulation and trouble, comes the promised time of peace; the Lord helps His people, even as He preserves every single being unto His heavenly kingdom (2Ti. 4:18).
2. Because it is a world-historical event. The temple of Solomon is the first and only one in the whole ancient world which was erected to the one, true, and living God. Darkness covered the earth, and gross darkness the people (Isa. 60:2). Heathendom had here and there greater temples, but they were the abodes of darkness: this temple is the abode of light and life; from it light breaks forth over all nations (Isa. 2:3; Jer. 3:7; Mic. 4:2). What avails the greatest, most glorious temple, if darkness instead of light proceeds from it, and, amid all the prayers and praises, the knowledge of the living God is wanting?
1Ki. 6:2. The exceeding glory and pomp of the temple.
1. The idea to which it bore witness. No house, no palace in Israel compared, for splendour and glory, with the house of God. Everything in the shape of costly material and treasure which the age permitted, all toil and art were lavished upon it. To the Most High were given the noblest and dearest of mens possessions. How many princes, how many nations, how many cities build gorgeous palaces, and adorn with gold and all treasures the buildings designed to minister to the pride of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and to a haughty manner of life; but yet have no money, no sacrifice, for the temples which either are entirely wanting, or are poor and miserable in appearance!
2. The purpose which it served. Its magnificence has no empty, dead show, to dazzle and intoxicate the senses; everything was full of meaning, and referred to higher, Divine things; it was not meant to render sensual man still more sensual, but to draw him nearer to the supersensuous, and thus to elevate him. Empty parade is unseemly for any house of God; rather must everything which wealth and art can accomplish serve to raise the heart and mind to God, so that each one shall say, This is none other but the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven (Gen. 28:17).Lange.
The same rule that skilful carvers observe in cutting out the perfect statue of a man, that the height be thrice the breadth, and the breadth one-third of the height, was likewise duly observed in the fabric of the temple, whose length was double to the height and treble to the breadth, as being sixty cubits long, thirty high, and twenty broad. How exquisite a symmetry hast thou ordained, O God, betwixt the faithful heart and thy church on earth, with that in heaven! How accurate in each of these, in all their powers and parts, compared with others! So hath God ordered the believing soul that it hath neither too much shortness of grace, nor too much height of conceit, nor too much breadth of passion; so hath He ordered His visible church, that there is a necessary inequality without any disproportion, a height of government, a length of extent, a breadth of jurisdiction, duly answerable to each other: so hath He ordered His triumphant church above, that it hath a length of eternity, answered with a height of perfection and a breadth of incomprehensible glory.Bp. Hall.
1Ki. 6:3; 1Ki. 6:16-17. As the temple hath three distinctions of roomsthe porch, the holy place, and the holy of holies, so is each of them answered spiritually. In the porch we find the regenerate soul entering into the blessed society of the church; in the holy place the communion of the true visible church on earth selected from the world; in the holy of holies, whereinto the high priest entered once a year, the glorious heaven into which our true High Priest, Christ Jesus, entered once for all to make an atonement betwixt God and man.Bp. Hall.
1Ki. 6:5. All round there was an additional construction of three stories, the foundation of which leant upon the outer wall of the house, which, on this account, grew narrower every storey, so that the rafters of the circuit leant upon it without being let into the wall. Thus was the temple, like the heart, concealed, its walls with their graceful proportions, as they rose towards heaven, becoming lighter and finer; upon them, however, rested the outer building which belonged to them, as the whole being rests upon the heart filled with faith.
Verse
1Ki. 6:7. The greatest works often proceed in deepest silence.
1. Examples in the motion of the celestial bodies, the force of gravition, the flow of the tides, the growth of vegetation.
2. Noise and demonstrativeness are no evidence of real progress.
3. The most impressive feature in all Divine operations is their silence.
4. The voiceless testimony of the church before the world is often irresistibly effective.
The temple is framed in Lebanon, and set upon Zion. Neither hammer nor axe was heard in that holy structure. There was nothing but noise in Lebanon; nothing in Zion but silence and peace. Whatever tumults are abroad, it is fit there should be all quietness and sweet concord in the church. O God, that the axes of schism, or the hammers of furious contentions, should be heard within thy sanctuary! Thine house is not built with blows, with blows it is beaten down. O knit the hearts of thy servants together in the unity of the spirit and the bond of peace, that we mind and speak the same things, that thou who art the God of peace mayest take pleasure to dwell under the quiet roof of our hearts!Bp. Hall.
The building of the Temple emblematic of the building up of Christian character. The erection of the Temple was a type of the building up of Christian characteran emblem of the manner in which the Spirit of God builds up the minds of men in holiness. If we attempt to dismiss entirely from our thoughts all things that are material, we shall not find it easy, nor, perhaps, possible, to realise the ideas for which they stand. For instance, take the case of sacrifice: turn away your mind entirely from any material, visible sacrifice, and can you tell what a sacrifice isa sacrifice of God? Then, again, dismiss from your mind the material image of a temple, and could a Jew, can you, fully grasp the thought of God dwelling in mana mind in a mind, intellect in intellect, reason in reason, will in will?
I. The erection of the Temple was Gods work. It was built by His express direction, and He connected Himself with it in a manner not common to any place on earth. Men were sometimes inspired to speak and sometimes to act; and under the guidance of this inspiration the Temple was erected, and God Himself condescended to preside over it in a special manner. Thus it was the erection of God Himself, and was intended as a book in which the Jews might read high and Divine principles.
Now leave the Temple, and look at the Christian, and there learn that God is at the foundation of Christian characterthat the erection, the progress, the completion of the Christian character, and its consummation in heaven, is an idea and work of God. The Temple answered political and civil ends; but it also shadowed forth some great spiritual truth; and what was that truth? That the great God means to make living souls His dwelling place, intends to live with men, and that there is such a thing as the union of the Spirit of God with the Spirit of man And hence the soul of man is called in the New Testament a living temple.
II. The Temple, as an emblem of the Christian, was the place of mercy, the place of law, the place of worship.
1. The Temple was a place of mercy. There was erected a throne of mercy; there mercy was, as it were, localized. Gods design was, to give man a clear conception of mercy. Mercy was in the heavens, mercy was in the seasons, mercy breathed in all things around the Jewish people; but they did not recognise it, they did not realize it. In the Temple there was a bright emblem of mercymercy in a state of incarnation. But it is only a Christian that has a clear idea of mercy as a living principle. Men in general do not feel their need of mercy at all. The Christian knows his need of it, and knows the reality of mercy as an attribute of God. As soon as the need of mercy becomes a living idea in the heart, it exerts a softening influence, it produces humility. It is possible to talk of mercy, and be proud, hatefully proud; but as soon as the need of mercy becomes a genuine operative principle, it makes the soul deeply, sweetly humble. It produces peacepeace between mans intellect and truth, between mans will and holiness, peace between mans desires and Gods government. It is with the Christian as with the Temple. The glory of the Temple was within. It was externally glorious, but its true glory was the Shekinah, the indwelling of the Spirit of God.
2. The Temple was a place of law. The law was deposited in the ark, and it remained there until the wars with Titus. But leaving the history of the written law, turn to the indwelling of law in the heart of the Christian. Look at the significant words of inspirationThis is the covenant I will make with thee, saith the Lord, I will put my laws in their minds, and write them in their hearts.
3. The Temple was a place for worship. Worship is internal. In the Temple there was communion with the Divine presence; there was the light of the Shekinah, there was the sacrifice offered, there the incense ascended. Have you seen or realized the Being you worship? God has made all things, as it were, double. There are dualities everywhere. We know that if the eye sees, it has external objects suited to its operation; if the ear hears, it has sounds to meet its capacity. Now, if we were simply matter, this would be all; but we are spirit, and there is something to answer to spirit. It is God! And by the Temple was taught the glorious truth that the Divine Spirit and human souls come together. The great work of Christ is to carry, in a living manner, the presence of God down into the human heart; to transfuse Gods mind into the mind of man. It is repelling, it is resisting this, that will ruin men. This, then, is the main idea suggested, that the consecration of man as a temple is the work of God.
III. The erection of the Temple was a noiseless work. There was neither hammer, nor axe, nor any tool of iron heard in the house while it was in building. Oh! the severity, the stillness, the quietness, of the growing up of this extraordinary edifice! The kingdom of God cometh not with observation. A bruised reed will He not break; He shall not lift up nor cry, nor cause His voice to be heard in the street. The building up of the human soul as a temple is a quiet, noiseless work. There is very little religion where there is much bustle, very little religion where there is much ostentation. We shall not suffer by giving a little more time to deep, quiet, severe thinking, to secret communion with the unseen; to the inner unostentatious work of heart worship. This fellowship with ourselves and the indwelling Spirit of God is the essence of true religion, and the true idea of a spiritual temple.Caleb Morris.
1Ki. 6:11-13. The soul as the home of God.
1. Is garnished with moral and spiritual virtues.
2. Is designed as a permanent dwelling (1Ki. 6:13).
3. Is clustered with the memories of happy fellowships.
4. Is retained by continued obedience: disobedience involves desertion.
1Ki. 6:18; 1Ki. 6:22. There was no stone seen; the whole house he overlaid with gold. The strength and beauty of moral character.
1. Moral character must be firmly based on a foundation of imperishable truth.
2. A strong, vigorous character is often bid under the veil of the brightest and tenderest graces.
3. Religion in its higher development is essentially aesthetical.
4. The church of God combines and exhibits every moral excellence. Strength and beauty are in His sanctuary.
1Ki. 6:20. The construction of the Most Holy Place in the form of a perfect cube had, doubtless, its typical significance. It was an appropriate symbol of perfection. The solid cube, in whatever way it is set, is always upright, a perfect square on every side, and all sides and angles corresponding perfectly to each other. So this form of the inner sanctuary indicated that the Holy One of Israel dwelleth in perfection.
1Ki. 6:38. Solomon began, says Wordsworth, to build the temple in the flower-month, and finished the building in the fruit month. Such is the life of the church, and of every believer who is a temple of the Spirit. It begins in flowers, but must end in fruit. The harvest is the end of the world.
The temple of Solomon was not distinguished, like the temples of Thebes, for gigantic vastness, for it was not a very large structure, but rather for its harmonious proportions, its beauty and completeness of workmanship, and the excessive costliness of its materials. And the church, the spiritual house of the living God, is to be specially distinguished for the excellency and completeness of the elect and precious stones which are required to build it; for these are not the many that go in the broad way to destruction, but the comparatively few that find the way of life (Mat. 7:13-14).Whedon.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
II. THE DESCRIPTION OF THE TEMPLE 6:138
Chapter six is designed to present a word picture of Solomons Temple. The material presented here is sufficient to allow one to get a general idea of what that magnificent structure must have been like. The omission of crucial architectural details, however, renders impossible absolute certainty about many points. After a brief chronological note (1Ki. 6:1), the author discusses the exterior (1Ki. 6:2-10) and interior (1Ki. 6:15-35) of the Temple. Sandwiched between these two blocks of material is a brief passage (1Ki. 6:11-14) relating a promise which God gave to Solomon during the course of construction. The chapter concludes with some brief notes concerning other details of the Temple construction (1Ki. 6:36-38).
A. AN IMPORTANT CHRONOLOGICAL NOTE 6:1
TRANSLATION
(1) And it came to pass in the four hundred eightieth year after the children of Israel went out from the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomons reign over Israel, in the month Ziv (it is the second month), that he began to build the house of the LORD.
COMMENTS
1Ki. 6:1 furnishes the key to Biblical chronology prior to the monarchy period. The ancients were quite time conscious and often would set their dates by referring to a number of years before or after a significant event. It would appear that up until the period of the kings, time was measured in relation to the Exodus from Egypt. The text unequivocally states that four hundred eighty years elapsed between the time the Israelites came out of Egypt and the time when Solomon began building the Temple. Since Solomon began to reign in 971 B.C., his fourth year would be 967 B.C. Figuring back four hundred eighty years from 967 B.C. would yield a date of 1447 B.C. for the Exodus. The Temple work commenced in the month of Ziv,[168] the second month of the Hebrew year, which corresponds roughly to the last part of April and the first part of May on the current calendar.
[168] Ziv, the archaic name for the second month, is found only here. Three other survivals of the archaic calendar are found in the Old Testament: Abib, the first month; Ethanim, the seventh month; and Bui, the eighth month. The Jews adopted the Babylonian names of the months during the period of the captivity.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(1) In the fourth year.This date, given with marked precision, forms a most important epoch in the history of Israel, on which, indeed, much of the received chronology is based. In the LXX., 440 is read for 480, possibly by an interchange of two similar Hebrew letters, or, perhaps, by reckoning from the completion of Exodus at the death of Moses instead of its beginning. The Vulgate agrees with the Hebrew text. Josephus, on the other hand, without any hint of any other reckoning in the Scriptural record, gives 592 years. The date itself, involving some apparent chronological difficulties, has been supposed to be an interpolation; but without any sufficient ground, except Josephuss seeming ignorance of its existence, and some early quotations of the passage by Origen and others without it; and in neglect of the important fact that, disagreeing prima fcie with earlier chronological indications in Scripture, it is infinitely unlikely to have been thus interpolated by any mere scribe.
These indications are, however, vague. The period includes the conquest and rule of Joshua, the era of the Judges down to Samuel, the reigns of Saul and David, and the three years of Solomons reign already elapsed. Now, of these divisions, only the last three can be ascertained with any definiteness, at about 83 years. The time occupied by the conquest and rule of Joshua, cannot be gathered with any certainty from Scripture. The same is the case with the duration of some of the subsequent Judgeships. Even the numerous chronological notices given in the Book of Judges are inconclusive. We cannot tell whether they are literally accurate, or, as the recurrence of round numbers may seem to suggest, indefinite expressions for long periods; nor can we determine how far the various Judgeships were contemporaneous or successive. The tradition followed by St. Paul (Act. 13:19-21), assigning to the whole a period of 450 years, agrees generally with the latter idea. The genealogies given (as, for example, of David, in Rth. 4:18-22; 1Ch. 2:3-15, and elsewhere) agree with the former. Hence, these vague chronological statistics cannot constitute a sufficient ground for setting aside a date so formally and unhesitatingly given at an important epoch of the history, corresponding to the equally formal determination of the date of the Exodus in Exo. 12:40-41. The omission of the date in quotations, again, proves little. The different date given by Josephus, without any notice of that which we now have, presents the only real difficulty. But it is possible that he may have been inclined tacitly to harmonise his chronology with some other reckoning known in his time among the heathen; and in any case it is doubtful whether his authority can outweigh that of our present text and the ancient versions. On the whole, therefore, the grounds assigned for rejection of the chronological notice of this verse, are insufficient.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
1. Four hundred and eightieth year From this verse it clearly appears that both the year of the exodus from Egypt and the year of the foundation of the temple were memorable epochs in the history of the Hebrew race. See on Exo 12:40-41. Accordingly, the statement of this verse has been a matter of great interest, and the subject of much dispute among chronologists. Most modern chronologers reject the number four hundred and eighty as an early interpolation. The Septuagint reads four hundred and forty, and Josephus five hundred and ninety-two. St. Paul’s words in Act 13:18-21, seem clearly to show that the Jews of his time reckoned this period in a way which is inconsistent with the statement of this verse. But, with the exception of the Septuagint, the ancient versions and the Hebrew manuscripts are uniform in support of the present Hebrew text. In view of the involved and conflicting attitude of the many systems of chronology, the question is, perhaps, beyond the possibility of exact decision. Ewald suggests that the four hundred and eighty is a round number made up by assuming twelve generations of forty years each. (40×12=480.) He supposes that to every forty years a great hero and an important event were assigned, something like the following: 1.) Moses and the desert. 2.) Joshua and the elders. 3.) Chushan’s oppression and Othniel’s rule. 4.) The Moabites and Ehud. 5.) The Arameans and Jair. 6.) Jabin and Deborah. 7.) The Midianites and Gideon. 8.) Tola and his foes. 9 . ) Jephthah and Samson and their foes. 10.) The Philistines and Eli. 11.) Samuel and Saul. 12.) David.
The month Zif Corresponding with our May, or more generally, extending from the new moon of April to that of May. The Hebrew Ziv means brightness, blossom, and so becomes appropriately the name of May the flower month. According to Rawlinson, ( Herodotus, vol. i, p. 506,) Zif is the same as the Assyrian Giv, which means bull, and answers to the zodiacal sign of Taurus. The names of the Jewish months, and the approximately corresponding months with us, are as follows:
1 . Abib (Nisan) April.
2 . Zif (Iyar) May.
3 . Sivan June.
4 . Tammuz July.
5 . Ab August.
6 . Elul September.
7 . Ethanim (Tisri) October.
8 . Bul (Marcheshvan) November.
9 . Chisleu December.
10 . Tebeth January.
11 . Sebat February.
12 . Adar March.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
The Building Of The Temple And Its Specifications ( 1Ki 6:1-38 ).
The description of the building of the Temple, and its specifications, are now given in order to bring out the glory of Solomon, and the glowing picture (untainted by the later reality) suggests that the whole was taken from the original source. It was common for such information to be found in the records kept by kings of the ancient Near East, for their temples were an important aspect of their reigns, and thus there is no need to look for a source outside the court records. The overall emphasis is on the materials used, the measurements, and the techniques.
Being mainly designed by the Phoenicians it was, as we would expect, similar to neighbouring temples, although having the addition of a Most Holy Place, following the pattern of the Tabernacle. Thus the porch led in to the Holy Place, an elongated room, which itself led up to the Most Holy Place which was designed as a perfect cube. An almost parallel design was found at Ebla, in Syria, dating to the third millennium BC. A further example of a similar, but smaller, tripartite shrine was discovered at Tell Tainat on the Orontes (9th century BC), although that had an altar in the inner room. A late bronze age tripartite shrine was also discovered at Hazor constructed with timber between the stone courses.
One outstanding feature of Solomon’s Temple was that it was coated with gold. It was a display of Solomon’s great wealth. It is, however, an interesting indication of Solomon’s lack of spiritual perception that he did not follow the pattern laid down for the Tabernacle whereby the closer men came to the Most Holy Place, the more precious the metal that was in use. That indicated to men, as they moved from bronze, to silver, to gold, that they were, as it were, moving gradually out of their mundane world closer into His presence until at last they approached the very curtain behind which was the Ark of YHWH. It was a reminder that man was what he was, earthly and mundane, and that God was the God of Heaven, and that a purifying process must take place before we could come face to face with Him. But in Solomon’s Temple all was gold. God had simply become a ‘national treasure’. Yes, He was valued. But enclosed in His own little box.
From a literary viewpoint the passage itself follows a clear plan which seeks to bring out its important message. It opens and closes with a record of the dates involved, which form an inclusio, and are a reminder that we are dealing with the genuine history of men, and it centres round a confirming word from YHWH demanding obedience to His covenant. Indeed without such obedience all that the Temple was supposed to indicate meant nothing. And in between we have the description of the building and decorating of the Temple, indicating man’s efforts on God’s behalf. The writer has already made clear the huge physical effort that has gone into the building of the Temple (1Ki 5:13-17), and in 1Ki 6:14-36 it is made clear the greatness of the wealth that was being poured into its decoration. The lesson that is being emphasised is clear. Whatever efforts we may put in, and however much wealth we may devote to God, if we do not live in obedience to him, all else is in vain. Being ‘religious’ is not sufficient. What God requires is personal response. Obedience is central. In the words of Samuel, ‘to obey is better than sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of rams’ (1Sa 15:22). This lesson that great effort and great giving is not in itself sufficient but must be centred on obedience explains why the writer divided up the description of the building of the Temple into two parts around the central covenant.
In this regard God’s words concerning the Temple can hardly be described as over-enthusiastic. Notice the rather unenthusiastic, ‘Concerning this house which you have built,’ and compare it with Nebuchadnezzar’s ‘Is this not great Babylon which I have built?’ (Dan 4:30). The initiative for the Temple had come from men and not from YHWH, which was in total contrast to the Tabernacle (2Sa 7:5-7). And even in its building YHWH’s requirements had been disobeyed as we have already seen above. It was thus more a monument to Solomon’s great splendour, and to his spiritual superficiality, than to a genuine evidence of deep spirituality. Like Saul he was more into the externals than into genuine obedience, something which in both cases did not become apparent immediately.
The ordinary reader may feel somewhat bewildered at all the detail provided with regard to the construction and embellishment of the Temple, but we should learn from this important lessons. Firstly how interested God is in the details of life. he ensured that a record was made of all the attempts of men to please Him (‘and then shall every (believing) man have praise of God’ – 1Co 4:5), just as He keeps a record of our lives. Secondly of how important it is that we should devote our skills to worshipping Him as well as serving Him. It reminds us that both are important. How much time do we, for example, spend in planning and designing our own public and private worship so as to bring glory to Him?). Thirdly as a reminder of how generous we should be towards God, and of how we should never treat Him lightly. Fourthly that the Temple, at its best, was designed to lift up men’s hearts towards God and remind them of His glory, so that as we consider its detail we might bring glory to our God. It is equally as important for us that we do not get so absorbed in ‘the church’ that we fail to give Him the glory that is His due. Fifthly in that it was designed so as to demonstrate that all creation is important in the eyes of God, and that He created it for our benefit (even though we may misuse it). Sixthly in that it was demonstrating the presence of God among His people in splendour and glory, and lifting up their eyes towards Him. The danger came when they turned their eyes away from God to the Temple and gave it an importance beyond its deserving. Seventhly in that it stood as a guarantee of the fulfilment of all God’s promises concerning the rise of the Coming King.
This particular passage is divided into three main parts by three phrases, each of which is a reminder that the Temple was completed, a repetition which was typical of ancient literature. These phrases are as follows:
“So he built the house and finished it.” This ends the description of the building of the stonework (1Ki 6:9).
“So Solomon built the house and finished it.” This follows the covenant made by YHWH. (1Ki 6:14).
“So was he seven years in building it.” This concludes the whole (1Ki 6:37).
In writings where the script continued unbroken such ‘breaks’ were vital in order to enable the reader to recognise when a change in the subject matter was taking place and a new point in the narrative was being reached.
We may analyse the whole as follows:
Analysis.
a
b The building of the main structure in stone (1Ki 6:2-10).
c YHWH’s covenant with Solomon (1Ki 6:11-14).
b The embellishment of the Temple with timber and its inner detail (1Ki 6:15-36).
a The date when the Temple was finished (1Ki 6:37).
Thus the whole is planted firmly in history, man’s efforts on God’s behalf are described, but central to all is the requirement for obedience to God and His covenant.
1Ki 6:1 a ‘It came about in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt —.’
The interpretation of these words is a decisive point in Biblical chronology. It does at first sight give the appearance of indicating an exact chronology, but if taken literally it would be the only place in Scripture where such a specific attempt at exact dating, covering so long a period, has been attempted, apart from Exo 12:40-41. Indeed, speaking from a human point of view it is difficult to see who would have been in a position to be able to accurately arrive at this figure. Records were not meticulously kept before the time of the monarchy, and the periods covered by Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Saul, contain time periods so uncertain that no one could have pinpointed the length of time with such accuracy from them, even if they accepted the exact round numbers in Judges literally. Certainly many attempts have been made to do so since, but none of them have been successful, for they have always had to make (or ignore) uncertain assumptions concerning the time period of Joshua, the length of time to the first invasion of the land in Jdg 3:8, and the length of the periods for Samuel and Saul. We may take a scholarly interest in such matters, but it is doubtful if the writer of Kings or his source did so.
It is true, of course, that God would have known how long the true period was, but the words are not shown as coming from the mouth of God nor are they put in the form of a prophetic announcement, and there is no indication given anywhere that the writer obtained special divine assistance in arriving at the figure. He appears rather to have made the statement almost matter-of-factedly on the basis of his own knowledge. In that case we may ask why did he do so, and what was the criteria on which he based his information?
A point that must be borne in mind in considering the matter is the way in which number words were used in ancient times. They were not times in which much stress was laid on mathematics and arithmetic. Numbers were a mystery to most people. Indeed most probably could not accurately use numbers beyond, say, twenty (even if that). Numbers were rather used in order to convey an impression, and many of what we see as number words (e.g. a thousand) also had a number of other different meanings (such as military unit, family unit, clan unit, work unit, etc.). This being so our question should rather therefore be, what impression was the writer trying to give?
A clue may perhaps be found in another reference which has in mind the period from the Exodus to Solomon and that is found in 1 Chronicles 6. Indicated there we have the list of ‘Priests’ from Aaron to the time of Solomon, and then from Solomon to the Exile. If we list the ‘Priests’ from Aaron to Ahimaaz, the son of Zadok, who would succeed Zadok as Priest in the early days of Solomon, we have twelve names, and if we take a ‘generation’ to represent forty years that would give us four hundred and eighty years. Thus the writer may simply be intending to indicate that there were ‘twelve generations’ (12×40=480) between the coming out of Egypt and the commencement of the building of the Temple, which would in reality be considerably less than 480 years. And a connection with the High Priesthood would be a very fit way in which to date the growth of Israel’s faith to the point at which the Temple was built (which was as the men of the day would see it).
But we must then ask, why was the matter seen as being of such importance that such dating was required? The answer would appear to lie in the emphasis that is earlier laid on the fact that the Temple was being built by Solomon because at long last the land was at rest, with all its enemies having been dealt with. It was an indication that the period of wandering, and of having a temporary, travelling sanctuary, was considered to be over. Thus the ‘four hundred and eighty years’ indicated the period that had passed between the first deliverance from Egypt and the time at which Israel could say, ‘now at last we are permanently settled in the land and at rest, with all our enemies subdued.’ It was a moment of great satisfaction.
1Ki 6:1
‘ And it came about in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month Ziv, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of YHWH.’
So after twelve generations from the coming out of Egypt, Solomon felt that things were so at rest that a permanent Temple could be built. The impression being given was that now at last Israel were finally settled in the land for good. But as we know, and as the writer knew, within a generation that vision would collapse, and a united Israel would be no more. It was a dream that would turn into a nightmare. Thus the positive note of the verse suggests that it was written before the crises that followed occurred, confirming that it was very early and part of the original source.
The date was seen as so important that the exact date is then given. It was in the month Ziv, which was the second month, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign (somewhere around 960 BC). It was seen as a glorious month in history, for it was in this month Solomon began to build the house of YHWH. The final writer of Kings must, however, certainly have had in mind what the future of the Temple was. He would have known that that too was doomed even as it was being erected, and that a promising beginning would end in disaster. The dream would come to nothing because the injunction to Solomon in 1Ki 6:12-13 would be ignored.
The word used for ‘moon period’ appears regularly in Genesis, Exodus, etc. The moon period Ziv occurs only in this chapter, and is explained as being the second moon period in the year. It is an indication of early date, for later the second month would be Iyyar. The dating from the beginning of the reign was a normal method of dating. Everything about this verse indicates its antiquity.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The Reign of King Solomon over a United Israel (970-930 B.C.) 1Ki 1:1 to 1Ki 11:43 records the story of the reign of King Solomon. The plot of this historical account of Solomon’s life takes a familiar structure as it discusses the establishment, prosperity and failure of his reign as king over Israel.
1. The Establishment of Solomon’ Reign 1Ki 1:1 to 1Ki 2:46
2. The Prosperity of Solomon’s Reign 1Ki 3:1 to 1Ki 10:29
3. The Failure of Solomon’s Reign 1Ki 11:1-40
4. Epilogue 1Ki 11:41-43
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
The Reign of King Solomon (His Prosperity) 1Ki 3:1 to 1Ki 10:29 gives us the story of Solomon’s reign as king over the united kingdom of Israel. The emphasis in this passage of Scripture is Solomon’s prosperity as a result of obeying God’s Word. In contrast, the final chapter of Solomon’s reign will end sadly with the story of Solomon falling away from God and how his kingdom grew weak and became divided as a result of his sins.
One of the reasons for Solomon’s prosperity can be seen in his willingness to give generously to the Lord. 1Ki 3:1-15 gives us the story of Solomon’s great sacrifice that he offered to God and how God responded to him in a dream and blessed him. As a new king he had a great need, which was to rule over his people with wisdom and discretion. In his need he came to God with an offering. It was Solomon’s offering of one thousand burnt offerings to the Lord that prompted God to give back to the king a gift. This great sacrifice opened the windows of heaven for Solomon that forever changed the effectiveness of his ministry, for God gave him great wisdom and wealth.
Then God came to Solomon a second time and promised to be with His people and bless the entire nation (1Ki 6:11-13). Although God blessed Solomon in his first divine encounter, the people were blesses during this second visitation. During these years God did not mind Solomon’s prosperity. In fact, it was God who had given him the power to gain this wealth. In fact during his second great sacrifice at the dedication of the Temple Solomon was able to offer sheep and oxen without number (1Ki 8:5). His first offering to God consisted of one thousand burnt offerings (1Ki 3:4). This time he offered twenty-two thousand oxen and a hundred and twenty thousand sheep (1Ki 8:63). The Lord responded by visiting him again in a dream (1Ki 9:1-9). This time God promised to establish his royal lineage forever and to honour the Temple with His presence. Solomon continued to give (2Ch 8:12; 2Ch 9:12). As he gave he continued to prosper, and he built to his heart’s desire. In fact, he became the richest man on earth, receiving tribute from many kingdoms around him. Solomon made silver as common as stones (2Ch 9:27). In other words, he made the city look more and more like Heaven itself, whose streets are paved with gold.
There is a teaching in today’s churches that one should be specific to God in prayer with his particular need as he gave an offering. In other words, an act of giving should be accompanied with a request to God for a particular need. If someone wanted a Scriptural basis for speaking these blessing forth as they gave an offering, then this verse would certainly support such a teaching.
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
The Building Itself
v. 1. And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, v. 2. And the house which King Solomon built for the Lord, the length thereof, v. 3. And the porch, v. 4. And for the house he made windows of narrow lights, v. 5. And against the wall of the house, v. 6. The nethermost chamber was five cubits broad, and the middle, v. 7. And the house, when it was in building, was built of stone made ready before it was brought thither, v. 8. The door for the middle chamber, v. 9. So he built the house and finished it; and covered the house with beams and boards of cedar. v. 10. And then he built chambers against all the house, five cubits high, v. 11. And the word of the Lord came to Solomon, v. 12. Concerning this house which thou art in building, if thou wilt walk in My statutes, and execute My judgments, and keep all My commandments to walk in them, then will I perform My word with thee which I spake unto David, thy father, v. 13. and I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will not forsake my people Israel. v. 14. So Solomon built the house and finished it,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
SOLOMON‘S TEMPLE.The preparations for the building of the Temple having been related in the preceding chapter, the historian now proceeds to describe the edifice. He begins his narrative with a precise statement of the date of its erection (1Ki 6:1); then follows
(1) a description of the shape, size, and arrangement of the exterior (1Ki 6:2-10), and
(2) a detailed account of its internal fittings and adornments (1Ki 6:15-35). The promise made to Solomon during its erection finds a place in 1Ki 6:11-13; while the vessels, etc; used in the Temple service are described in 1Ki 7:1-51. A parallel though briefer account, and one differing considerably in its arrangement, is found in 2Ch 3:4.
The erection of this splendid sanctuary was no doubt the greatest event, both in Jewish and Gentile eyes, in the history of the Holy City. It made Jerusalem what it had not been till then, the religious capital. The stronghold of the Jebusites now became the shrine and centre of the Jewish system. We are not warranted, however, in believing that it shaped the name by which the city was known to the Greeks, (Jos; B. J. 6. 10) and , being probably mere attempts to “twist Jerushalaim into a shape which should be intelligible to Greek ears” (Dict. Bib. 1:983).
We find a sufficient indication, however, of the profound importance which this undertaking assumed in Jewish eyes in the fact that four chapters of our historyand three of them of considerable lengthare occupied with an account of the materials, proportions, arrangements, and consecration of this great sanctuary. To the historiographers of Israel it seemed meet that every measurement of the holy and beautiful house should be recorded with the greatest exactness, while the very vessels of service, “the pots and the shovels and the basons,” were judged worthy of a place in the sacred page.
But these careful and detailed dimensions are not only proofs of the tender veneration with which the Jew regarded the Temple and its appointments; they are also indications and expressions of the belief that this house, so “exceeding magnifical,” was for the Lord, and not for man. These exact measurements, these precise and symbolic numbers all]point to a place for the Divine Presence; they are “the first requisite for every space and structure which has a higher and Divine destination, and they impart thereto the signature of the Divine” (Bhr). Indeed the very names templum and (= a space measured off) are in themselves in some sort attestations to the ancient belief that the dignity of a temple of the Most High God required that the length and breadth and height, both of the whole and of its component parts, should be carefully recorded. It is this consideration explains a peculiarity of Scripture which would otherwise cause some difficulty; viz; the detailed and repeated measurements, and the almost rabbinical minuteness, not only of our author, but of Ezekiel and of the Apocalypse. When a “man with a measuring reed” (Eze 40:8, Eze 40:5; Rev 11:1; Rev 21:15) appears upon the scene, we are to understand at once that the place is sacred ground, and that we are in the precincts of the temple and shrine of Jehovah.
At the same time it must be added here that, exact and detailed as is the description of this edifice, it is nevertheless so partial, and the account is, perhaps necessarily, so obscure as to leave us in considerable doubt as to what Solomon’s Temple was really like. In fact, though “more has been written regarding the temple at Jerusalem than in respect to any other building in the known world” (Fergusson), the authorities are not agreed as to its broad features, while as to matters of detail they are hopelessly divided. On one point, indeed, until recently, there was a pretty general agreement, viz; that the house was “rectilinear and of box form.” But it is now contended that this primary and fundamental conception of its shape is entirely at fault, and that its sloping or ridged roof would give it a resemblance to the ark or to a tent. Nor have we the materials to decide between these conflicting views; in fact, nothing perhaps but drawings would enable us to restore the temple with any approach to accuracy. “It is just as easy to pourtray a living man from a tolerably well preserved skeleton as to reproduce a building in a way which shall correspond with reality when we have only a few uncertain remains of its style of architecture in our possession”. And the difficulty is enhanced by the fact that the temple was sui generis. It was purely Jewish, so that no information as to its structure and arrangements can be derived from the contemporary architecture of Egyptians or Assyrians. In the absence of all analogies restoration is hopeless. It is well known that all the many and varied representations of different artists, based though they all were on the Scripture account (Exo 25:31-37) of the seven-branched candlestick, were found to be exceedingly unlike the original, when the true shape of that original was disclosed to the world on the Arch of Titus. It is equally certain that, were s true representation of the temple ever to be placed in our hands, we should find that it differed just as widely from all attempted “restorations” of the edifice, based on the scanty and imperfect notices of our historian and Ezekiel.
The mention of Ezekiel suggests a brief reference to the temple, which he describes with so much precision and fulness in his fortieth and following chapters. What is its bearing on the description we have now to consider? Is it an account of the temple as it actually existed in or before his time; is it a plan or suggestion for its restoration (Grotius), or is it wholly ideal and imaginary? The first view, which long found favour with commentators, and which has still some advocates, is now pretty generally abandoned. For while many of Ezekiel’s measurements, etc; correspond exactly with those of our historian, and while it may be conceded, therefore, that this delineation has a historical basis, there are features in the narrative which can never have been realized in any building, and which prove the account to be more or less ideal. For example. The outer court of his temple (Eze 42:16-20) would cover not only the whole of Mount Moriah, but more than the whole space occupied by the entire city of Jerusalem, He speaks again of “waters issuing out from under the threshold” (Eze 47:1), and flowing down eastward to heal the pestilent waters of the Dead Sea, where a literal interpretation is manifestly impossible. And it is to be remembered that the prophet himself speaks of his temple as seen in vision (Eze 40:2; Eze 43:2, Eze 43:8). The true account of this portraiture would therefore seem to be that, while it borrowed largely from the plan and proportions of Solomon’s Temple, it was designed to serve as “the beau ideal of what a Semitic temple should be”
Two other authorities, whose accounts have a direct bearing on the sacred narrative, must be mentioned here Josephus and the Talmudic tract on the temple, called Middoth (i.e; measures). Unfortunately, neither is of much avail for the illustration of the text we have now to consider. Josephus, too often unreliable, would seem to be especially so here. “Templum aedificat,” says Clericus, “quale animo conceperat non quale legerat a Salomone conditum.” “Inconsistency, inaccuracy, and exaggeration are plainly discoverable in the measurements given by Josephus”. “Wherever the Mishna is not in accord with Josephus the measurements of the latter are untrustworthy”. The writers of the Mishna, again, refer generally, as might be expected, to the temple of Herod, or confuse in their accounts the three temples of Solomon, Herod, and Ezekiel (Bhr). The student of temple architecture consequently derives but scant assistance in his work from the writings of uninspired historians.
Perhaps this is the proper place to remark on the close correspondence between temple and tabernacle.. In the first place, in plan and arrangement the two structures were identical. Each faced the east; each had three parts, viz; porch, holy place, and holy of holies, while the side chambers of the temple (verse 5) were analogous to the verandah formed by the projecting roof, or curtains, which ran round three sides of the tabernacle. Secondly, the measurements both of the whole edifice and of its component parts were exactly double those of the tabernacle, as the following table will show:
Tabernacle cubits
Temple Cubits.
Entire length
40
80
Entire width
20
40
Entire height
15
30
Length of Holy Place
20
40
Width
10
20
Height
10
20
Length of Holy of Holies
10
20
Width
10
20
Height
10
20
Width of Porch
10
20
Depth
5
10
The only exception to this rule is that of the side chambers, which (on the lowest story) were but five cubits wide, i.e; they were identical in width with the verandah. It is held by some, however, that with the enclosing walls, they were ten cubits. If this were so, it follows that here again the same proportions are exactly preserved.
It will be clear from this comparison that the temple was constructed, not after any Egyptian or Assyrian model, but that it preserved the features and arrangement of the consecrated structure, the pattern of which was showed to Moses in the Mount (Exo 25:9, Exo 25:40; cf. Act 7:44; Heb 8:5), so that when “David gave to Solomon his son the pattern of the porch,” etc; “and the pattern of all that he had by the spirit” (1Ch 28:11, 1Ch 28:12), the same arrangement and similar proportions were consciously or unconsciously preserved. The temple differed from the tabernacle only so far as a large house necessarily differs from a small tent.
It is also to be observed that every dimension of the temple was either ten cubitsthe holy of holies was a cube of ten cubitsor a multiple of ten, just as the dimensions of the tabernacle are either five cubits or multiples of five. Now this decimal arrangement can hardly have been accidental. Not only had the Jews ten fingers, but they had ten commandments, and a system of tenths or tithes, and this number, therefore, was to them, no doubt, the symbol of completeness, just as five was the sign of imperfection. The very dimensions, consequently, of the house are a testimony to the perfections of the Being to whose service it was dedicated.
Nor is the recurrence of the number three, though by no means so marked, to be altogether overlooked. Considering its Divine originalthat it was made after the pattern of things in the heavensit is not wholly unworthy of notice that the building “had three compartments. Each of the three sides was flanked by an aisle formed of three stories, and the holy of holies was of three equal dimensions” (Wordsworth). And if we cannot follow him further and see any significance in the fact that the “length was 3 x 30 cubits, and the height 3 x 10,” we may still remember that this house was built, though Solomon knew it not, to the glory of the Triune God. Bhr, however, who also shows at some length how “the number three is everywhere conspicuous in the building”, accounts for it on the ground that “three is in the Old Testament the signature of every true and complete unit” (Was drei Mal geschieht ist das rechte Einmal; was in drei getheilt ist ist eine wahre Einheit), so that practically three would signify here much the same as tenit would stand as “the signature of the perfect unit, and so also of the Divine Being.”
One remark more may be made here, viz; that in the temple or tabernacle we have the archetype of the Christian Church. The correspondence is so obvious as to strike the most casual observer. Porch, or steeple, nave, chancel, altar, side aisles, these have succeeded to, as they were suggested by, porch, temple of the house, oracle, mercy seat, side structure, of the Jewish sanctuary. Just as Christianity is built on the foundations of Judaism (see Homiletics), so has the Jewish temple furnished a model for the Christian; for, considering how closely the early Church fashioned itself after the pattern of Judaism, the resemblance can hardly be accidental.
1Ki 6:1
And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt [This date has been the subject of much controversy, which cannot even now be considered as closed. Grave doubts are entertained as to its genuineness. Lord A. Hervey says it is “manifestly erroneous.” Rawlinson considers it to be “an interpolation into the sacred text”. And it is to he observed,
1. that the LXX. reads 440 instead of 480 yearsa discrepancy which is suspicious, and argues some amount of incertitude.
2. Origen quotes this verse without these words (Comm. in S. Johann 1Ki 2:20).
3. They would seem to have been unknown to Josephus, Clem. Alex; and others.
4. It is not the manner of Old Testament writers thus to date events from an era, an idea which appears to have first occurred to the Greeks temp. Thucydides (Rawlinson). It is admitted that we have no other instance in the Old Testament where this is done.
5. It is difficult to reconcile this statement with other chronological notices both of the Old and New Testaments. For taking the numbers which we find in the Hebrew text of the books which refer to this period, they sum up to considerably more than 480 years. The time of the Judges alone comprises 410 years at the least. It should be stated, however, with regard to the chronology of the period last mentioned
(1) that it only pretends to furnish round numbers20, 40, and the likeand evidently does not aim at exactitude;
(2) that there is good ground for suspecting that the periods are not always consecutive; that in some cases, i.e; they overlap. We are not justified, therefore, because of the dates of the Judges in rejecting this statement. The question of New Testament chronology is somewhat more complicated. In Act 13:20, St. Paul states the period between the division of Canaan, by Joshua (Jos 14:1, Jos 14:2), and the time of Samuel the prophet as 450 years ( …) But Lachmann, on the authority of A, B, C , considers the received text to be corrupt, and would place after . Alford, however, treats this reading as “an attempt at correcting the difficult chronology of the verse,” and says that “all attempts to reconcile” it with 1Ki 6:1 “are arbitrary and forced.” If, then, the received text is to standand it is to be noticed that the reigns of the Judges, including Samuel, sum up exactly to the period mentioned by St. Paul, 450 yearsthe interval between the Exodus and the erection of the temple cannot well have been less than 99 or 100 years longer, i.e; 580Josephus makes it 592instead of 480 years.
6. The chronology of Josephusto which by itself, perhaps, no great weight is to be attached, agrees with St. Paul’s estimate, and of course contradicts that of the text.
7. Nor does it seem to be a valid argument for the retention of the suspected words, that “the precision of the statement is a voucher for its accuracy.” (Bhr, who adds, “Not only is the whole number of the years given, but also the year of the reign of the king, and even the month itself,” for the genuineness of the later date, “In the fourth year,” etc; is not questioned.) The remark of Keil that the building of the temple marked a new and important epoch in the history of the chosen people, and so justified an exceptional reference to the birth or emancipation of the nation, though undoubtedly true, will hardly avail much against the considerations alleged above. On the whole, therefore, I confess to the belief that these words are the interpolation of a later hand (of which we shall find traces elsewhere), though it would, perhaps, be premature, with only the evidence now before us, to exclude them from the text. It is certainly noteworthy that such destructive critics as Ewald and Thenius are satisfied as to their genuineness], in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel [according to the chronology of Ussher, this was A.M. 3000], in the month Zif [i.e; May. The word signifies splendour. The month was probably so called because of the brilliancy of its flowers (Gesen; Keil, al.)], which is the second month [This explanation is added because before the captivity the months (with the exception of Abib) appear to have had no regular names, but were almost always designated by numbers. (See, e.g; Gen 7:11; 2Ki 25:1). Only four pre-captivity names are recorded, and of these three are mentioned in connexion with the building of the temple, viz; Zif here and in verse 37, Bul in verse 38, and Ethanim in 1Ki 8:2. It has hence been inferred that these names were not in general use, but were restricted to public documents, etc., a supposition which, if correct, would account for the facility with which the old appellations were superseded by post-captivity names. The later name for this month was Iyar (Targum on 2Ch 30:2)], that he began [not in Heb.] to build the house of [Heb. to] the Lord. [The chronicler mentions the site (2Ch 3:1), “In Mount Moriah ….in the threshing floor of Ornan,” etc. We know from the extensive foundations yet remaining that the preparation of the platform on which the temple should stand must have been a work of considerable time and labour, and see Jos; Ant. 8.3. 9, and Bell. Jud. 5.5.1. We can hardly be wrong in identifying the remarkable rock known as the Sakrah, over which the mosque of Omar (Kubbet-es-Sakrah) is builtthe “pierced rock” of the Jerusalem Itinerarywith the threshing floor of Ornan. The reader will find an interesting paper on the site of the temple in “Scribner’s Monthly,” vol. 11. pp. 257-272. According to Mr. Beswick, whose measurements and conclusions it gives, the porch stood on the Sakrah. Mr. Conder, however, urges strong reasons for placing the Holy of Holies on the rock. We should then “see the Holy House in its natural and traditional position on the top of the mountain; we see the courts descending on either side, according to the present slopes of the hill; we find the great rock galleries dropping naturally into their right places; and finally, we see the temple, by the immutability of Oriental custom, still a temple, and the site of the great altar still consecrated [?] by the beautiful little chapel of the chain.” But see Porteri. p. 125; Pal. Explor. p. 4, also pp. 342, 343; “Our Work in Palestine,” chs. 8. and 9.; “Recovery of Jerusalem,” Heb 12:1-29; etc. Quot viatores, tot sententiae.]
1Ki 6:2
And the house [i.e; not the whole structure, but the main building, exclusive of porch (1Ki 6:3) and side chambers (1Ki 6:5)] which king Solomon built for the Lord, the length thereof was threescore cubits [But what was the length of the cubit? () This unfortunately is by no means certain, as the Jews would seem to have had three different cubits. All the ancient measures, both Jewish and Gentile, were taken from parts of the body. Thus we find a “finger-breadth” (Jer 52:21), “hand-breadth” (1Ki 7:26), “span” (1Sa 17:24), and the Greeks had their and , and the Romans their cubitus, pes, digitus, etc. is used in its proper sense (ulna) Deu 3:11. Probably at first it signified, like , the length from point of elbow to tip of little or middle finger. But it is obvious that this was an uncertain measure, and hence perhaps arose cubits of different length. According to Gesen. the cubit here mentioned, which was the older or sacred Mosaic cubit (2Ch 3:3), was six palms, while that of Ezekiel (Eze 40:5; Eze 43:13), the royal Babylonian cubit, was seven, but on this as well as other points the authorities are very far from agreed. “The length of the cubit is one of the most knotty points of Hebrew archaeology”. There is a general consensus of opinion, however in favour of understanding the cubit here mentioned as measuring 18 inches. Fergusson considers this to be beyond question. It is certainly noteworthy that the measurements of Kings and Chronicles, of Ezra and Ezekiel, of Josephus and the Talmud, all agree, and we know that Josephus always uses the Greek cubit of 18 inches. Mr. Conder, however, maintains that the Hebrew cubit amounts to no more than sixteen inches. He says, “Maimonides tells us that the temple cubit was of 48 barleycorns, and any one who will take the trouble to measure barleycorns, will find that three go to the inch”which gives 16 inches for the cubit. To this argument, which is not perhaps of much weight, he adds, what is of much greater moment, that “the Galilean synagogues, measured by it, give round numbers”] and the breadth thereof twenty cubits, and the height thereof thirty cubits. [It thus appears that the temple was but a smallcompared with many churches, a very smallbuilding. But its purpose and object must be considered. It was not for assemblies of the people. The congregation never met within it, but the worship was offered towards it. It was a place for the Holy Presence, and for the priests who ministered before it.]
1Ki 6:3
And the porch [, forepart, projection (Vorhalle, Gesenius). The porch was not a colonnadethat is called a “porch of pillars” (1Ki 7:6), but was formed By simply prolonging the side walls, and possibly the roof (see below). Bhr holds that it had only side walls and cieling (sic), and was entirely open in front; and the fact that no mention is made of any door or opening, though the doors of the other parts of the edifies are all referred to (1Ki 6:8, 1Ki 6:31, 1Ki 6:33), certainly favours this view, as also does the position of the pillars of 1Ki 7:21] before the temple of the house [The house, or main building (1Ki 7:2), had two parts.
(1) “The temple of the house” ( = “spacious,” hence “magnificent building,” “palace,” as in Pro 30:28; Dan 1:4. Gesen; Thes. 1:375). The same word is used of the tabernacle (1Sa 1:9), of the royal palace (1Ki 21:1; 2Ki 20:18; Psa 45:8, Psa 45:15), and of heaven (2Sa 22:7, etc.) This was the par excellence, and is called “the great house,” because of its superior size and height, in 2Ch 3:5.
(2) The oracle () see on 2Ch 3:5. The two bore a rough resemblance to the nave and chancel of a Gothic church], twenty cubits was the length thereof according to the breadth of the house [The porch, i.e; extended across the entire front, or east end of the temple] and ten cubits was the breadth [i.e; depth] thereof before the house. [The height of the porch, of which no mention is made here, is stated in 2Ch 3:4 as 120 cubits, but there is surely some mistake in the figures. For
(1) This is “unlike anything we know of in ancient architecture” (Fergusson).
(2) A porch of such dimensions would surely have been called , not (Thenius, Keil).
(3) It is doubtful whether an erection of so great a height, with such a slender basis, would stand. It would certainly be out of all proportion. Towers are generally built about three times the height of the adjoining nave, but this would be six times as high, and moreover the porch did not taper to a point like a Gothic spire. It is much more probable, therefore, that there is a corruption of the text of Chronicles (see on 2Ch 3:4)errors in numbers are by no means infrequentthan that such a column could be erected to serve as a porch, or if erectedand this consideration appears to me to be decisivecould have been passed over by our author without notice. It is impossible, however, to say positively what the height of the porch was. Probably 30 cubits, the height of the house. Stanley characteristically puts it down as “more than 200 feet.” It may be remarked here that Fergusson, following Josephus and the Talmud, contends that the temple had another building of the same height above it. See Dict. Bib. 3 p. 1456, and note on verse 20.]
1Ki 6:4
And for the house he made windows of narrow lights. [There has been much disputation over these words. The older expositors generally follow the Chaldee and Rabbins: “windows broad within and narrow without;” windows, i.e. somewhat like the loopholes of ancient castles. The windows of the temple would then have resembled those of Egyptian sacred buildings. (It is not implied that there was any conscious imitation of Egypt, though Fergusson surely forgets the affinity with Pharaoh (1Ki 3:1), the trade with Egypt (1Ki 10:28), and the favour with which some Egyptian fashions were regarded (Son 1:9), when he contends that the chosen people would never take the buildings of their ancestral enemy for a model.) But this meaning is not supported by the original ( ), the literal interpretation of which is “closed beams” (cf. 1Ki 7:4, 1Ki 7:5), and which the most competent scholars now understand to mean “closed or fixed lattices, i.e; the lattices or the temple windows were not movable, as in domestic architecture (2Ki 1:2; 2Ki 13:1-25, 2Ki 17:1-41; Dan 6:10). So Gesenius, De Wette, Keil, Bhr, al.]
1Ki 6:5
And against [or upon, ; they rested on the wall] the wall of the house [here meaning both temple and oracle: see below] he built chambers [Marg. floors. The Orig. is (Keri, ) singular = stratum ( stravit, spread out). Symm. translates . Gesenius remarks that the word is used here and in 1Ki 6:10 in the masculine of the whole of the side structure, while in 1Ki 6:6 it is used in the feminine of the single stories. The floors bore this name, , because they were spread upon, not inserted into the walls. Rawlinson has evidently confounded this word with (see below) when he says, “The Hebrew word here used would be best translated a lean to.” Both words are translated alike “chambers” in the Authorized Version, but the first means stories or floors; the second may, perhaps, signify lean tos] round about, against [It is doubtful whether is here, as commonly, merely the sign of the accusative, or is the preposition “with,” meaning “in connexion with,” cum parietibus (Seb. Schmidt), in which case its meaning would approach very closely to that of above. Bhr remarks that and are used elsewhere as almost synonymous, and refers to Psa 4:7 in connexion with Psa 67:2. Keil translates, “As for the walls” (Anlangend die Wande), but this gives us an unfinished sentence. It is probably an accusative, explicative of the preceding clause = “I mean the walls,” etc; the singular, wall, having being used above. This additional clause] the walls of the house round about [would then mean that the term “house” is to be understood as including both temple and oracle (and excluding porch), as the next words define it], both of the temple and of the oracle [The floors, i.e; ran round the south, west, and north sides of the building. Stanley aptly compares them to the little shops which nestle under the continental cathedrals; though the side aisles of some Gothic churches, viewed externally, would perhaps better represent their proportions] and he made chambers [, literally, ribs, beams, (Gesenius); Rippen (Bhr). The design of the word is clearly to convey that the floors were “divided by partitions into distinct compartments” (Merz). According to Eze 41:6 (where, however, the reading is doubtful) there were thirty-three of these side chambers; according to Josephus (Ant. 8.8. 2) thirty. Thenius is probably not so far wrong when he sees in these chambers bedrooms. A sort of monastery would seem to have been attached to the temple. So many chambers could hardly have been required for the “preservation of temple stores and utensils” (Keil), or of offerings (Ewald). Whatever their use, we can hardly suppose that they were wholly without light, though nothing is said about windows. They may have had “fixed lattices.” It is to be re. membered that the priests and Levites ministered “by night in the house of the Lord” (Psa 134:1)] round about.
1Ki 6:6
The nethermost chamber [Heb. floor; cf. Eze 41:6] was five cubits broad [It must be remembered that all the measurements are those of the interior], and the middle was six cubits broad, and the third was seven cubits broad: for [Explanation how these differences of size arose] without [i.e; on the outside] in the wall of [Heb. omits] the house [main buildingnave, and chancel] he made [Heb. put] narrowed rests [marg. “narrowings or rebatements,” The word means lessenings, deductions; Absatze, Gesen. (Thesaurus, 1:804), Bhr.
PICTURE OF CHAMBER
The outside of the temple wall took the shape of three (or four) steps, and presented three ledges for the beams to rest upon. See below] round about [same word as in verse 5. The recesses in the wall ran round the north, west, and south sides of the building; they were co-extensive, i.e; with the flats or side chambers], that the beams should not be fastened [Heb. that no fastening] into the walls of the house. [The meaning is perfectly clear, viz; that the timbers should not be let into the walls, (“they had not hold in the wall of the house,” Eze 41:6); but why this was forbidden is not quite so certain. According to Bhr, it was in order to preserve the great and costly stones of the temple intact; but others, with greater probability, hold that it was because it appeared unseemly to have the side chambers, which were for semi-secular purposes (cubicles, perhaps), made an actual part of the sacred edifice. Anyhow, it is clear that the beams rested on ledges made in the walls; but whether in the temple wall only, or in the outer wall of the side structure also, is uncertain. The preceding sketch will not only illustrate the difference, but will help the reader to understand the description preceding. In drawing (1) rebatements are showed only in the temple or inner wall, In (2) they are showed in both walls. In (1) the edifice is represented with a fiat; in (2) with a span roof.
Keil decides in favour of the first arrangement (1), and Bhr says somewhat positively, “The outer wall of the structure had no rests.” In fact, he suggests that the whole of this side building may have been of wood. It must be admitted that we do know that there were rebatements in the wall A, whereas nothing is said as to the outer wall B. It may also be reasonably alleged that the considerations of fitness and sacredness which forbade the insertion of the beams into the sanctuary wall would not apply to the outer wall, which was a part of the side structure only. Against this view, however, may be urged the extreme thickness of wall which this method of building would necessitate. For unless we suppose that the floor of the ground story rested on the rock, and so was quite detached from the building, we must suppose four rebatements, so that if the wall at the top were two cubits wide, it would be no less than six cubits (or nine feet) at the bottom. It is true that the walls of ancient buildings were of extraordinary thickness, but it must also be remembered that the temple was not fifty feet high. However, Eze 41:9 suggests that the outside wall (B) may have been five cubits in thickness, and, if so, the inner wall would hardly be less. Fergusson, therefore, has some justification for putting each wall down as five cubits wide; but on the whole, perhaps, the plan represented in (1) appears the more probable.
The historian here digresses for a moment to speak of the remarkable and, indeed, unprecedented way in which the temple was built, The stories were shaped and prepared beforehand in the quarry, so that there was nothing to do on their arrival in the temple area but to fit them into their place in the building.]
1Ki 6:7
And the house, when it was in building, was built of stone made ready [Heb. perfect. This does not mean unhewn, though is undoubtedly used in Deu 27:6 (cf. Exo 20:25) of unhewn or virgin stone; and Gesenius would so understand the expression here, But the context seems rather to convey the idea that the stones were not shaped on the spot. It was apparently the belief of the ancients that stones of proper shape and size were provided in their bed by God (so Theodoret and Procopius,) It is inconceivable, however, that no dressing or preparation of any kind would be required; an idea, moreover, which is contradicted by 1Ki 5:18. When Gardiner (in Bhr, American edition) quotes Keil (in his earlier work) as understanding “all unviolated stones of the quarry,” he hardly does justice to that author, who straightway adds, “that is, not altogether unhewn stones but stones that were so hewn and wrought in the quarry that neither hammer,” etc. (see below). Similarly Thehius and Bhr] before it was brought thither [so the Authorized Version renders but mistakenly. It means, the quarry The verb is used of quarrying in 1Ki 5:1-18 :31 (Heb.) Where was this quarry? The general idea is that it was in the Lebanon. And it is not to be denied that some of the massive substructions and cornerstones of the temple may have been brought from the mountain, along with the wood; but the bulk of the stone, there can be no doubt, was found much nearer home. Some of it, according to the Mishna (Middoth, 3.4), came from Bethlehem; but we can hardly be mistaken in believing that for the most part it was quarried in Jerusalem itself, under the very temple rock, and out of the vast caverns recovered some years ago by Dr. Barclay (see his “City of the Great King”), the “Royal Caverns” of Josephus. See “Quart. Journal,” Pal. Explor. Fund (No. 7.), pp, 373, 374, and cf. p. 34. There are unmistakable evidences of these extensive caverns having served as a quarry. Not only are the walls cut straight, but rude masses are left here and there to support the roof, and, what is still more convincing, there are stones more or less cut out of the rock, and incisions are made where stones are to be quarried. There was no reason why the workmen should go far afield for stone when they had it, and of very excellent quality, at their own doors]: so that there was neither hammer [Heb. and hammers. Keil understands “finished stones of the quarry, and hammer, and axe.” But the word “was built” (), coming as it does between “quarry” and “hammers,” almost forbids this connexion] nor axe [Heb. the axe] nor any tool [Heb. every tool] of iron heard in the house, while it was building. [The historian remarks on this, not only because it was so unusual, but with the evident idea that it was a fulfilment of the spirit of the law (Deu 27:5, Deu 27:6), which required the altar to be of virgin stones, untouched by tool of iron. If the quarries are to be identified with the “Royal Caverns,” it is easy to understand how the temple rose up in silence.
1Ki 6:8
After recording this interesting and singular fact, the historian resumes his description of the side building. The door [or entrance, doorway, , as in 1Ki 6:31] for [Heb. of] the middle chamber [generally understood to mean “the middle side chamber of the lower story.” But this is by no means necessary, for
(1) may signify the suite of rooms, i.e; the entire story or flat, as well as a single lean to or compartment, and
(2) is used in the next clause of the middle story. This has led Thenius, Keil, Ewald, Bhr, al. to substitute (following the LXX. and Targum), which would give the sense of “lower story” (as in Eze 41:7). Bhr says this “must necessarily be read.” That this emendation has much in its favour must be allowed, but it seems also certain that we get a perfectly clear meaning from the text as it stands, viz; that “the door (leading to) the middle floor was (on the ground floor) on the right side,” etc. It is hardly likely that all the compartments on the ground floor had only one approach, and the doors which communicated with them may well have been passed over as requiring no special notice. But the historian feels it necessary to state how the second and third stories were reached, and the staircase which led to them causes him to speak of the position of the door which opened upon it] was in the right side [Heb. shoulder. This word () almost implies that the door was in the external wall of the side structure, not in the wall of the holy place (as Bottcher, al.) The fact that the floor joists were not inserted into the temple walls, as being inconsistent with the dignity of the sanctuary, makes it almost a certainty that there was no direct communication between the building and its dependance. It is very improbable that the walls of the house were anywhere broken through. The “right side” was the south side (1Ki 7:39), i.e; the right, not as one faced the oracle, but, like the building, faced east. What was the exact position of the door, whether in the centre, or at either angle, it is impossible to say] of the house: and they went up with winding stairs [ is only found here and in 2Ch 3:1-17. The staircase was obviously unlike those of most Eastern buildings, within the side structure. Even if the outer wall was five cubits thick, of which we have no proof, it is very doubtful whether the staircase would or could be constructed within it] into [Heb. upon] the middle Chamber [or story], and out of the middle into the third.
1Ki 6:9
So he built the house and finished it [i.e; the exterior (see on 1Ki 6:14)] and covered [i.e; roofed, same word Deu 33:21; Jer 22:14; Hag 1:4. There is no reference to the lining of cedar which was applied to the interior. That is described in Hag 1:15] the house with beams and boards [Heb. rows, ranks. The same word is used of soldiers 2Ki 11:8, 2Ki 11:15] of cedar. [It has been universally held till quite lately that the roof was either vaulted (Thenius) or flat (Bhr, Keil). But Mr. Fergussen has alleged some reasons for believing that it was a span or gable roof. It is true that Oriental buildings almost invariably have externally flat(internally arched) roofs. In Palestine, because of the scarcity of timber, no other form is possible. But the temple, as we have seen, was constructed after the model of the tabernacle, and the latter, as the name almost implies, and as necessity would require, had a ridged roof. It does not necessarily follow, however, as Fergusson assumes, that the temple followed the tabernacle in this respect. It is obvious that when a “house was built unto the name of the Lord,” the form of the tent might be abandoned as inappropriate. It is true that this shape would be consecrated to them by many centuries of use, but it is also possible that in a house it would strike them as altogether bizarre.]
1Ki 6:10
And then [Heb. omits] he built chambers [Heb. the floor (). The word (masculine) is here again used of the entire side structure] against all the house, five cubits high [i.e; each story was five cubits (7.5 feet). The three stories would altogether measure fifteen cubits, and of course something must be allowed for joists, floors, etc. The entire height of the side structure (exterior) would consequently be about 18 or 20 cubits. And as the house was internally 30 cubits high, the exterior measurement would probably be about 32 cubits. It has hence been inferred that between the side structure and the top of temple wall there would be a clear space of 12 or 14 cubits, in which the windows were inserted. But this is based on the assumption that the side structure had a flat roof, which is by no means certain. If the roof leaned against the walls of the house, with a low pitch, there would still be space amply sufficient for the clerestory windows. Rawlinson’s diagram, which gives 80 cubits as the height from basement to ridge of roof, and only allows 20 cubits for height of walls, practically makes the house 20 instead of 30 cubits high, for it is hardly likely that it had an open roof. In fact, we know that it had a cieling (verse 14), which must have been at the height of 30 cubits
house and side structure are represented with flat, in
(2) with ridged or sloping roofs),
unless there was an upper chamber above the house, as to which see verse 20. Rawlinson’s diagram has this further defect, that he allows nothing for thickness of joists, floors, and cielings. If we allow one cubit for each floor, then, on his plan, there would be little or no room left for the windows. This verse is hardly to be considered as a repetition of verse 5, the side structure being here mentioned in connexion with its height and the materials used in its construction] and they rested on [the meaning of the Heb. has been much disputed. It is uncertain what is the nominative, Solomon (as in ), or the “floor” (just referred to in ). Gesenius understands the former, and renders, “he covered the house,” etc. Thenius, “he fastened the floor,” etc. Keil adopts the latter alternative, “it held to the house with cedar beams.” It may be urged against this rendering (as also against Thenius’s) that beams which merely rested on the walls would hardly bind or hold the side structure to the main building. But it is almost impossible to decide between these interpretations. We may either render “he covered,” etc. (with Chald; Vulg.) in which case verse 10 would agree with verse 9; or we may take the words to mean “it laid hold of, i.e; rested on] the house with timber of cedar.
At this point the historian interrupts his description of the building to record the gracious promise made to the king during its erection. It should, perhaps, be stated that this (verses 11-14) is omitted in the Vat. LXX. But it has every mark of genuineness.]
1Ki 6:11
And the word of the Lord came to Solomon [probably through the prophet Nathan. It cannot well have been a direct communication, for the second direct revelation is mentioned in 1Ki 9:2 (cf. 1Ki 3:5). The original promise was made by Nathan (2Sa 7:12). It seems exceedingly probable that the promise would be renewed through him if he were still alive] saying,
1Ki 6:12
Concerning [or, as to. There is nothing, however, in the Hebrew] this house which thou art in building [ Cf. , 1Ki 6:5, 1Ki 6:9, 1Ki 6:10] if thou wilt walk in my statutes [the connexion of ideas seems to be this, “Thou art doing well to build the house; thou art fulfilling my good pleasure (2Sa 7:13); if thou wilt go on and in other matters wilt keep,” etc. It is to be observed that this promise contains a faint note of warning. Possibly Solomon had already betrayed some slight tokens of declension], and execute my Judgments, and keep all my commandments to walk in them; then will I perform [literally, confirm. Same word as in 1Ki 2:3. The “word of the Lord” is the echo of the word of David] my word with thee, which I spake unto David thy father [i.e; the word mentioned 1Ki 2:4 and found 2Sa 7:12 sqq.].
1Ki 6:13
And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will not forsake my people Israel [cf. Deu 31:6. A fresh element is here introduced into the promise, arising out of the erection of the temple. God had pledged His presence to the tabernacle (Exo 25:8; Exo 29:45; cf. Le Exo 26:11). And the temple was reared to be His dwelling place (1Ki 8:13; 2Ch 6:2). He now assures the royal builder that he will occupy it. “Jehovah Shammah” (Eze 48:35). The covenant relation shall be more firmly established.
1Ki 6:14
So Solomon built the house and finished it [though these words are a repetition of 1Ki 6:9, yet they are not without significance. Encouraged by the promise just made, he proceeded with the interior, of which the narrative henceforth treats. 1Ki 6:9 speaks of the finishing of the shell.
1Ki 6:15
And he built [i.e; constructed, covered] the walls of the house within [but not without also, as Stanley affirms, “Its massive stonewalls were entirely cased in cedar, so as to give it the appearance of a rough log house”] with boards [or beams (): same word as in 1Ki 6:5-8] of cedar [Heb. cedars. The practice of covering stone walls with a lining of wood, which in turn was ornamented with gold or colour (Jer 22:14), seems to have had its origin in Phoenicia (Bhr), and may have been suggested to Solomon by his Zidonian workmen (Cf. 2Ch 2:14), both the floor of the house and the walls of the cieling [This gives no sense and is against the Hebrew, which is as the marg.”from the floor unto the walls,” etc. The expression walls of the cieling,” though it may be taken to mean “the walls where they join the cieling,” is peculiar, and the suggestion that for walls, we should read beamsthe word of the parallel verse in 2 Chronicleshas everything in its favour. The LXX. reads ]: and [omit] he covered them on the inside with wood [This is apparently a mere repetition. The A.V. would lead us to suppose that a fresh particular was stated. We learn from 2Ch 3:6 that not only were the walls, or their wooden lining, covered with plates of gold, “gold of Parvaim,” but they were likewise ornamented with precious stones], and he covered the floor of the house with planks of fir [see on 1Ki 5:8].
1Ki 6:16
And he built twenty cubits on [Heb. from] the sides of the house both the floor and the walls [Heb. as in verse 15, “from the floor to the walls” (or beams). If is a copyist’s error, it is repeated here] with boards of cedar [He is now speaking of the wooden partition which separated the oracle from the temple of the house. At a distance of 20 cubits, measured along the sides from the west end of the house, he erected a cedar wall which reached from the floor to the cieling] he even built them [i.e; the 20 cubits] for it [the house] within [The meaning is clear, though the construction is somewhat involved, viz; that he reared this partition inside the house to separate a portion for the oracle] even for the oracle [Heb. an oracle] even for the most holy place [Heb. for the holy of holies].
1Ki 6:17
And the house, that is, the temple before it [or, the anterior temple. The portion of the structure before the oracle is sometimes called, as here, “the house;” sometimes (as in ver, 5) “the temple; sometimes (as in 1Ki 6:4) “the temple of the house;” or, as here again, “the front temple,” is supposed to be an adjective formed from . Thenius, however, supposes that (oracle) has fallen out of the text. Our author now describes the division of the building into holy and most holy place] was forty cubits long.
1Ki 6:18
And the cedar of the house within [lit. cedar (wood) was placed against the house inside] was carved with knops [Heb. sculpture of gourds. The sculpture is in apposition to cedar. The authorities are divided as to the kind of sculpture intended. Keil thinks they were bassi relievi; Bhr contends that, like those of the Egyptian monuments, they were sunken, is generally assumed to be synonymous with “squirting cucumbers” (2Ki 4:39, note). Bhr, however, justly observes that a deadly fruit, such as this is described to have been, was hardly likely to be employed in the decoration of the sanctuary, and he would render the word “buds.” Keil thinks the gourds were oval ornaments, something like the wild gourd, which ran in rows along the walls. See the illustration, “Slab from Kouyunjik,” Dict. Bib. 2 p. 49] and open flowers [lit. burstings of flowers. These words again are very variously interpreted. Thenius: festoons of flowers; Keil: open flower buds; Gesen.: expanded flowers]: all was cedar; there was no stone seen. [Really, the cedar was no more seen than the stone, for this in turn was overlaid with gold (verse 22.)]
1Ki 6:19
And the oracle [Heb. an oracle. Heb. probably from speak. Sc Jerome,oraculum; and Aquila and Symm. . Gesenius, Bhr, al; however, interpret the word to mean the hinder part, adytum] he prepared in the house within [lit. in the midst of the house within, i.e; between the Holy Place and the end structure] to set there [the principal purpose which the oracle served. = with repeated syllable. Cf. 1Ki 17:14, Ken] the ark of the covenant of the Lord.
1Ki 6:20
And the oracle in the forepart [or, the interior of the oracle. Keil, after Kimchi, maintains that is the construct of the noun . See 1Ki 6:29, where it clearly means interior, as its opposition to “without” shows. The A.V. yields no sense] was twenty cubits in length, and twenty cubits in breadth, and twenty cubits in the height thereof [that is to say, it was a perfect cube. When we consider that the oracle of the tabernacle was a cube of ten cubits and the Holy City (Rev 21:16; cf. Eze 48:8-35, especially Eze 48:20) is a cube of 12,000 furlongs, we cannot but regard these measurements as significant. To the ancients the square seemed the most appropriate shape to express the idea of moral perfection. The idea of the cube consequently was that of entire completeness, of absolute perfection. A little light is thrown on this subject by the use of among the Greeks. See the quotation from Simonides in Plat. Protag. 334 A; Arist. Rhet. 1Ki 3:11; Eth. Nic. 1Ki 1:10, 1Ki 1:11, and compare the familiar “totus teres atque rotundus.” The height of the oracle (internally) being only twenty cubits, while that of the house was thirty (1Ki 1:2), several questions of some interest suggest themselves for consideration. It is perhaps impossible in the present state of our knowledge to arrive at any very positive conclusions, but it may be well, nevertheless, if only to show in how much uncertainty the architecture of the temple is involved, to state them. First among them is this: Was the roof of the temple flat or ridged? (See above on 1Ki 1:9).
(2) In either case, was the height of thirty cubits, or any uniform height, maintained throughout, or was the roof of the oracle some ten cubits lower than that of the house? The analogy of the tabernacle, of which the temple was a copy, would lead us to suppose that the ridgeif there was a ridgeof the entire building was level and unbroken, though the analogy of the Gothic church, which, we have already seen, is almost a reproduction of the temple, suggests that the oracle may possibly have had a lower roof. But
(3) supposing the same height was maintained from end to end, to what use, if any, was the vacant space of ten cubits (15 feet) between cieling and roof of oracle applied? It has been held by some that there was a chamber here, but that it was empty, being formed, in fact, not for use, but in order to procure the cubical shape of the oracle. Others contend that this upper room, or one which ran the entire length of the building, was designed to serve as a receptacle for the reliques of the tabernacle, and they would identify it with the . (LXX, ) of 2Ch 3:9. And untrustworthy as Josephus is when not supported by independent evidence, it is worth mentioning here that beth he and the Talmud “persistently assert that there was a superstructure on the temple equal in height to the lower part”, and that it was used for worship (2Ki 23:12), where see note). Bhr, however, argues forcibly against this idea. He says, inter alia, that there was no approach provided to these chambers; but our account is so manifestly imperfect that this argument is at the best a precarious one. He sees in the “upper chambers” (the Hebrew word is plural) the upper stories of the side structure. He agrees, however, with Ewald that there was a chamber over the oracle, but thinks it was unoccupied. Keil identifies this space with the “upper chambers” of 2Ch 3:9, and upon the whole this appears to be the most feasible view.
(4) How was the cieling, whether with or without this upper chamber, and whether at the height of twenty or thirty cubitshow was it supported? For “no cedar beam could be laid across a space of twenty cubits without sinking in the centre by its own weight.” Fergusson hence argues that the roof must have been carried on pillarsfour in the sanctuary and ten in the hall. He remarks that they were used in the house of the Forest of Lebanon, where they were less suitable than here]: and he overlaid it [lit. made it shine] with pure gold [marg. shut up (from clausit). Cf. Job 28:15 (Heb.) The same gold is described as (Exo 25:11) and (2Ch 3:8). It is called “shut up gold,” not because it was concealed (), but because of the exclusion of impure ingredients (Vulg. aurum purissimum). The lavish use of gold in the interior of the templeits weight 600 talents, its value almost incalculablewas not for mere display (for most of it was never seen except by the priests), but was symbolical of light and purity (Job 37:22, Job 37:23; Rev 21:18), and stamped the place as the abode of Him who dwelleth in light (1Ti 6:16). See Bhr in loc. The palace of the Lord must be “exceeding magnifical.” The overlaying was not gilding, but laminae of gold were attached to the woodwork with nails. This art was probably derived from Egypt (Exo 25:11, Exo 25:13). Egyptian figures ornamented with gold plates are found both in the Louvre and British Museum. See Wilkinson, “Ancient Egyptians,” 2. p. 233 sqq.) Rawlinson remarks that “such ornamentation was common in Babylon, in Assyria, and in Media.” See Isa 46:6; Herod. 1:98; Layard, 2:264. In addition to the gold, the house was garnished with precious stones (2Ch 3:6). Cf. 1Ch 29:2, 1Ch 29:8]; and so covered the [Heb. an] altar which was of cedar. [The italics in the A.V. lead us to suspect a mistranslation, and such it proves to be. What the writer means, supposing the present text to be retained, is, not that Solomon covered the cedar altar with gold, but that he overlaid the (stone?) altar with cedar. It is true the article is wanting, but this may perhaps be accounted for by the fact that the altar is now mentioned for the first time (Keil). It is much more probable, however, that the text has been slightly corrupted. The LXX. reads, (Cod. Alex. adds ,), which proves that the Seventy had instead of in their text. If so, the absence of the article is at once explained, and an unmeaning repetition in verse 22 avoided. The mention of the altarof course it is the altar of incense that is meant: the altar of burnt sacrifice was outside the buildingin connexion with the oracle is significant. In verse 22 it is called the “altar that (belonged) to the oracle,” because it stood just outside it. In the tabernacle it was placed “before the vail” (Exo 30:6; Exo 40:5, Exo 40:26; Le Exo 16:12-18), and it occupied this position because the incense burned upon it was offered before the Invisible Presence within. It is an argument in favour of the textual emendation suggested above that the altar in the tabernacle was of wood (Exo 30:1), and that Ezekiel speaks of the “altar of wood” (Eze 41:22), the altar of sacrifice being of earth stones (Exo 20:24, Exo 20:25), or brass (2Ch 4:1) If we retain the Received Text we are almost compelled to believe that this altar was also of stone, as they would hardly cover a wooden altar with wood.
1Ki 6:21
So [Heb. And. The ornamentation of the holy place is next mentioned] Solomon overlaid the house [as well as the oracle] within with pure gold: and he made a partition by the chains of gold before the oracle [These words are extremely obscure. The prevailing view is that of Gesenius, al; that = “he bolted,” etc. But, if so, what did the chains bolt? Bhr says, the boards of the cedar partition, just as the bars fastened together the boards of the tabornacle (Exo 26:26-29). Gesen. himself understands the doors, “he bolted the doors of the oracle,” so as to keep them closed, except on the day of atonement. But the literal rendering is, “he carried over with chains of gold before the oracle,” where nothing is said of either boards or doors. The more natural interpretation, therefore, would perhaps be: he carried on the gold plates of the house in chains of gold across the partition, and so fastened it to the side walls. Perhaps this was done to avoid any fracture of, or insertion into, the stonework]; and he overlaid it [What? Keil says, the cedar altar last mentioned at the end of verse 20. But the altar has now dropped out of the reader’s, and therefore presumably out of the writer’s mind. It would be more natural to understand the words of the oracle just mentioned, but the adornment of the oracle has already been related (verse 20), and it is hardly likely that having stated that it was covered with pure gold in one verse, he would mention that it was overlaid with gold in the next. It looks as if the cedar partition were referred to, the boards “before the oracle”] with gold.
1Ki 6:22
And the whole house he overlaid with gold [This no mere repetition, more Hebraico, as Bhr and Keil would have us think. Something additional must surely be referred to, and 2Ch 3:4 warrants us in understanding this statement to include the porch, the interior of which was gilded. Because the porch is elsewhere (2Ch 3:3) distinguished from the “house,” it does not follow that it can never be comprehended under that term] until he had finished all the house: also [Heb. and]. the altar that was by [Heb. to. See on verse 20] the oracle he overlaid with gold.
1Ki 6:23
And within the oracle [The description now passes on to the mysterious symbolic figures which were placed in the holy of holies] he made two cherubims [As to the nature, composition, and significance of the cherubim, see notes on Exo 25:19; Exo 37:7. The only particulars which will require notice here are those in which the cherub of the temple differed from that of the tabernacle] of olive tree [Heb. trees or wood of oil. The oleaster (wild olive) is supposed to be intended, the proper name for the olive tree being (Neh 8:15). The wood of the oleaster, which is firm, fine grained, and durable, was used by the Greeks for the images of their gods (Winer). The cherubim of the tabernacle were of solid gold; those of the temple, on account of their great size (fifteen feet high) were necessarily of less costly material. But though of wood, yet the most durable and beautiful of wood, the olive, was employed in their construction. It is noticeable how olive wood is employed for the cherubim and doors of oracle, and for the posts of the temple doorway; the less precious cedar was used for lining the walls and for Beams, etc; while for the floor and doors of house, the commoner cypress sufficed], each ten cubits high. [Half the height of the oracle. They occupied its entire width (verse 24).
1Ki 6:24
And five cubits was the one wing of the cherub, and five cubits the other wing of the cherub: from the uttermost part of the one wing unto the uttermost part of the other were ten cubits. [As the four wings alone covered the whole extent of the oracle, each pair must clearly have been in contact on the body of the cherub.]
1Ki 6:25
And the other cherub was ten cubits; both the cherubims were of
. We also learn that they “stood on their feet” and, unlike the cherubim of the tabernacle, which faced each other (Exo 27:9), faced the throne, i.e; the cedar partition, and the east. The object of this arrangement probably was to enable the wings to be stretched out across the sanctuary. In the tabernacle the wings were “spread out on high” (Exo 25:20; Exo 27:9). In both cases the ark and mercy seat were placed under the overshadowing wings (2Ch 8:6). There would be a clear space of eight or nine cubits between the bodies of the cherubim, and the ark only measured 2.5 cubits (Exo 25:10) in length and 1.5 cubits in breadth. Unlike Ezekiel’s cherubim (Ezekiel Eze 1:1-28, Eze 10:1-22; cf. Rev 4:7), these had apparently but one face. The cherub was not a simple, but a complex being, having no unalterable and fixed form. See Bhr, Symbolik, 1. pp. 313, 314; Dict. Bib. vol. 1. pp. 301-303.]
1Ki 6:28
And he overlaid the cherubims with gold.
1Ki 6:29
And he carved all the walls of the house round about with carved figures of cherubims [lit. openings, i.e; gravings or indentations of cherubim, is used of gravings in stone, Exo 28:11; Exo 39:6 : in metal, Exo 28:36; Exo 39:30] and palm trees and open flowers [The open flowers may well have been lilies (1Ki 7:19, 1Ki 7:22, 1Ki 7:26). It is uncertain whether there were one or more rows of cherubim and palms. Keil, arguing from the analogy of Egyptian temples, contends for two or three rows, but it is doubtful how far the Israelites, notwithstanding their new and intimate relations with the country, would take Egypt and its idolatrous shrines for a model. Eze 41:18 tends to show that the palm trees alternated with the cherubs. The cherubim may have had two faces, such as he describes (Eze 41:19), the face of a man on the one side, and the face of a young lion on the other side; but if so, they must have differed in form from those of the oracle. Possibly the open flowers formed a border, or were sculptured in festoons, above, and the gourds (or buds) formed a border below (as in the Kouyunjik slab). But as to this the text is silent.
But while we are ignorant of the precise form and of the arrangement of these ornamental carvings, we are not wholly in the dark as to their symbolism. For everything in the temple, we may be sure, had a meaning. Let us inquire, then, into the significance of the cherubim, the palms and the flowers.
1. The Cherubim have been regarded by some as symbols of the invisible Godhead, by others as “representations of the heavenly spirits which surround the Lord of glory and set forth psychical life at its highest stage” (Keil); but it seems best to view them as symbols of all animal life, including the highest and perhaps not excluding the thought of Him who is the source and spring of life, the Anima animantium (cf. Eze 12:28). Hence they are spoken of as (Eze 1:5, Eze 1:13, Eze 1:15, etc.) “the living things” (compare , Rev 4:6, Rev 4:8, Rev 4:9), and even as “the life” (Eze 10:14, Eze 10:15, etc.) The cherubim consequently speak of the great animal kingdom before its Creator. “Creaturely being reaches its highest degree in those which have an anima, and among these, the lion, the bull, the eagle, and the man are the highest and most complete” (Bhr). These shapes, accordingly, were not inappropriate or unmeaning in a temple raised by the creature to the glory of the Creator.
2. Just as the cherubim speak of animal, so do the Palms of vegetable life. They are “the princes of the vegetable kingdom” (Linnaeus) “Amongst trees there is none so lofty and towering, none which has such a fair majestic growth, which is so evergreen, and which affords so grateful a shade and such noble fruitsfruits which are said to be the food of the blessed in paradiseas the palm” (Bhr), who also adds that it is said to have as many excellent properties as there are days in the year, and cites Humboldt as designating it the “noblest of plants forms to which the nations have always accorded the meed of beauty.” Judaea, he further remarks, is the fatherland of the palm, so much so that the palm in later days became the symbol of Palestine (as on the well known coin with the legend Judaea capta). The palms, therefore, tell of the vegetable world, and of Him who fashioned its noble and graceful forms.
3. And very similar was the testimony of the Flowers. “Flowers and bloom have been, from ancient times to our own, the usual symbols of lifefulness …. So then by the flower work, as well as by the cherubim and the palm trees, was the dwelling of Jehovah, which was adorned therewith, designated as an abode of life” (Bhr). On the earthly dwelling place of the Eternal, that is to say, were everywhere pourtrayed the various tokens of His Almighty power and goodness. And the significance of each is the same. “Thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are, and were created.” They were graved] within and without. [These words, here and in verse 30, are generally taken to mean “in the oracle and in the house.” But it is worthy of consideration whether they do not rather signify, “in the house and in the porch.” The latter was overlaid with gold (2Ch 3:4). It is doubtful whether on the outside, can be applied to any part of the interior, and here its application would be to the oracle (Thenius)].
1Ki 6:30
And the floor of the house he overlaid with gold, within and without.
1Ki 6:31
And for the entering of the oracle, he made doors [which hung on golden hinges (1Ki 7:50] of olive tree [see on 1Ki 7:23)], the lintel and side posts were a fifth part of the wall. [The meaning of the Hebrew words has been much disputed. See Gesen. Thesaur, 1. pp. 43-45. Gesen. himself interprets as A.V.: crepido cum postibus erat quinta pars, i.e; quintam parietis partem occupabat. The Rabbins: the “entablature with side posts and threshold formed a pentagon.” But a pentagonal doorway is without example in Eastern architecture. Thenius: “the strength ( is generally taken as an architectural term = crepido portae, or entablature) of the posts was a fifth.” Rawlinson: “the lintel was one-fifth of wall, and each door post one-fifth of its height;” in which case the doorway would of course be a square of four cubits. But perhaps the rendering of A.V. (with which Keil and Bhr also agree) is more natural. The meaning, consequently, would be that the entrance to the oracle, inclusive of the side posts which helped to form it, occupied one-fifth of the extent of the cedar partition. The entrance to the house (1Ki 6:33) was one-fourth of the wall of the house.]
1Ki 6:32
The two doors also wore [Rather, perhaps, “And he made” is to be supplied from 1Ki 6:31, as Keil. Rawlinson remarks that such doors as these are characteristic of Assyrian gateways] of olive tree: and he carved upon them carvings of cherubims and palm trees and open flowers, and overlaid them with gold, and spread [ Hiph. of ] gold [Heb. the gold] upon the cherubims and upon the palm trees [The writer means, not that the carving alone was gildedas Thenius thinks, who remarks on the effective contrast which the dark red cedar and the bright gold would furnish)but that the gilding did not conceal the character of the carvings. It is clear from verse 22 that “all the house” blazed with gold in every part. If the floors were covered with gold, we may be sure both walls and doors would not be without their coating of the precious metal. Our author does not mention the curtainit is clear that the doors would not dispense with the necessity for a vailbut the chronicler does (2Ch 3:14). It was necessary in order to cover the ark (Exo 40:3, Exo 40:21); hence it was sometimes called “the vail of the covering.” But for this, when the doors were opened on the day of atonement, the priest in the holy place might have gazed into the oracle. See on 1Ki 8:8. The doors opened outwardly (into the house). The vail was suspended within the oracle.]
1Ki 6:33
So also [i.e; similarly] made he for the door [or entrance, doorway] of the temple posts of olive tree, a fourth [Heb. from a fourth] part of the wall. It is uncertain whether we are to understand the “fourth part” of the height or of the breadth of the doorway, though the latter is probably meant. The height of the wall is variously estimated; generally at 30 (verse 2), but by Rawlinson at 20 cubits. But the breadth is beyond dispute. It was 20 cubits. The doorway, consequently, would be five cubits wide. The effect of the preposition, “from a fourth,” is probably this: The entrance with the side posts subtracted one-fourth from the space of the wall.
1Ki 6:34
And the two doors were [As in 1Ki 6:32, the verb is to be supplied from the verse preceding. And he made two doors, etc.] of fir tree [ see note on 1Ki 5:8]: the two leaves [lit. ribs, same word as in 1Ki 5:5, 1Ki 5:8, 1Ki 5:10] of the one door were folding [Heb. rolling], and the two leaves [ is probablya clerical error for arising out of the , in verses 32, 35] of the other [Heb. second] door were folding. [It seems more natural to suppose that the leaves were formed by a vertical than by a horizontal division. Indeed, it is doubtful whether the word would be applied the latter arrangement. Keil objects to the former on the ground that the leaves would thus be only one cubit broad each, and the opening of one leaf, consequently, would be insufficient to admit of any person’s passing through. But to this it may be replied
(1) that the opening of two leaves would in any case form a sufficiently wide entrance, and
(2) that it is not said that all the leaves were of uniform width. Besides, the other arrangement is without precedent in the public buildings of the East.]
1Ki 6:35
And he carved thereon cherubims and palm trees and open flowers [The constant recurrence of the same forms is in itself a proof that they must have been significant], and covered them with gold fitted upon the carved work [Heb. made straight upon the engraved work. That is to say, the gold fitted closely to all the uneven and indented surface of the figures. Elsewhere, laminae were simply laid upon the level walls, etc.]
1Ki 6:36
The description of the buildings concludes with a brief reference to the enceinte or court. And he built the inner court [The mention of an inner court, called in 2Ch 4:9 the “court of the priests,” presupposes, of course, the existence of an outer court. Our author does not mention this, but the chronicler does, under the name of “the great court.” In Jer 36:10, the former is called the “higher court,” because it occupied a higher level] with three rows of hewed stone and a row of cedar beams. [These, it is thought, formed the enclosing wall of the court (the LXX. adds ). The cedar beams were instead of coping stones. It has been supposed, however (J.D. Michaelis), that these three rows of stone, boarded with cedar, formed the pavement of the court. But the question at once suggests itself, Why pile three rows of stones one upon another merely to form a pavement, and why hew and shape them if they were to be concealed beneath a stratum of wood? It is a fair inference from 2Ch 7:3, that the wall was low enough to permit men to look over it. Fergusson, on the contrary, argues that it must have been twice the height of the enclosure of the tabernacle, which would give us an elevation of ten cubits (Exo 27:18). It is worth suggesting, however, whether, the inner court being raised above the outer, which surrounded it, these stones may not have formed the retaining wall or sides of the platform. As the outer court had gates (2Ki 11:6; 2Ki 12:9; 2Ch 4:9; 2Ch 23:5; 2Ch 24:8), it also must have had walls. From 2Ki 23:11; Jer 35:2; Jer 36:10, we gather that there were various chambers in the forecourt. Such were certainly contemplated by David (1Ch 28:12); but it is not recorded that Solomon built them. Nor have we any warrant, except the bare assertion of Josephus, for the belief that he built a colonnade or cloister on the east side, such as was known to later ages by the name of “Solomon’s Porch” (Joh 10:23; Act 3:11; Act 5:12). As to the dimensions of these spaces, we are left to conjecture. If, as in everything else, the dimensions of the tabernacle were doubled, then the court of the priests would measure 200 cubits from east to west, and 100 cubits from north to south. It should be stated, however, that in the temple of Ezekiel, the proportions of which, in the present instance, may well he historical, both courts are represented as perfect squares. Rawlinson inadvertently puts down the length (along the side of temple) at 100 cubits, and the breadth (ends of temple) at 200. The outer court would probably be twice as large as the inner, i.e; 400 x 200 cubits. But all this is necessarily uncertain.]
1Ki 6:37
In the fourth year was the foundation of the house of the Lord laid, in the month Zif [see on 1Ki 6:1].
1Ki 6:38
And in the eleventh year, in the month Bul [ = rain. Hence Bul would be the month of rain (Gesen.) Keil understands it to signify produce (prowntus), and sees in it the month of fruits. It extended from the November to the December full moon], which is the eighth month, was the house finished throughout all the parts thereof [Heb. ], and according to all the fashion of it [Heb. ]. So was he seven years in building it. [As Bul was the eighth month, and Zif the second, the house was precisely seven and a half years in buildinga short period, if we consider the magnitude of the undertaking, but long enough, if we remember the enormous number of hands employed upon it, the preparations made by David, and the modest dimensions of the edifice (verse 2). The commentators all cite Pliny’s statement that all Asia was building the temple of Diana at Ephesus 200 years, but the cases are not at all parallel. We learn from 2Ch 3:2, that it was on the second day of the month that the building was commenced. Bishop Wordsworth, who assigns seven years and seven months as the time occupied in this work, sees in this hebdomatie period an analogy to the seven days of the creation.]
HOMILETICS
1Ki 6:2, 1Ki 6:8, 1Ki 6:20
Christianity built on the Foundations of Judaism.
The Jewish temple in its resemblance to the Gothic church is a not inapt illustration of the relations of Christianity to Judaism. The temple of Solomon was not only architecturally the exact reproduction on a larger scale, and in a more permanent form, of the tabernacle of witness, it was also the model and archetype of the sacred buildings of the Christian faith. In appearance, no doubt, it was somewhat differentthe purposes for which the two edifices were designed were different, but the ground-plan and general arrangement were the same. The porch, “temple of house,” oracle, side chambers of the one, correspond with the porch (or tower), nave, chancel, and side aisles of the ether. Nor was this resemblance accidental. The architects of earlier timestimes when men had not come to think that they most honoured Christianity by going as far as possible away from Judaism, times when the first dispensation was regarded as full of significance and guidance for the children of the secondthe architects of those days thought they would best serve the God of Jews and Christians by adhering as closely as possible to the Divine “pattern which was shewed in the mount,” the pattern which had served for tabernacle and temple alike.
Now this fact, that the place of Divine worship has been, in nearly all ages, built after one model, may suggest the thought that the principles of Divine worship, and indeed of religion, have been in all ages the same. And for the good reason that God and man, the worshipped and the worshipper, are in all ages the same. If the successive generations of men who “went up to the temple to pray” went up to an edifice something like ours, they also carried with them hearts, sins, sorrows, needs, infirmities, altogether like ours. The Gothic church, then, was modelled after the Jewish temple. Even so the Christian religion has been cast in the mould of Judaism. It is not a brand new religion, utterly diverse from the dispensation which preceded it, but it is built on the old foundations. Its proportions are much statelier, its uses are much nobler, but still the Christian Church is the copy of the Jewish, and Christianity is the child of Judaism. There are some of our cathedralsYork Minster, e.g.which occupy the site, and parts of which follow the outlines, of the old Saxon church of woodanother illustration of the relations of our holy religion to the religion which it has replaced. And that Christianity was never designed to be destructive of Judaism, but was meant to be a development, an outgrowth and expansion of it, our Lord’s words (Mat 5:17) and His apostle’s (Rom 3:31; Col 2:17) clearly show. The law, i.e; was the outline of which Christianity is the filling up and completion. But observe: the filling up, if it be true to its name, must keep within the lines of the sketch.
It is one of the tendencies of the age to throw over Judaism and its teaching. Men say they want “Christianity without Judaism.” They speak of the latter as a dead letter. But surely it is an unworthy conception of the Supreme Wisdomthe idea that a faith which was adapted to the men of one age has absolutely no lessons or no guiding principles for the men of a later age, but must be cast aside as wholly antiquated and effete. A principle of continuity can be distinctly traced operating in the kingdom of nature; are we forbidden to believe that there is any such law in the kingdom of grace? Let us now consider, then, in what ways Christianity is built on the foundations of Judaism, and how the religion of the New Testament follows the lines laid down in the Old.
I. The fundamental idea of Judaism was that of a VISIBLE CHURCH. It was that God had “taken a nation from the midst of another nation” (Deu 4:32-34) to be a peculiar people to Himself, a “kingdom of priests, a holy nation” (Exo 19:5, Exo 19:6). His purposes of grace, i.e; were to be manifested to the world through a society. Here, then, was a and an . Precisely similar is the root idea of our religion. The Son of God came to found a Church (Mat 16:18; Eph 2:20), to regenerate humanity through a brotherhood. Behold the principle of continuity in this “great Church truth of God’s word.” The very words used of the Jewish people are transferred to the Christian Church (1Pe 2:9; Rev 1:6; Rev 5:10). The composition of the two societies was different (one nation, all nations), the rites of admission were different (circumcision, baptism), but the principlea visible Churchwas the same. Every Jew was a priest. Every Christian is the same.
II. The OFFICERS of the Jewish Church correspond with the officers of the Christian Church. “It is an apostolical tradition that what Aaron and his sons and the Levites were in the temple, that our bishops, priests, and deacons claim to be in the Church” (Jerome). No society can exist without at least
(1) laws, and
(2) officers.
The Jewish Church had as its officers, high priest, priests, and Levites. The Christian Church has a great High Priest in the heavens (Heb 4:14), and its earthly officers are bishops, priests, and deacons. The analogy is not imperfect, for just as the high priest was of the order of the priests, so are bishops but superintending presbyters. The bishop is primus presbyter; the high priest was summus sacerdos. The Jewish Church had also its prophets (see Introduction, Sect. III; note), corresponding with the preachers of the Christian economy. A prophet need not be a priest; a preacher need not be a presbyter. Of course, the nature and functions of these officers of the two dispensations differ, as do the dispensations themselves, but the same outlines are preserved.
III. The SERVICES of the Christian Church are derived from the service of the Jewish synagogue. “Widely divergent as the two words and the things they represented afterwards became, the Ecclesia had its starting point in the Synagogue” (Plumptre). The earliest assemblies of Christians were composed of men who had worshipped in the synagogue (Act 13:14; Act 14:1; Act 18:4, Act 18:26; Act 22:19. Cf. Luk 4:16; Joh 18:20, etc.), and who, in default of directions to the contrary, naturally preserved under the new dispensation the form of worship to which they had been accustomed under the old. St. James, indeed (1Ki 2:1). speaks of the Christian assembly as a “synagogue.” The use of fixed forms of prayer, the reading of the two lessons (Luk 4:18; Act 13:15, Act 13:27; Act 15:21), and the cycle of lessons; the sermon or exposition (Act 13:15; Luk 4:21); the chanting of the Psalms of David; the very prayers for the departed which “have found a place in every early liturgy in the world” (Ellicott), all these have come to us from the synagogues of the Jews. The Catholic Church has not disregarded the principle of continuity. She has not thought fit to devise a liturgy of her own heart, or to disregard liturgical forms altogether. She has simply perpetuated, or adapted to its new and more blessed conditions, the form of service delivered unto her by the Jew.
IV. The PRINCIPLES of Christian worship are the principles of Jewish worship. It has been said that the true idea of worship as a Divine service, as the self-forgetting adoration of the ever blessed God, was obscured, if not altogether lost, in the Church of England at least, during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Men went to churchtoo often they go stillnot for the service, but for the sermon; not for the glory of God, but for their own edification and instruction. It must not be supposed that it is here intended to depreciate edification. If men were perfect, the sermon might indeed be dispensed with. But so long as they are what they are, then those who have “any word of exhortation for the people” must “say on.” But all the same, edification is not the primary reason for our assembling. The first Christians “came together to break bread” (Act 20:7), to “show the Lord’s death” upon the Lord’s day (Rev 1:10). And God surely should ever come before man. Praise must take precedence either of prayer or preaching. The true idea of worship is the glory of God, not the profit of men. And if this idea was lost, or was obscured, it was because men ignored or despised the lessons and principles of Judaism. The worship of the temple, its psalms and sacrifices, its holocausts and hecatombs, all were designed for the glory and honour and worship of Jehovahall were primarily to exalt and magnify the Incommunicable Name. And such should be the aim of all Christian worship. Our holy religion was never meant to dethrone the Deity, nor can Christians owe Wire less, or less profound, adoration, than did Jews. Was their service solemn and stately? so should be ours. Did they never come before Him empty? neither should we. Was the altar, not the pulpit, the centre of their worship? the altar, not the pulpit, should be the centre of ours. The principles of Divine service know of no break. They are governed by the same law of continuity.
V. The SACRAMENTS of Christianity are founded upon the rites of Judaism. Baptism (practised among the Jews before our Lord’s time) takes the place of circumcision; the Lord’s Supper of the Paschal Supper. Just as the rite of circumcision brought the Jewish child into the bond of the covenant, into the visible Church, so does baptism the Christian child; otherwise our children would be worse off than the children of the Hebrews. And as for the Lord’s Supper, it was instituted in the very midst of the Passover (Luk 22:1, Luk 22:7, Luk 22:15-20), and was clearly designed to take its place. The rites of Judaism warrant our belief in a sacramental religion; they help to explain how it was that our Lord incorporated into His new and spiritual dispensation two outward and visible signs. The Law was full of these: the Gospel could hardly discard them altogether.
VI. The PRECEPTS and COMMANDMENTS of Judaism, again, “the law and the prophets,” are not abolished, but fulfilled (Mat 5:17; Rom 3:1-31 :81) in Christianity. The Sermon on the Mount has given a new meaning to the covenant of Mount Sinai, even the ten commandments (Deu 4:13). Out of the law of the two tables has been developed the Christian law of love (Mat 22:36-40; Luk 10:27; Rom 13:8-10). The “new commandment” of Christ (Joh 13:34) is practically “the old commandment” which we had from the beginning (1Jn 2:7, etc.)
VII. Andto descend to minor matterswe might show how even the FESTIVALS of Christendom follow the lines of the Jewish feasts. True, Christianity has one blessed festival peculiar to itselfChristmastide, the feast of the Holy Incarnationbut the restEaster, Whitsuntide, Harvest Festivalcorrespond severally with the Jewish Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles. The times themselves are, perhaps, of no great momentthough the synchronism is remarkablebut the principles on which they are based, the principle, e.g; of setting apart certain seasons for the commemoration of certain facts, or the acknowledgment of certain gifts, these are common to both dispensations. It is this principle which gave the Jew his sabbath: it is the same principle justifies, and indeed requires, the observance of the Lord’s day. Christianity has not discarded the day of rest, though it observes the sabbath no longer. It has changed the day of rest into a day of worship, the seventh day into the first, the memorial of the creation into a memorial of the resurrection and redemption.
VIII. But it will be said, Surely Christianity is utterly unilike Judaism in one cardinal point, viz; it has no SACRIFICE. But is it so? Truly, we offer no longer either bullocks or goats. The Christian priest neither pours the blood nor burns the fat, but all the same he offers sacrifice (1Pe 2:5), the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving (Heb 13:15), the sacrifice of alms and oblations (Php 4:18), the sacrifice of soul and body (Rom 12:1). Nor is that all. For observe: The Holy Supper in the Christian scheme, both as an offering, as a feast, and as a memorial, corresponds with the sacrifices of the law. For what, let us ask, was the meaning of all those sacrifices which the Jews “offered year by year continually”? They could not take away sin. They could not make the comers thereunto perfect. Why then were they offered? One reason was,that they might serve as memorials before God of the death of Christ. They were silent, but eloquent, reminders of Him who should put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. Perhaps the Jew knew it not. Perhaps the high priest himself did not realize it, but we know that all those countless thousands of victims, offered year after year and century after century, were so many mute pleadings of the one priceless death. And as they spoke to the eternal Father of the Lamb who should die, precisely so do the bread and the wine of Christ’s sacrament of love speak of the Lamb who has died. The fat and the blood were, the bread and the wine are, all (Num 10:10; cf. Le Num 24:7; Luk 22:19; 1Co 11:25; cf. Heb 10:8). Our Lord Himself calls the wine “my blood of the new covenant” ( ), and we are surely justified, with many divinesJn Wesley among themin calling the Holy Eucharist “the Christian sacrifice.”
But sacrifice and sacrament have another point of contact. For some at least of the Jewish sacrifices, the peace offerings (see on 1Ki 8:63-65) afforded a feast to the worshippers. In like manner, the sacramental species serve not only as a memorial of Christ’s death (1Co 11:26), but they are also food to the faithful soul (1Co 10:16, 1Co 10:17; Heb 13:10; Mat 26:26; Joh 6:54, Joh 6:55). If, therefore, the Holy Communion is not a sacrifice, properly so called (inasmuch as there is no death), it has these marks of a sacrifice, that it is an oblation, a memorial, and feast. And when we consider these remarkable analogies, we can hardly doubt that even the sacrifices of Judaism have their counterpart in the institutions of Christianity.
It was said by one of the Reformers that the man who can rightly distinguish between the Law and the Gospel should thank God and be assured that he is a true theologian. But theologians too often treat them as if they were antagonistic or irreconcilable, and one of the dangers to which the Reformed Churches are specially obnoxious is to forget the continuity of gospel and law: to forget that the Church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets (Eph 2:20). If it is true that “Vetus Testamentum in Novo patet,” it is also true “Novum Testamentum in Vetere latet.”
1Ki 6:19
The Ark of the Covenant of the Lord.
This temple of Solomon, so “exceeding magnifical,” this “holy and beautiful house,” “of fame and glory throughout all lands”why was it built? what its primary purpose? It was above everything else a home for the ark (1Ki 8:1, 1Ki 8:6), a place for the Divine Glory which hovered over it.
In this temple, unlike the shrines of Paganism, there was no statue, no similitude of God. Here was no “image which fell down from Jupiter,” no Baal or Asherah, no Apis or Osiris. We may imagine how this would impress the Phoenician workmen. We know how it impressed Pompeius and the Romans. There is deep significance in those words of the Roman historian: Inania arcana, vacua sedes. Nothing but the ark. And this ark, what was it? It was a coffer, a chest. It was nothing in itself; but it was meant to contain something. It was the casket of a rare jewel. “There was nothing in the ark, save the two tables of stone,” etc. (1Ki 8:9). It was the “ark of the testimony.” So that the temple was properly and primarily the shrine and depository of the tables of the law graven with the “ten words,” “the words of the covenant” (Deu 4:13).
Now we have just seen that the temple was the archetype of the Church: we have seen, too, that everything in Judaism has its analogue in Christianity. What, then, let us ask, was the significance of the ark? To what does it correspond in the new dispensation?
In the Church, to nothing. The “words of the covenant” are no longer kept in the dark. No; we now inscribe them on our chancel walls. In the “sanctuary” of the Gothic church the ten commandments are “writ large*’ for men to see.
But if Judaism was really the outline of Christianity, then there must be something in Christianity answering to that ark which was the core and centre of the Mosaic system. Certainly. But it is to be found, not in “temples made with hands,” but in those other “temples” of the Christian faith, the bodies of believers, the temples of the Holy Ghost (1Co 3:16; 1Co 6:19). The ark was the soul of Judaism. It may fittingly represent the souls which Christ has redeemed. Temple, ark, tables of the lawthese severally correspond to the “body, soul, spirit” of the Christian man. Within the temple was the ark; within the ark the tables. Within the is the ; within the the . Nor is this so fanciful as it seems. For are not our bodies the “temples of the Holy Ghost”? And are not our heartsi.e; our inmost being, our spiritual part (1Pe 3:4)the fleshy tables on which He writes His law? Yes, in the “new covenant” God writes His law in the heart, and puts it in the inward parts (see Jer 31:33; cf. Eze 11:19, Eze 11:20; 2Co 3:8). In the face of these scriptures, who can deny that the ark and its tables have their analogues in the New Testament? Such, then, being the symbolism and significance of temple, ark, and tables of law, what are their lessons? Among others these:
1. That God dwells within us. No longer in temples made with hands, but “with him that is of a contrite and humble spirit” (Isa 57:15). Did the Shechinch brood over the mercy seat? Not less truly does God’s Spirit dwell (Rom 8:9) and witness (verse 16) with our spirit. Men say the Shechinah has left the world. On the contrary, It has enshrined Itself in the soul. “Christ in you” (Col 1:27); God dwelling in us (1Jn 4:2); this is the last best gospel of our religion. The Old Testament, Neander says, tells of a God who is for man. In the Gospels we hear of Emmanuel, God with man. But the Epistles speak to us of God in man.
2. That God writes His law upon us. We have seen that in the Church there is neither ark nor tables of stone. It is because there is no need of either. This is the age of that “new covenant” of which the prophet spoke, when the finger of God should write the law upon the spirit, and when the Bath Kol should speak within. The laws of our country are so voluminous that no man can hope to know or to remember them, and their “glorious uncertainty” is proverbial But God’s law is but one (Rom 13:9, Rom 13:10; Heb 8:10; Heb 10:16); and that sweet and blessed statute the Spirit graves within us. Now observe
3. The ark, led by God, conducted Israel to victory, and rest. In the journeyings of Israel the ark went before them (Num 10:33). At the Jordan it opened a way for them (Jos 3:14-17). Before Jericho it led them on to victory (Jos 6:9-11). Even so the soul, guided and taught of God, passes safely through its pilgrimage, conquers its foes, and gains its heavenly rest. Let us yield ourselves to be “led by the Spirit of God” (Rom 8:14).
4. The ark, led by man, conducted Israel to disaster and defeat. When the Israelites, instead of following the ark, would lead it (1Sa 4:3), it landed them in a “very great slaughter.” It proved to be no fetish, as they had hoped; it only led them to a shameful death. “It is one thing to want to have truth on our side; another to want to be on the side of truth” (Whately). It is of no avail to have the commandments of God, unless we keep them; to know His will, unless we do it. And if we lean to our own understandings, the soul will make shipwreck. Reason, it is true, is “the candle of the Lord;” but revelation is the “lamp to our feet and the light to our path” (Psa 119:105; cf. Pro 3:5, Pro 3:6).
5. The ark, the pride of Israel, on two occasions became its plague. The men of Bethshemesh looked into it, and died. Uzzah put forth his hand to steady it, and was smitten for his error (2Sa 6:7). So the ark teaches the much needed lesson of reverencereverence for God and the things of God. It also suggests that dishonour done to God, or disregard of His law, has a sure retribution. If we stifle our convictions or quench the Spirit’s light, the law written within may hereafter become the “instrument to scourge us.”
6. In the second temple there was no ark. A stone is said to have taken its place. The venerable relic of the wilderness life, the sacred chest, and its still more sacred contents, both perished in the sack of Jerusalem (2Ki 25:9 sqq.) May we not see here a lesson against impenitence? Over how many souls may “Ichabod” be written? The ark of God is taken! The soul is led captive of the devil The heart of flesh, the “fleshy tables” on which the Spirit loves to write, has given place to a heart of stonea heart as cold, as hard, as senseless, as void of all grace and blessing as this stone which stood in the oracle in the room of the ark of the covenant of the Lord.
HOMILIES BY A. ROWLAND
1Ki 6:1
The Purposes of the Temple.
The three chapters thus introduced describe the erection and dedication of Solomon’s temple. Magnificent as the building was, architecturally and artistically, it deserves more consideration as that which was the divinely appointed centre of true worship. Its significance to Christians can hardly be overrated. This the Epistle to the Hebrews clearly shows. While it stood it was for all nations a witness for Jehovah; and now that in sub. stance it has passed away, the spiritual truths it embodied are a heritage for us. Essentially it was one with the tabernacle, the erection and ritual of which were directly revealed by God on Sinai. Neither in principle nor even in minute detail were the directions of Jehovah about its construction to be disobeyed. From the ark of the covenant down to the hooks for the curtains the command ran, “See that thou make all things according to the pattern showed thee in the mount.” There are far reaching issues ever flowing from the smallest details of Divine law. Great meanings are wrapped by God in trifling things. (Give examples of this.) Solomon was right in superseding the tabernacle by the temple. The tent was suitable for the wandering life of an unformed nation, but the stately and stable temple for an organized people whose pilgrimage had ended. God’s utterances both to David and Solomon, and the presence of the Shechinah on the day of consecration, prove that the erection of the temple was according to the will of God. The temple had meanings which no other building subsequently erected could have. It was “a shadow of good things to come.” It symbollzed much that was revealed in the person of Christ (Heb 9:11, etc.), and much that is now existing, not on earth, but in heaven (Heb 9:24, etc.) But, though its symbolism is a thing of the past, some of its purposes and uses are things of the present, known in the places set apart by Christian men for the worship of God. To some of those we now refer.
I. THE TEMPLE WAS A PLACE OF SACRIFICE (2Ch 7:12). The sin offering typified the atonement made by the Lamb of God, who once was offered for the sins of the world. This is the fact made known by the ministry of the Word and represented by the broken bread and outpoured wine of the Eucharistic feast. No time and no place can be more suitable than the sanctuary for the acknowledgment of sin, and the expression of faith. There each Christian sings
“My faith would lay her hand
On that dear head of Thine.”
II. THE TEMPLE WAS A PLACE FOR PRAYER AND PRAISE. Solomon used it thus (1Ki 8:1-66) Incense typified it. In Isa 56:7 we read, “My house shall be called a house of prayer, for all people.” The Lord Jesus referred to this when the temple was used for other purposes (Mat 21:18). Describe the praise of the temple. Many there understood the words, “Praise ye the Lord; for it is good to sing praises unto our God; for it is pleasant, and praise is comely.” Show the advantages of united praise, the promises given to combination in prayer, e.g; sympathies enlarged, weak faith invigorated by contact with stronger faith, etc.
III. THE TEMPLE WAS A PLACE FOR THE CONSECRATION OF PERSONS AND THINGS. There priests were set apart; there sometimes prophets were called (Isa 6:1-13.); there dedicated things were laid before the Lord (2Ch 5:1). Show how in modern days this is still true of the assembly of God’s people. Men are there roused to a sense of responsibility, and there consecrate themselves to the service of God. Resolutions and vows are made there which carry with them the impress of Divine approval. The cares of life, its purposes, its companionships are there made to appear in their Godward aspect. Through the worship of the sanctuary heavenly light falls on daily toil, and men learn to call nothing that God has cleansed common or unclean.
IV. THE TEMPLE WAS A PLACE FOR REMEMBERING THE LAW OF THE LORD. The temple was incomplete until the ark of the covenant was brought in; and “there was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone which Moses put there at Horeb, when the Lord made a covenant with the children of Israel” (1Ki 8:9). Show the importance of organized Christian worship as a perpetual witness for the law of God. In the busy week there are temptations to forget it; to put expediency in the place of righteousness, etc. The whole tone of English society is raised by the faithful exhibition of God’s requirements each sabbath day.
V. THE TEMPLE WAS A PLACE FOR THE UNION OF THE PEOPLE. The Psalms of the Ascents (Songs of Degrees) show this. The people overlooked their social distinctions and the tribes ignored their tribal jealousies when they ascended the sacred hill to unite as a nation in the worship of the one true God. Jeroboam was shrewd enough to see that it would be impossible for two separate kingdoms to exist while all the people met in the one temple. Hence the calves at Bethel and Dan, and hence in our Lord’s day the temple on Gerizim. Show how in the Christian Church the rich and the poor meet together, and how essential Christian principle is to fuse together the various classes of society. There are many disintegrating forces at workthe capitalists and the working classes, for example, are seriously divided. Common meeting ground cannot be found in the home, but in the Church. The recognition of the one Fatherhood precedes the realization of the one brotherhood. Christians are, unhappily, divided amongst themselves. Sectarianism has increased the division of society. Relief is to be found not in form, but in spirit; not in union, but in unity. As we worship together and work together, the oneness of which we dream may become a reality.
VI. THE TEMPLE WAS A PLACE FOR THE REVELATION OF GOD (see verses 10, 11; 1Ch 5:13; 1Ch 7:2). His presence is not confined to any temple made with hands; but wherever His people meet, there He reveals Himself as he does not do unto the world. “Where two or three are gathered together in My name there am I in the midst of them.” It was when the disciples were assembled with one accord for prayer that the Holy Spirit came. So may our assemblies be blessed; and sinners will find pardon, the careworn will find rest, the doubters will find faith, the weakly will find strength, and the despondent will find hope in the house of the Lord our God.A.R.
1Ki 6:7
Building in silence.
This was due partly to the reverential feelings of those engaged in so holy a work. “The Lord is in his holy temple, let all the earth keep silence before him.” If we are upbuilding Christian character in ourselves, or in our children; if we are helping to rear the spiritual temple of God, such reverence, as opposed to thoughtlessness, flippancy, etc; should characterize us. The silence of the building was not only the outcome of devout feeling, but it was (like the temple itself) symbolical of spiritual truth; as we propose to show. A noble temple is being reared (1Co 3:16, 1Co 3:17; Eph 2:22; 1Pe 2:5). This temple is imperishable and unassailable; that of Solomon’s was pillaged (1Ki 14:25; 2Ki 12:17), polluted by the unworthy (2Ki 21:4-7), burnt by the enemy (2Ki 25:9). The erection described in our text teaches us something of the work which is still carried on by the builders of the true temple.
I. THE BUILDERS OF GOD‘S HOUSE ARE OFTEN DOING A SECRET WORK. Picture the workmen in the quarries, the moulders in the clay, the artist with his graving tool, etc. Their names were unknown, they were unrecognized by the multitudes who would worship in the temple they were helping to build. Illustrate from this the work of mothers influencing their children; of visitors to haunts of sin and sorrow, whose ministry of love is not known to their nearest friends; of literary men in obscure rooms who are influencing the destinies of a people, etc. Draw encouragement from this, e.g; that we do not see all the good that is going on in England and abroad, in the Churches and outside them. So Elijah was cheered by the revelation that there were seven thousand in Israel who had not bowed the knee to Baal, when he thought he alone was left to witness for Jehovah. Refer to the Lord’s teaching about the secret progress of His kingdom; the leaven hid in three measures of meal; the seed cast into the earth and left buried by the man who sleeps and rises, unconscious that it is springing and growing up he knows not how.
II. THE BUILDERS OF GOD‘S HOUSE DO VARIED WORK. Enumerate some of the different kinds of labour and of skill which were required for the temple. Show that the work varied in dignity, in arduousness, in remunerativeness, etc. None of it, however, was without its value or final effect. Describe the multitudinous forms of Christian activity, and the advantages of such diversity. It demands self-abnegation, it calls forth all graces and gifts, it makes one Christian dependent on another, and so evokes sympathy and gives place for co-operation, etc. Let none despise his own work, nor envy another his.
III. THE BUILDERS OF GOD‘S HOUSE DO THEIR WORK WITH CAREFUL COMPLETENESS. How exact the measurements, how perfect the finish of work, which only required to be brought together in order to make a complete whole. Piece joined piece in the woodwork, and every separate casting found its appropriate niche. Nothing but painstaking accuracy could have insured such a result. Yet probably no workman knew the whole design; he was only intent on finishing his own appointed work. Observe the carefulness of God in little things, whether in creation or in moral law. Small infringements of Divine ordinances bring lamentable results. Illustrate from the consequences of disobedience to natural law in pain, disease, etc. Argue from this to the higher in mental and moral spheres. Carelessness is not tolerated. How much less in concerns of the soul. Negligence is sin. “How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation?” There must be care in laying the foundations of heavenly hopes (see Mat 7:24-27). Care also is required in doing work for our Lord. “But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon” (1Co 3:10-15).
IV. THE BUILDERS OF GOD‘S HOUSE ARE MORE ANXIOUS FOR THOROUGHNESS THAN FOR NOISE. No sound of hammer or axe was heard to call the attention of passers by to the noble work going on; but all the inhabitants of the kingdom saw the effects of the quiet labour. Quietude is hard to obtain in the activities of the present day, yet God’s servants must have it. Christ saw His disciples were excited, and said, “Come ye yourselves apart into the desert and rest awhile.” Moses needed the solitude of Midian and of Sinai; Elijah the loneliness of Horeb, etc. Great souls are fashioned in silence. Our lonely times are our growing times. Exemplify by reference to a man laid aside by illness, to a mother or wife who is for a time absorbed in ministry to some invalid. The busy workers need quiet most. They wait on the Lord, and so renew their strength. Some of the best work done for Christ is silent. It is not proclaimed by large organization, or applauding crowds, but lies in the whispered counsel, the interceding prayer, etc.
V. THE BUILDERS OF GOD‘S HOUSE WILL SEE THEIR LABOUR ISSUE IN THE DIVINE IDEAL. The work was widely distributed, secretly done, etc; but all was tending to an appointed endthe temple. The building existed in the mind of the master builder before it had material existence. So with God’s work. A Divine purpose is controlling all, appointing all; and out of what seems confusion and contradiction He will bring forth “the new heaven and the new earth.” Faithfully doing each one what lies to his hand, we shall all find that what we have done has its place and results; that our “labour is not in vain in the Lord.” Forgotten and obscure workers will have their reward from Him who noticed the widow’s mite, and gratefully accepted Mary’s offering. We shall do more than we expect, if we do what we can.
VI. THE BUILDERS OF GOD‘S HOUSE FIND THEIR REWARD IN THE GLORY OF THEIR GOD. Describe the templecomplete at lastresounding with songs of praise, crowded with worshippers, overwhelmed by the Divine presenceand use it as a type of the temple not made with hands, where the redeemed serve God day and night. The wish of God’s noblest servant is that God may be glorified whether by life or by death.
Apply the idea of silent working to what God is doing in each Christian heart by the discipline of life and the influence of the Holy Spirit. It is felt within, but it is not known or heard without.A.R.
1Ki 6:23
The Mystery of the Cherubim.
That the cherubim were symbolic no one denies. They are so often mentioned in Scripture that their meaning has been frequently discussed. Enumerate some of the opinions held. The view we accept is that they were symbolic representations of redeemed humanity. They were intended to inspire men with hope of redemption, from the day when the Lord placed them at the east of the garden of Eden, till the vision of Jn (Rev 21:1-27.) is fulfilled in the “new heavens and new earth,” wherein the cherubim are no longer seen, having vanished before the reality they symbolically represented. In the cherubim we are reminded of the following
I. THE PERFECTING OF HUMANITY. Some obscurity lingers about the forms of these beings. They are introduced in Genesis without a word of description; and in Exodus (25 and 37.) little is said beyond this, that they had “wings and faces.” Turning to their visionary appearancesto Ezekiel and to Jnthere is variety in form. But whatever latitude there may be in detail, the leading form was always that of a mane.g; Ezekiel says (Eze 1:5), “they had the likeness of a man.” With this, other creature forms were combined, viz; the lion, the ox, and eagle. These were selected for special reasons. They belonged to the noblest kingdom, that of animal life, as distinguished from that which was vegetable or mineral.They were amongst the highest after man in the nature of their life; very different, for example, from sea anemones, etc. They had loftier attributes than those of other creatures; greater powers or wider usefulness. Hence, combined with the image of man to form the cherubim, they suggested the addition to him of the powers they specially represented. The lion, especially to the Hebrews, was a type of kingly majesty and glorious strength. Give quotations from Scripture. The eagle, with its keen vision and swift flight, was a type of rapidity of thought and movement (Deu 28:49; Job 9:26; Pro 23:5). The ox, used in ploughing, harrowing, carrying home the sheaves, and treading out the corn, represented patient and productive activity. In the cherubim all these were grafted on manan ideal combination, to show that, though man was the highest creature of God (he alone having a moral and a rational nature), he could be, and would be, ennobled by having hereafter the powers bestowed, of which in creature life these animals were representatives. Show the Scripture evidence for expecting in heaven the faculties for knowing, for serving, for enjoying, which we have not here.
II. THE FULNESS OF LIFE. In Ezekiel and Revelation the cherubim are frequently spoken of as “the living ones” (animantia, ). This expression is obscured in our translation by the unhappy rendering “beasts” (Rev 4:6), etc. The expression denotes life in its highest and most active form. In harmony with this, Ezekiel speaks of their “running and returning.” John says, “they rest not day nor night.” Though the cherubim in the temple and tabernacle were of necessity stationary, the same idea was there expressed by the outspread wings. The cherubim pointed on to the plenitude of life, Divine and spiritual, over which weald. ness should have no power, and towards which death would never approach. “I give unto them eternal life,” etc. “I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly,” etc.
III. THE DWELLING WITH GOD. The cherubim were always associated with the Divine Presence. After man was driven from Eden, the cherubim was placed there to occupy the place he had forfeited; where life was full, and where holiness was a necessity. When the tabernacle was constructed, all the inner curtains were inwoven with cherubic figures, and images of cherubim appeared on the sacred ark, which was the throne of Jehovah. This was repeated in the temple, as the passage before us shows; for the magnificent cherubim, each ten cubits high, were stationed in the “oracle,” the place where the Shechinah proclaimed God’s presence. We must add, therefore, to the ideas we have dwelt onthis thought, that the life represented was life essentially connected with God Himself. Not only will the life of the future be full, but it will be holy. Holiness will be its essence. “The pure in heart shall see God.” “Without holiness no man shall see the Lord.” “Neither shall there enter into it anything that defileth,” etc.
IV. THE BLISS OF THE FUTURE. A careful reading of Gen 3:24 shows that the “sword” and the “cherubim” were not only distinct, but had different functions. The sword “kept” the way to the tree of life, so that it was more accessible to fallen man. It was a symbol of repulsion and alarm. The cherubim “kept” the garden in a different sense. They did not defend it against man, but occupied it for man, and therefore gave to those who were shut out the hope of that which the promise of Jehovah had already announced. The presence of the cherubim said to fallen man: “This region of life is not destroyed, it is not given over to other creatures, but it is occupied and kept provisionally for you by a being in whom your nature predominates; and hereafter, you yourself changed, enriched with new powers, restored by redemptive love to holiness, shall share Paradise regained.” The means of realizing this became more clear as the ages rolled by. The hope that ideal humanity would inherit bliss did not die out, but the method of its fulfilment was unfolded in the Mosaic institutions. Not only did the cherubim in the oracle witness, as the cherubim in Eden had done, but once a year the high priest, as the representative of the people, went in, and stood with the cherubim in the presence of Jehovah. He entered not “without blood,” but after atonement had been made for the sins of the people. Apply this to the truth revealed in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Show how Christ, who has atoned for the world’s sin, has entered as our High Priest into the holiest of all, and how He has opened the kingdom of heaven to all believers. No wonder that in the Revelation “the Lamb that was slain” is depicted as being the object of heaven’s praise; the link between man’s guilt and God’s mercy.
[For justification of this use of the cherubim, see Fairbairn’s “Typology of Scripture.”]A.R.
HOMILIES BY E. DE PRESSENSE
1Ki 6:2
The temple is described as the house which King Solomon built for the Lord.
This idea of consecration ran through the whole plan of the building. Without having recourse to a minute and fanciful symbolism, we see clearly that everything is so disposed as to convey the idea of the holiness of God. IN THE CENTRE IS THE ALTAR OF SACRIFICE. The holy of holies, hidden from gaze by its impenetrable veil, strikes with awe the man of unclean heart and lips, who hears the seraphim cry from beneath their shadowing wings, “Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty!” (Isa 6:3.) The temple of holiness is not the temple of nature of colossal proportions, as in the East, nor is it the temple of aesthetic beauty, as in Greece. It is the dwelling place of Him who is invisible, and of purer eyes than to behold evil (Hab 1:13.) Hence its peculiar character. It answers thus to the true condition of religious art, which never sacrifices the idea and sense of the Divine to mere form, but makes the form instinct with the Divine idea. Let us freely recognize the claims of religious art. The extreme Puritanism which thinks it honours God by a contemptuous disregard of the aesthetic, is scarcely less mistaken than the idolatrous materialism which makes beauty of form the primary consideration. It was not for nothing that God made the earth so fair, the sky so glorious; and it was under Divine inspiration that the temple of Jerusalem was reared in such magnificence and majesty as to strike all beholders. Only let us never forget to seek the Divine idea beneath the beauty of the form. When we admire merely the beautiful, whether in a temple, as did the disciples, or in the great world of nature, the warning words of Christ fall upon upon our ear: “As for these things which ye behold, the days will come in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another” (Luk 21:6). “Tous les cieux et leur splendeur ne valent pas le soupir d’un seul coeur.” Love is the crowning beauty. It is like the precious vase of ointment which Mary of Bethany broke over the feet of Christ. Beauty is the fit associate of worship, so long as it is kept subordinate, and does not distract our minds from the higher spiritual realities of which it is but symbolic. Let us seek in the temple of nature the high and holy God, of whom it is said, that “the invisible things of Him are clearly seen from the creation of the world, being understood by the things that are made” (Rom 1:19). Let us recognize His presence beneath the arches of the mediaeval cathedral, among the memorials of a worship which we ourselves have left behind. Let us seek Him in the great monuments of Christian art, whether reared by poet, musician, painter, or sculptor. Let it be our aim to glorify Him in the forms of our worship, while we sedulously guard against the worship of the form, which is sheer idolatry. Such are the principles of Christian aestheties, which are one branch of Christian morals. “The beautiful is the glory of the true,” says Plato. When one corner of the veil which hides heaven from us is lifted, the Divine life shines forth in all its radiance of purity and beauty.E. de P.
HOMILIES BY J. WAITE
1Ki 6:37, 1Ki 6:38
The Glorious House of the Lord.
In comparison with other sacred shrines of antiquity the temple of Solomon was small in its dimensions and brief in the time of its building. Nor will the mere fact of its material splendour account for the extraordinary interest with which it has ever been regardedan interest in which Jew, Mohammedan, and Christian alike participate. The place it occupied, the part it performed in the religious history of the world, will alone account for this. If it is necessary to suppose any pre-existing model as suggesting the plan of its structure, it is to Assyria and not to Egypt, as some have thought, that we should look for such a type. But however this may be, it has a deep Divine meaning which raises it above comparison with any other temple that the hand of man has ever reared. Let us look on it now as the ancient symbol of the Church of the living God, that fellowship of newborn souls of whom St. Peter says, “Ye also as living stones are built up a spiritual house,” etc. (1Pe 2:5). Note certain points of special interest in this analogythose features of the temple which are suggestive of similar features in the spiritual fabric of the redeemed Church.
I. THE FIRMNESS OF ITS FOUNDATION. The threshing floor of Araunah, the site of the temple, was part of the plateau on the top of Mount Moriah (2Ch 3:1). Solomon, as we are told by Josephus, in order to enlarge the area, built massive walls on the sloping sides of the mountain, filling in the spaces with earth; and the foundations of these walls were composed of huge stones bedded and, as it were, mortised in the solid rock How forcibly are we reminded of the word of Christ to Peter, “Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Mat 16:18). Whatever the bearing of this word on the disciple himself may be, it is certain that it cannot refer to him apart from the grand confession he has just made” Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God.” Peter may be one of the great foundation stones, but Christ Himself is the solid, primary, unhewn Rock on which the fabric rests. Not so much any truth about Him, but the personal Christ in the grandeur of His being, the integrity of His righteousness, the strength and fidelity of his wondrous love, is the Church’s firm foundation.
II. THE SILENT PROCESS OF ITS STRUCTURE. “There was neither hammer, nor axe, nor any tool of iron heard in the house while it was in building (1Ki 6:7). This was probably in obedience to the prohibition recorded in Exo 20:26 and Deu 27:5. It expressed the king’s sense of the sanctity of the work. The tranquillity of the scene must not be broken by the clang of inharmonious sounds. “Like some tall palm the noiseless fabric grew.” The fact is suggestive. The building up of the Church of God is a silent, hidden process. Outward visible agencies must be employed, but the real constructive forces are out of sight. Truth works secretly and silently in the souls of men. “The kingdom of God cometh not with observation.” Noise and show are out of harmony with the sanctity of it. Clamour and violence only hinder the work. Let us not mistake a restless, busy, fussy zeal for the externalities of Church life for true spiritual service. This is often in inverse ratio to the amount of real edification. The best machinery works with least friction and noise. The quiet, thoughtful workers, who move on steadily by the inspiration of their holy purpose, without much public recognition, may after all be the most efficient builders of the temple of God.
III. THE VARIETY OF THE AGENCIES BY WHICH THE WORE WAS DONE. Foreign power was enlisted in the serviceHiram and his artificers. Cedars from Lebanon, gold and silver and precious stones from Ophir and Parvaim, brass “without weight” from the foundries of Succoth and Zarethanall were consecrated to it. So also with the spiritual fabric. The resources of the world are at the command of Him who rears it. “All things serve His might.” All beings, with all their faculties, are at His disposal All streams of human interest, and thought, and speech, and activity may be made tributary to the great river of His purpose. Our faith rests in the assurance that it is sothat just as our physical life is nourished by all sorts of ministries, near and remote, so the kingdom of truth and righteousness in the world is being built up by a vast variety of agencies which it is beyond our power to trace. All human affairs are but as the scaffolding within which the structure of God’s great house is slowly rising to its completion. To this structure it is that the prophetic word, in its deepest meaning, may be applied, “The sons of strangers shall build up thy walls” (Isa 60:10). And in its final consummation shall be fulfilled the apocalyptic picture, “The kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.” (Rev 21:22).
IV. THE MINGLED STRENGTH AND BEAUTY OF THE FABRIC. The blocks of stone were lined with cedar planks, and the cedar overlaid with plates of gold; the walls covered with carved “cherubims and palm trees and open flowers;” the brazen pillars crowned with “lily work.” The building was not of large dimensions, but wonderful for its combination of solidity and adornment, partaking of the firmness of the rocky mount on which it stood, glittering in the sunlight, the crowning glory of the royal city. How much more truly may we say of the spiritual temple, “Strength and beauty are in His sanctuary.” There is no strength like that of truth and righteousness; no beauty like that of holy character:strength drawn from Christ, the living Foundation, the reflected beauty of that purer heaven which is the eternal home of God.
V. THE ORDERLY ARRANGEMENT OF ITS PARTS AND APPURTENANCES. The temple was framed apparently after the model of the tabernacle, but with doubled dimensions and more enduring materials, and that was “after the pattern shown to Moses in the mount”all regulated with regard to the due administration of the service of God. Courts, chambers, galleries, altars, layers, utensilsall consecrated to some sacred use, or meant to enshrine some high symbolic meaning. The gathering up of a complex variety of parts in one grand structural unity. Such is the Churchan aggregate of various but harmonious and mutually helpful parts. “There are diversities of gifts and administrations and operations, but the same Spirit” (1Co 12:4). “All the building fitly framed together,” etc. (Eph 2:13). “The whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth,” etc. (Eph 4:16). It would seem necessary that the social religious life should assume some visible organized form; and though there may be no such form or forms ecclesiastical that can claim to have the stamp of distinct Divine approval, yet all are Divine so far as they minister to the general edification and preserve “the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace.” They each and all have their place in the Divine order, if they help to fulfil the holy uses, and to heighten the glory of the great temple of the Lord.
VI. ITS SUBLIME DISTINCTION AS THE HABITATION OF GOD (see Deu 27:12, Deu 27:18, etc.) This was but the repetition of a more ancient promise (Exo 25:8; Exo 29:45). And what are all these promises, with all the marvellous manifestations that verified them, but typical foreshadowings of the richer grace by virtue of which the Church becomes “the habitation of God through the Spirit”? “The Most High dwells not in temples made with hands;” His dwelling place is the fellowship of redeemed souls.W.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
1Ki 6:1. In the fourth year of Solomon’s reign If it be asked, why Solomon did not begin the building of the temple sooner, and even in the first year of his reign, since his father had left him a plan, and all things necessary for the undertaking, Abarbanel’s answer is, that Solomon would not make use of what his father had prepared, but was resolved to build this temple all at his own cost and charge. He therefore put into the treasure of the Lord’s house, all that David had dedicated to the work; and to collect as much gold and silver as was necessary to defray so vast an expence, four years can be accounted no unreasonable time. Nay, even supposing that he made use of the treasure which his father had amassed, yet if the materials provided by his father lay at a considerable distance, and were left rude and unfashioned, it would cost all this time to form them into the exact symmetry wherein the Scripture represents them, before they were brought together; especially considering that the very stones which made the foundation were probably vast blocks of marble or porphyry, (chap. 1Ki 5:17.) and all polished in an exquisite manner. See Patrick and Poole.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
B.The accomplishment of the building of the Temple
1Ki 6:1-38
1And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth1 year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomons reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that2 he began to build the house of the Lord [Jehovah]. 2And the house which king Solomon built for the Lord [Jehovah] the length thereof was threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof twenty cubits,3 and the height thereof thirty cubits. 3And the porch before the temple of the house, twenty cubits was the length thereof, according to the breadth of the house; and ten cubits was the breadth thereof before the house. 4And for the house he made windows of narrow lights [with fixed lattices4].
5And against the wall of the house he built chambers5 round about, against the walls of the house round about, both of the temple and of the oracle: and he made chambers round about. 6The nethermost chamber was five cubits broad, and the middle was six cubits broad, and the third was seven cubits broad: for without in the wall of the house he made narrowed rests round about, that the beams should not be fastened in the walls of the house. 7And the house, when it was in building, was built of stone made ready before it was brought thither:6 so that there was neither hammer nor axe nor any tool of iron heard in the house, while it was in building. 8The door for the middle7 chamber was in the right side of the house: and they went up with winding stairs into the middle chamber, and out of the middle into the third. 9So he built the house, and finished it; and covered the house with beams and boards of 10cedar. And then he built chambers against all the house, five cubits high: and they rested on the house with timber of cedar.
11,8 12And the word of the Lord [Jehovah] came to Solomon, saying, Concerning this house which thou art in building, if thou wilt walk in my statutes, and execute my judgments, and keep all my commandments to walk in them; then will I perform my word with thee, which I spake unto David thy father: 13And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will not forsake my people Israel.
14So Solomon built the house, and finished it. 15And he built the walls of the house within with boards of cedar, both [from] the floor of the house, and [unto] the walls9 of the ceiling: and he covered them on the inside with wood, and covered the floor of the house with planks of fir. 16And he built twenty cubits on the sides of the house, both [from] the floor and [unto] the walls with boards of cedar: he even built them for it within, even for the oracle, even for the most holy place. 17And the house, that is, the temple before10 it, was forty cubits long. 18And the cedar of the house within was carved with knops and open flowers: all was cedar; there was no stone seen.11 19And the oracle he prepared in the house within, to set there the ark of the covenant of the Lord [Jehovah]. 20And the oracle in the forepart was twenty cubits in length, and twenty cubits in breadth, and twenty cubits in the height thereof: and he overlaid it with pure gold; and so covered the altar which was of cedar [overlaid the altar with cedar.12] 21So Solomon overlaid the house within with pure gold: and he made a partition by the chains of gold before the oracle; and he overlaid it with gold. 22And the whole house he overlaid with gold, until he had finished all the house: also the whole altar that was by the oracle he overlaid with gold.13
23And within the oracle he made two cherubims of olive tree, each ten cubits high. 24And five cubits was the one wing of the cherub, and five cubits the other wing of the cherub: from the uttermost part of the one wing unto the uttermost part of the other were ten cubits. 25And the other cherub was ten cubits: both the cherubims were of one measure and one size [form]. 26The height of the one cherub was ten cubits, and so was it of the other cherub. 27And he set the cherubims within the inner house: and they stretched forth the wings of the cherubims, so that the wing of the one touched the one wall, and the wing of the other cherub touched the other wall; and their wings touched one another in 28the midst of the house. And he overlaid the cherubims with gold. 29And he carved all the walls of the house round about with carved figures of cherubims and palm trees and open flowers, within and without.14 30And the floor of the house he overlaid with gold, within and without.14
31And for the entering of the oracle he made doors of olive tree: the lintel and side-posts were a fifth part of the wall. 32The two doors also were of olive tree; and he carved upon them carvings of cherubims and palm trees and open flowers, and overlaid. them with gold, and spread gold upon the cherubims, and upon the palm trees15 33So also made he for the door of the temple posts of olive tree, a fourth part of the wall. 34And the two doors were of fir tree: the two leaves of the one door were folding, and the two leaves16 of the other door were folding. 35And he carved thereon cherubims and palm trees and open flowers: and covered [overlaid] them with gold fitted upon the carved work.
36And he built the inner court with three rows of hewed stone, and a row of cedar beams.
37In the fourth year was the foundation of the house of the Lord [Jehovah] laid, in the month Zif: 38and in the eleventh year, in the month But, which is the eighth month, was the house finished throughout all the parts thereof, and according to all the fashion of it. So was he seven years in building it.
Preliminary Observations
The account of Solomons temple, before us, together with the continuation in 1Ki 7:13-51, is the oldest, and, at the same time, the most complete in our possession. Hence all knowledge of this world-historical building must adhere to it and found itself upon it. Next to it is the parallel account in 2 Chronicles 3, 4, which agrees with it in all essential particulars, and, as indeed the most recent criticism acknowledges, comes from an ancient source, perhaps from the same with our own here. Although significantly briefer, it gives, nevertheless, some supplementary details the accuracy of which is undoubted, and which deserve all consideration. In addition to these two historical accounts, there is also the delineation in vision of the prophet Ezekiel (Ezekiel 40 sq.), which indeed is very explicit in respect of the ground-plan and its measurement. In an earlier period this delineation was regarded as an essential completion and explanation of the historical accounts; later this was abandoned, because the prophet himself repeatedly explains it as a vision (Eze 40:2; Eze 43:2-3); but most recently it has again been claimed that it is a description which, upon the whole, differs only slightly and immaterially from the temple before the exile (Thenius). And the reason assigned is twofold: the one is the style of the description, thoroughly jejune, deficient in all taste, giving single measurements even to the width of the doors and the strength of the walls,the other is the object of it, which was, according to Eze 43:10-11, that the temple (then destroyed) should be rebuilt according to Ezekiels model. To this, however, it must be objected, (a) That the statement of the numbers and the measure of the foundation, extending itself to the minutest particulars, instead of taking away from the description the character of a vision, rather confirms it. The exact measuring off and bounding according to definite numbers and measurements is, as has been fully shown in my Symbolik des Mosaischen Kultus (i. s. 127 sq.), the first requisite for every space and structure which has an higher, divine destination, and imparts thereto the impress of the divine. Hence, in the description of all holy places and buildings mentioned in Scripture, the measurement and numbers are so carefully given, and especially in the visions which concern the one divine edifice, ever first a heavenly being, a man with a measuring-chain appears, who measures off everything (Eze 40:3; Eze 40:5; Eze 47:3; Zec 2:5; Rev 11:1; Rev 21:15). The more the measuring goes into detail, so much the more is the whole pronounced to be out and out divine. (b) In general it contradicts the being and nature of a vision to be nothing more than a pure building-description or an architectonic direction. But here, it must be added that it contains phases which do not admit of execution in reality, as, e.g., the great stream flowing from the temple emptying itself into the Dead Sea (Eze 47:1-12). If the purpose of the entire delineation had been to serve as a building-direction for the reconstruction of the temple after the return from the captivity, it would be inexplicable that it should have been disregarded as well by Zerubbabel as later by Herod, (c) As little as the delineation is purely historical, just as little also is it, as many have supposed, a mere picture of the fancy. Rather, as Ezekiel elsewhere loves the finishing out of long allegories (see Eze 16:23), so also we have here a very extended symbolical representation prophetically delivered by him (Hvernick, Commentar, s. 623; cf. Umbreit, Commentar, s. 257). Certainly it rests upon an historical basis, yet not upon the temple as originally built by Solomon, but upon it after many additions and alterations, as it existed just before the captivity. Yet it is and must remain a vision, and, as such, it has an ideal character, from which every effort to separate with certainty the historical basis is futile (comp. Winer, R.-W.-B., ii. s. 570). It is abundantly clear that in the inquiry upon the temple of Solomon, only the most cautious use of Ezekiels description should be made, and in no case is a votum decessivum due it.
Besides the biblical accounts, we have from antiquity only that of Josephus (Antiq. viii. 3), of which, however, Le Clerc properly says: templum dificat, quale animo conceperat, non quale legerat a Salomone conditum. As he is not wholly trustworthy about the transactions of his own time, he is still less in matters of antiquity; particularly when he enters upon special descriptions, and claims to communicate detailed incidents, and measurements of heights and size, we are fully justified in doubting the accuracy of his statements (Robinsons Palestine, vol. 1. p. 277). In no instance does he deserve confidence when he does not agree with the biblical accounts, and that which he adds, as, e.g., the levelling of Moriah and the surrounding it with a wall, he did not derive from good ancient sources. Just as untrustworthy are the statements of the later rabbins (comp. Talmudischen Traktat Middoth, i.e., Measure, Maimonides, Jak. Jehuda Leo, and others), since they almost exclusively refer to the temple of Herod, which was very different from that of Solomon, and mingle both together, as also with that of Ezekiel.
The Christian literature respecting our temple is not insignificant. The older essays, from the middle of the sixteenth to the middle of the eighteenth century, like those of Villalpando, Lundius, B. Lamy, and others, embrace the Ezekilian and Herodian temples, without distinguishing sharply what belongs to the one or to the other. From the designs adduced by them, executed in Greco-Roman style, it is clear that their results are totally untenable. While, up to a given time, men believed that they must represent the temple to have been as grand and splendid as possible, in the period of the illumination (Aufklrung), they fell into the opposite extreme, and made it as small, unsightly, and insignificant as possible (J. D. Michaelis, Jahn, and others). But subsequently there has been a return to the historical, biblical account, and a simple adherence to it (Warnekros, Bauer, and others). The treatise composed by Hirt, simply in the interests of archaeology and art-history (Der Tempel Salomos mit drei Kupfertafeln, Berlin, 1809), gave occasion to later and more exact researches, in pure archological and historico-sthetic interests. Hereupon followed the Inquiries by J. Fr. Von Meyer (Bibeldeutungen, 1812, and Bltter fr hhere Wahrheit, IX. and XI.); Stieglitz (Geschichte der Baukunst. Nrnberg, 1827); Grneisen (Revision d. jungsten Forschungen b. den Salom. Tempel. Kunstbl. 1831); Kopp (Der Tempel Salomos, Stuttgart, 1839, mit Abbild.); Keil (Der Tempel Salomos. Dorpat, 1839); Kugler (Kunstgesch., Berlin, 1841); Schnaase (Antiq. Bemerk. ber den Salom. Tempel in der Gesch. der bild. Knste I., Dsseld. 1843); Romberg and Steeger (Gesch. der Baukunst. Leipzig, 1844); Merz (Bemerk. ber den Tempel Salomos. Kunstbl. 1844); my treatise: Der Salom. Tempel mit Bercksicht. seines Verhltn. zur heil. Architektur berhaupt. Karlsruhe, 1848); Thenius (das vorexilische Jerusalem u. dessen Tempel, mit Abbild., im Commentar zu den Bchern der Knige. Leipzig. 1849); Winer (R.-W.-B. Tempel zu Jerusalem. Leipzig, 1848); Ewald (die heiligen und kniglichen Bauten Salomos in der Gesch. Israels 3. Gttingen, 1853); Unruh (das alte Jerusalem und seine Bauwerke. Langensalza, 1861); Merz (Tempel zu Jerusalem in Herzogs R. Encyclopdie 15. Gotha, 1862).
[For the archology and topography of the subject, see also Robinsons Palestine, vol. i. p. 280300. Barclay, J. T., The City of the Great King. Philadelphia, 1858. Walter Merriam Editor, The Recovery of Jerusalem, &c. by Capt. Wilson, R. E. and Capt. Warren, R. E. New York, Appleton & Co., 1871. Part I. 3.8. and 12, also Part IIE. H.]
Exegetical and Critical
1Ki 6:1. And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year, &c. This chronological statement, the first which occurs in Scripture, for the determination of an entire period, has given much occupation to the older chronologists, be cause it does not agree with the statements of the book of the Judges and with Act 13:20. The Septuagint also has 440 instead of 480. If one add together the chronological figures of the book of the Judges, the result is, for the period of the judges alone 410 years, to which must be added 65 for Moses and Joshua, 60 for Saul and David, and 4 for Solomon, so that there are 539 years in all. According to Acts 13, the period of the judges embraced about 450 years; 65 for Moses and Joshua, 40 for Saul (1Ki 6:21), 40 for David, and 4 for Solomon reckoned in, would give in all 599 years. Still farther, Josephus, when he speaks of the building of the temple (Antiq.viii. 3, 1), instead of 480 gives 592 years; and in two other places (Antiq.xx. 10; Contra Apion.ii. 2) 612 years. Most recently Lepsius and Bunsen have used the Egyptian and Assyrian chronology against the number 480, and have sought to prove at length, that it is to be reduced to some three hundred and odd years. Finally, Bertheau and Bttcher maintain, with reference to 1Ch 6:35 sq., where the generations of the high-priests from Aaron to Ahimaz, a contemporary of David, are given, the number 480 is the sum-total of twelve generations, 40 years to the generation (40×12=480); consequently there is no chronologically exact, but rather a probable, round number. Uncertain and doubtful, all things considered, as the statement of the text may seem, we must nevertheless, with Ewald (Gesch. Israels, ii. s. 462 sq.), Winer (R.-W.-B. ii. s. 327), Thenius (Commentar, s. 5658), and Rsch (das Datum des Tempelbaues im Ersten Buche der Knige. Studien u. Kritiken, 1863, iv. s. 712742) adhere to it because, (a) the precision of the statement is a voucher for its accuracy. Not only is the whole number of the years given, but also the year of the reign of the king, even the mouth itself; and since after the captivity the months had other names, in order that the month itself might not be mistaken for any other, to the name Zif () it is expressly added. which is the second month. In all Scripture there is no chronological statement more carefully prepared; and hence, if any one can claim authority, it is this. It is unnecessary, therefore, to correct it by others, more or less vaguely and generally acknowledged, but we are justified, on the contrary, in considering it as the standard for the rest. This holds especially (b) in reference to the chronological figures of the period of the judges, which are not critically and historically above all suspicion, and cannot be added together simply, but must be understood as contemporaneous in part, and standing side by side, even if it be not demonstrably clear in how far, and with what particular numbers, this must be done. Compare the different attempts at a proof by Keil (Drptische Beitrge, ii. s. 303 sq., and on Jdg 3:7), Tiele (Chronologie des A. T. s. 54), Werner (Rudelbachs Zeitschrift, 1844, iii. and 1845, i.), and Cassel (Das Buch der Richter im Bibelwerk, Einl. s. xvi.). (c) The number 450 (Act 13:20) is not given as chronologically precise, but only as approximate (), and nothing can be determined by it.17 The numbers of the period of the judges appear simply to be added together in it, and the 40 years of Eli also (1Sa 4:18) are computed with it. (d) The statements of Josephus can all the less be taken into account, since he contradicts himself, and gives at one time 592, and at the other 612. The first number, adopted also by the Chinese Jews, rests doubtless upon the rabbinic notion that in the 480 years those only are to be reckoned in which Israel was under Israelitish judges, and that those on the other hand are to be thrown out (amounting in all to 111), when the nation was subject to foreign heathen rulers480 + 111 = 591. This conception of the matter is destitute of all proof. The reason for the number 612 is unknown, (e) The calling in question of the number 480 upon the ground of the Egyptian or of the Assyrian chronology, proceeds upon the assumption that this chronology is assured, which, it is known, is by no means the case, and which can only be restored through a series of combinations and of unproved hypotheses. How feebly the definite statement of our text can be attacked by it, has been thoroughly and completely shown by Rsch on the place. (f) The reading of the Sept. (440 instead of 480) is not supported by any ancient version or MS., and rests either upon the confounding of the sign = 80 with = 40, or upon some peculiar and even arbitrary reckoning, (g) The view that 480 is the product of 12 x 40, is inadmissible, because in that event the four years of Solomons reign are not in the estimate, and must be added to the 480 years, while in fact they are included within them. Had the reckoning been made according to generations, the author would have written 484. Apart from this, twelve generations are supplied us from 1 Chronicles 6 only when Aaron himself, who, according to Exo 7:7; Num 33:38 sq., was eighty-three years old at the time of the departure from Egypt, is taken into the account. Besides, there is no proof that in the computation of long periods of time human age is regularly set down at forty years. As Moses was 120 years, Aaron 123, Joshua 110, Eli 98, &c., and generally, a great age was then usual, the average of human life must certainly be placed higher than at forty years. Comp. Thenius.
1Ki 6:2. And the house which king Solomon, &c. The place where the temple was built, was, according to 2Ch 3:1, Mount Moriah (comp. 2Sa 24:18 sq.), which our author presupposes as sufficiently known. [The uneven rock of Moriah had to be levelled, and the inequalities filled by immense substructions of great stones, costly stones, hewed stones. Stanley, Jewish Church.E. H.] In 1Ki 6:2-10 the measurement and single portions of the structure are given. The measurements are determined according to the cubit, and indeed the older (2Ch 3:3), which Thenius reckons at one foot six inches Rhenish, and one foot four inches Paris, measure [= 1 foot six inches Eng. measure]. Here, and in all the subsequent statements, they refer to the interior spaces. The component parts of the structure are the house, the porch, and the chambers round about (Umbau). The first is the building proper, to which both others are attached as additional and subsidiary. The whole was situated according to the points of the compass. The front, or entrance-side, was towards the east, the rear wall was towards the west, the two sides towards the south and north (1Ki 7:39; Eze 8:16), which also was the position of the tabernacle (Exo 26:18 sq.;Exo 36:33 sq.). The main building, the house (), was built of thick stone walls (1Ki 6:6-7, and had within two compartments: the front is called in 1Ki 6:3 the temple of the house ( ), and the rear, in 1Ki 6:5, the oracle (). The word comes from the Arabic, to be large, high (2Ch 3:5), hence the front compartment was the great house ( ) in contradistinction with the rear, which was the shorter half, and also lower. The Vulg., after Jerome, translates the word by oraculum, i.e., oraculi sedes, and the Lex. Cyrilli explains the of the Sept. by . It is, however, not derived from = to speak, but from in its primary signification = to adjoin, to follow after (comp. Dietrich in Gesen.), and signifies, also, simply the compartment in the rear, following upon the large room. The windows which the house had (1Ki 6:4), were certainly placed high, where it overtopped the chambers round about (Umbau) with their three stories. How many windows there were, whether upon all the four sides of the house, or only upon three, or only upon the two length-walls, we do not gather from the text. The designs of Thenius and Keil place them all around the house, with the exception of the facade, where the porch was. Nor is the size of the windows given, but it is added , i.e., wide within, narrow without (Luther, after the Chald.), but windows with closed beams, i.e., windows the lattice of which could not he opened and shut at pleasure as in ordinary dwelling-houses, 2Ki 13:17; Dan 6:11 (Keil). The lattice consisted of strong cross-pieces, and not of wickerwork. The window-opening may have been, certainly, according to the account of the Chaldee and of the rabbins, inasmuch as the walls were very thick, wider on the inside than on the outside, as is the case in the windows of Egyptian buildings, and answers for the purposes of admitting light and air, and of letting off smoke, only there is nothing of it in the words of the text.
1Ki 6:3-4. And the porch before the temple of the house, &c. As the word comes from , i.e., to go before, it signifies also a projection: but we are not, as in 1Ki 7:6, where (pillars) is expressly added, to represent it as a portico or a colonnade. It stretched across the entire facade of the house, and its length was equal to the breadth of the house, viz., 20 cubits. Its breadth, i.e., its depth, measured 10 cubits. The text does not mention the height, but 2Ch 3:4 gives it at 120 cubits, which is certainly incorrect; for, as Thenius properly remarks, (1) a structure of this sort could not have been designated as an , but must have been called a (tower); (2) the chimney-like proportions: 20, 10, 120, are not only inconsistent with (the notion of) the pylon of a temple, but are also statically impossible. [If it were but 10 cubits (15 feet) deep, it seems impossible that it could have been 120 cubits (180 feet) high: and the theory of Mr. Ferguson that the height refers to a superstructure on the temple, would make the temple itself a very grotesque building. See the art., however, on the Temple in Smiths Dictionary of the Bible, vol. iv. New York, 1870.E. H.] From these considerations we cannot, with justice, suppose the chronicler to be guilty of arbitrary exaggeration, but we must rather suspect the text of corruption, which is all the more probable, since the verse in question bears even elsewhere marks of corruption. According to v. Meyers probable conjecture, instead of , we should read: , i.e., 20 cubits (in Eze 42:16 also, whether the reading be or is uncertain). The latter is adopted by the Syr., the Arab., and the Sept. (Cod. Alexand.). Thenius and Bertheau maintain, on the other hand, that as the house was 30 cubits high, the sign = 30 was originally in the text, but that through the obliteration of the upper portion of the letter it became = 20. And certainly, in behalf of the supposition that it was 30 cubits high, we may urge, in part, the absence of any statement of the height in our text, which is the more easily explicable if the height of the porch and of the temple were the same, and, in part, the circumstance that the side-building was 20 cubits high on the outside, consequently the porch would not have been especially distinctive or prominent had it been of the same height (Keil). That the porch had thick stone enclosure-walls with a wide entrance (Thenius), cannot be concluded from the obscure passage of Eze 41:26; still less is the view established that each side-wall had a window. To me it seems that the porch had only side-walls and a ceiling, but to have been entirely open in front, so that windows were unnecessary. The extremely inadequate description of the porch, contrasted with the very careful description of the house and of both its compartments, can only be founded in the fact that it did not belong especially, or as an integral part, to the sanctuary, but was only a subordinate addition thereto.
1Ki 6:5. And against the wall of the house he built, &c. The word comes from sternere, to spread or strew something for a bed, and means literally stratum, a bed (Psa 63:6; Job 17:13). Symmachus renders it by . So this building was very properly called, because it spread itself out against the lower half of the house 30 cubits high, and, as it were, lay upon it. is gen. com. and stands as collective masculine in 1Ki 6:5; 1Ki 6:10, of the whole of the side-structure (chambers), but it is feminine in 1Ki 6:6, when the single, or three stories of the same, one over the other, are mentioned (see Gesen. on the word). The before is scarcely the sign of the accus., reaching to the walls (Keil), but a preposition, and defines more particularly the preceding , as indeed both prepositions elsewhere are synonymous (comp. Psa 4:7 with Psa 67:2). If it can mean simply in connection with the walls (Thenius), then the statement is that (Umbau) the chambers round about were affixed to the walls. It went round the entire house, so that the two side-walls of the porch above stood free, and caused the latter to appear all the more distinctive. The three stories one above the other of this side-structure (1Ki 6:5), had each , i.e., literally ribs [joists, so Bp. Horsley on the place.E. H.], which can mean nothing else than that they were divided by partitions into distinct compartments (Merz). It comes to the same thing when Keil, who rejects ribs as the meaning, translates nevertheless side-chambers. According to Eze 41:6, where, however, the reading is not entirely certain, the number of these chambers was 1Kings 33: according to Josephus, with whom the moderns agree, there were 30viz., 12 upon each side-wall of the house, and 6 upon the rear-wall.
1Ki 6:6 states how the entire side-structure (chambers round about) were built into the chief-structure, the house itself. The wall of the latter had, upon the outside, rests (, literally contractions, lessenings [for he placed stays with retractions against the house. Bp. Horsley.E. H.]). It was thickest at the ground, and kept this thickness to the height of five cubits; then succeeded a rest (like a settle), which was one cubit broad. Then again, after an elevation of five cubits, there was another rest, one cubit broad; there was also another rest of like height and breadth. Upon these rests the ends of the beams, which served for the ceiling of each story, were laid, and had in them their support. The outer wall of the side-structure had no rests, but was built perpendicularly; hence, as our verse states, the uppermost story was one cubit broader (deeper) than the middle, and the middle again was one cubit broader than the lowermost. The wall also of the house must have been very thick belowat least four cubits, for its thickness above the side-structure, bearing in mind the rests, amounted certainly to one cubit. Thenius and Keil place the thickness at six cubits, but this seems unnecessary. The reason given for this mode of construction is, that the beams should not be fastened into the walls of the house i.e., that the large, costly stones should remain whole and uninjured (), that no holes should be cut into them for the purpose of inserting the ends of the ceiling-beams. 1Ki 6:7, which is a parenthesis, refers to this, and means that all the stone-work had been so prepared in advance, that in the actual putting up of the building, stone-cutting was no longer necessary (Thenius). According to 1Ki 6:8, the entire side-structure had but one door, which was placed on the south side: whether in the middle (Thenius) or at the foremost apartment near the porch (Ewald, Merz) is uncertain; probably the latter. That a door within the house opened into the side-structure, has been erroneously concluded from Eze 41:5. The walls of the house were nowhere broken through, and certainly the historical account knows nothing of such a door. The winding stairway obviously was within the side-structure. The word in 1Ki 6:8, and in Eze 41:5; Eze 41:9; Eze 41:11, is like in 1Ki 6:5; 1Ki 6:10, in the singular, and stands collectively for the whole of the side-chambers.The text says nothing of the perpendicular outside wall of the side-structure. Thenius appeals to Eze 41:9 for the supposition that this was a stone-wall five cubits thick. In that case it would have been as thick as the side-chambers of the lower story were broad (1Ki 6:6): and why should the wall of these have been so thick? Then, too, the ceiling-beams of these chambers would, of necessity, have been inserted into these walls, which is inconsistent with 1Ki 6:7. Hence it seems to me much more probable that this exterior wall, as indeed the entire side-structure, which was only subordinate in any event, was built of cedar.The text does not state the purpose or design of these chambers round about. They served for the preservation of temple utensils and temple stores (Keil), perhaps also of consecrated gifts (Ewald); but they were scarcely expensively furnished bedrooms (Thenius).
1Ki 6:9-10. And so he built the house, &c. In roofing, the building of the house was ended. But we must not, as many formerly, and even Hirt himself now, fancy a gable-roof. The silence of the text respecting its form allows us to presuppose that it was, as with all oriental buildings, a flat roof furnished with a parapet (comp. Deu 22:8). is not, with Merz, to be understood of the wainscoting, but, with Keil, of the roofing, for the account of the former begins first at 1Ki 6:15. are not planks, as the word for the most part is translated, but beams, as such were certainly indispensable for roofing. are scarcely hewn cedar-timbers (Thenius), but boards which were laid upon the beams. The refer to both the preceding. Without doubt this cedar covering was overlaid with firm flooring, perhaps even with stone slabs. Thenius very unnecessarily wishes to be read for , and then suggests a flat roof vaulting but in the ancient Orient there were never any arched roofs. In 1Ki 6:10 is again collective, for, according to it, not the whole side-structure, but each of its three stories, was five cubits high inside. The mention of the side-structure here is in reference to the roofing. While 1Ki 6:9 speaks of the roofing of the house, 1Ki 6:10 states how it is related to that of the side-structure. Therefore the height is again mentioned, with the observation, and he fastened the house with timber of cedar. If Solomon be the subject with the preceding (Thenius), or (Keil), the sense is: the roofing of the three stories (five cubits high each) of the side-structure was done with cedar timbers, which, with their ends, lay upon the rests of the walls of the temple, and likewise united the side-structure with the house, thus making it a complete whole. Entirely false is the translation: he covered the house with cedar-wood (Gesenius), as if the stonewalls were overlaid, upon the inside, with cedar, of which there is nowhere the slightest trace. That the roof of the side-structure, moreover, was horizontal, level, like that of the house itself, scarcely requires mention.
1Ki 6:11-19. And the word of the Lord came to Solomon, &c. The interruption of the description of the temple, by these verses, shows plainly that what is therein stated took place during the progress of the building. From 1Ki 9:2, comp. with 1Ki 3:5, it is clear that we have to think not of a revelation of Jehovah, but of a divine promise communicated through a prophet (perhaps Nathan), such as happened to David (2Sa 7:12 sq. and 1Ch 22:10), to which reference is made in 1Ki 6:12. Solomon thereby obtained the promise that Jehovah, as He had formerly dwelt among the people in a tabernacle, for the sign and pledge of the covenant established with Israel, would dwell in the house about to be built, and that the covenant-relation also should continue, if the king upon his part should keep the covenant, and walk in the ordinances of Jehovah. Such a promise necessarily encouraged and strengthened Solomon in his great and difficult undertaking, as it reminded and urged him to the performance of his sacred obligations.
1Ki 6:14-19. So Solomon built the house, &c. 1Ki 6:14 resumes the description of the building, which had been interrupted by 1Ki 6:11-13, and which from 1Ki 6:15 is applied to its interior. The overlaying of walls with wood, which again was covered with metal, and gold in particular, is an old Oriental custom, extending from Phnicia to Judea (comp. Mller, Archology, translated by John Leitch, p. 214 sq.; Schnaase, Gesch. der bild. Knste, i. s. 160; Weiss, Kostmkunde, i. s. 365). The covering with gold was not mere gilding, but consisted of thin gold plates (Symb. des Mos. Kultus, i. s. 60). According to 2Ch 3:6, the walls also were adorned with precious stones, which is credible enough since these were expressly named amongst the objects which Solomon obtained in abundance from Ophir (1Ki 10:11), and it was the custom in the Orient to make use of them in buildings and utensils (comp. the same, s. 280, 294, 297).
1Ki 6:16 says explicitly and distinctly that the main space was separated from the Debir by a cedar wall; hence surely it is an error upon the part of Thenius when, by an appeal to Eze 41:3, he supposes, in place of this wall, a stone-wall two cubits thick covered with wood and gold. Even in the tabernacle of the covenant it was not a plank-wall (Exo 26:15), but a curtain merely (1Ki 6:33) which separated its two divisions from each other. Even the massively-constructed Herodian temple had no such wall, of which besides, the Rabbins, according to Josephus (Bell. Jud. i., 5, 5, 5), knew nothing (Lightfoot, Descrip. temp. Hieros., 1Ki 15:1). The cedar wall, for the rest, since it reached from the ground to the beams of the ceiling, must have been thirty cubits high. The addition to shows the design of the latter, and proves that the does not mean oraculum or locutorium, for had it this signification, its object would have been denoted by the word itself, and no explanatory addition would have been necessary.According to 1Ki 6:16-20 the two divisions of the house were of the following dimensions: the room at the farthest end took off from the entire length of the building (which was 60 cubits), twenty, and from its height (30 cubits), twenty. It was also, as is expressly stated in 1Ki 6:20, twenty cubits long, broad, and high, and consequently was a complete cube in shape. The front compartment was forty cubits long, twenty broad, and thirty high. For since its breadth and height are not given here (1Ki 6:17), it must have had the breadth and height of the house mentioned above (1Ki 6:2), otherwise, as in the case of the rear compartment, it would have been expressly noticed. That the front compartment was not only longer, but higher also, larger generally than the rear, its name even proves (see above on 1Ki 6:2). It is hence decidedly incorrect when Kurtz and Merz suppose that the front compartment was only twenty cubits high, that over the entire house there was an upper room ten cubits high fitted up for the conservation of the reliques of the tabernacle of the covenant, and that this room is designated by what 2Ch 3:9 names , and which the Sept. renders by . The following considerations make against this view: (1) How could one have reached this supposed upper chamber? Not from the side-structure, for the ceiling of its uppermost story did not reach to the floor of the supposed upper room: the thick walls of the house, moreover, had no door above the level of the side-structure. Just as little could one have reached it from the interior of the house, for in neither compartment was there a stairway which led thither: there was no opening in the ceiling. (2) The windows of the house (1Ki 6:4) were above the side-structure, which (the ceilings of the three stories being taken into the account) was certainly eighteen cubits high: there remained, therefore, the house being thirty cubits high, but twelve cubits for the windows. If now from these twelve cubits, ten are allowed for the upper room, what space remains for the windows, which certainly were not very small, and which were necessary to admit light and air into the house? (3) From the extremely abrupt words of the Chronicles, And the alioth he covered with gold, it follows only that alioth (upper chambers) were somewhere, but not where they were; and since the Chronicles in its abbreviated description says nothing of the entire side-structure with its stories and chambers, we have at least as much right, with Grneisen, to suppose the alioth to be the chambers of the side-structure, as an upper room extending the length of the whole building, and which is nowhere else mentioned. The reliques of the tabernacle could easily have been preserved in the several chambers of the side-structure. [For the other view, see Art. Temple, above cited. But our author seems to me to have fully disposed of this doubtful matter. It would seem impossible from our authors reasoning that there should have been a large upper chamber over the holy place.E. H.] If now we must, according to all the accounts, regard the front compartment as thirty cubits high, the question still remains respecting its relation to the rear, which was but twenty cubits high. Stieglitz and Grneisen are of the opinion that the rear compartment, viewed externally, was ten cubits lower than the front, which was the case also with Egyptian temples [and like the chancel in the so-called Gothic church.E. H.]. But 1Ki 6:2 conflicts with this: it gives the height of the entire house at thirty cubits, and does not limit it to the front compartment. Apart from all other considerations, we cannot appeal to the adytum of the Egyptian temples, because it was not connected with the fore-temple, but was separated from it by chambers and passages, and was an independent structure (Mller, Archology, p. 190 sq.; Leitch (German edit.) s. 258; Schnaase, Gesch. der bild. Knste, i. s. 392). We must certainly assume that there was a room over the rear compartment ten cubits high. Bttcher thinks this was open in front and only having chains hanging as its partition (1Ki 6:21); in itself, very improbable this (Winer), and besides it is against 1Ki 6:16, according to which the cedar wall before the holy of holies went from the floor to the beams of the ceiling. Besides, 1Ki 6:20 does not say that the cedar wall was only twenty cubits high, but only brings into prominence the fact that on all its sides the holy of holies measured twenty cubits. As the room in question was inaccessible, Ewald rightly observes that it had been left apparently entirely empty. It had no especial design, and was what it was simply that the holy of holies might be a perfect cube. Upon this point more will be remarked farther on, in respect of the significance of the temple. For particular words on 1Ki 6:17-20, see above, Textual and Gram.
1Ki 6:20-22. And covered the altar, &c. And he overlaid the altar with cedar. Thus only should we translate the concluding words of the 20th verse, and not, with Le Clerc, J. D. Michaelis, and othershe overlaid the altar of cedar, namely, with gold like the rest. Apart from the fact that is without the article, and not in the construct, the gold is first mentioned in the concluding words of the 22d verse. There the altar is more specifically referred to by , which cannot mean which belonged to the Debir, in the sense that it stood within it; for the holy of holies was designed only as the receptacle of the ark of the covenant (1Ki 6:19), and never had an altar. The altar of incense in the holy place is meant. Its position was in front of the curtain () (Exo 40:26), i.e., before the ark of the testimony (Exo 40:5), and therewith also before Jehovah (Lev 16:12; Lev 16:18), enthroned above the ark. It stood also in special relation to the Debir. If now this altar were overlaid with cedar, we are shut up to the supposition that the body of it was of stone (Keil). But this was the peculiar, distinguishing feature of the altar of burnt-offering, which was required to be composed of earth or of stones (Exo 20:24-25), and the frame of which, consequently, was filled with the same material (comp. Symbol, des Mos. Kult., i. s. 481, 488). The much smaller altar of incense was a simple frame with a covering, which was wanting in the altar of burnt-offering (Exo 30:1-3). In distinction with the latter, it is named in Eze 41:22, the altar of wood. The body of it could not have been of stone. These difficulties disappear only through the translation of the Sept.: . It read also instead of , which Thenius holds to be genuine. In that case the absence of the article in is explained, as well also as the concluding observation in 1Ki 6:22 : And the whole altar [of cedar] before the Debir, he overlaid with gold.
The words in 1Ki 6:21 are obscure and difficult: (and he made a partition) by the chains of gold before the oracle (Debir). Thenius is of opinion that the subject here, viz., is omitted, and then translates, he hung the curtain before the Debir with gold chains. This curtain was before the door of the latter, and was hung in such a manner that it could be moved this way and that, by means of golden chainlets each provided with an end-ring, upon a round stick upon which these rings were made to slide. But this mysterious chain-work, as Winer names it, is by no means forever explained and done with, by this suggestion. For, according to it, the chief thing in the text, the mention of the curtain, is wanting. But no MS. nor any ancient version names this supposed missing object. And if any one wish to insert it, then must the words and he overlaid it with gold refer to the curtain; and this is impossible. Besides, the text says only with chains, and does not know anything either of end-rings or of round sticks, both of which are essential, and far more necessary than the chainlet for the sliding, this way and that, of the curtain. With De Wette, Gesenius, Ewald, and Merz, is to be translated, he bolted, as in Chaldaic means a bolt, and for , i.e., bolt (Exo 26:26), the Chaldee has . But then the question is, what was bolted? According to Calmet and others, it was only the, door of the Debir, which had two leaves. But in that case it would have been necessary to take away the chains on the day of Atonementa thing nowhere hinted at, and in itself highly improbable. Obviously the bolting chains were not a movable but a fixed contrivance running across the entire wall. They held together the parts of the wall made of cedar, like the bolts on the planks of the tabernacle (Exo 26:26), and likewise represented the Debir as a barred, closed room. A further argument for this: comes from , which means to bind, to chain together, and in Arabic to shut up, and the expression the concealed, the closed, is used by Ezek. (1Ki 7:22) of the holy of holies. The supposition of v. Meyer and Grneisen, that there was in the cedar wall an opening above the door, which like the capitals of the two brazen columns was covered (1Ki 7:15 sq.;2Ch 3:16) with a net or lattice-work, is just as untenable as that the chains served the purpose of decoration only (Jahn).In 1Ki 6:22 all that had been said hitherto about the gilding, [done with thin plates and not with gold-leaf.E. H.] is again brought together and emphasized. It is by no means declared by the expression the whole house, that the interior of the porch was gilt (Thenius): it refers only to the holy place and to the holy of holies, since the porch is explicitly distinguished from the house (Keil).
1Ki 6:23-28.And within the oracle (Debir) he made two chambers, &c. The reason why olive-wood was used in the construction of these figures was owing to its firmness and durability. In Greece it was employed to make images of the gods (Winer, R.-W.-B., ii. s. 172). The etymology of the word is to this day so variously stated, that nothing reliable can be gathered from it respecting the form and shape of the cherubim. From Exo 25:18 sq. and Exo 37:7 sq., we gather only thus muchthat the cherubim over the ark had two wings, and that their faces were opposite each other and directed towards the ark. Nor do we learn anything more from our text and from 2Ch 3:10-13. It is only said that each was ten cubits high, and that each of the wings measured five cubits; that they stood upon their feet, and that their faces were turned towards the house, i.e., towards the large compartment, and also how that those upon the ark of the covenant could have had but one face.
Ezekiel, on the other hand, in his vision of the throne of God and of the temple, gives something more definite. According to the first and tenth chapters the cherubim were , i.e.,, living creatures (not , wild beasts) with four wings and four faces. On the right side the faces were those of a man and of a lion, on the left those of a bull and of an eagle. The human element seems to have preponderated in their form (Eze 6:5). But according to Eze 41:18, the cherubim represented upon the walls and doors of the temple, between palm-trees, had but two faces, the one of a man and the other of a lion. The former were on the right side and the latter on the left. The apocalyptic vision of the throne, Rev 4:7, in which the four types of creatures composing the cherub are separated and stand round the throne, having six wings each, rests upon that of Ezekiel. From everything we have, it appears that the cherub was not a simple but a complex or collective being; and when he has now one, then two, then again four faces, or two, or four, or six wings; when, too, the four types of which he is composed are separated side by side, so we gather still farther that he had no unalterable, fixed form, but that one element or another was prominent or subordinate according to circumstances. In fact, one element might even disappear without any change in the fundamental idea attaching to the cherub. This has been questioned warmly by Riehm recently (De Natura et notione symbolica Cheruborum. Basil, 1864). He maintains that before the exile the cherub had a fixed form, viz., that of a man standing upright, with wings. The later description in Ezekiels vision is a departure from this characteristic and original form, and, for the sake of the throne, chariot moving towards the four quarters of the world, gives to the cherubim with it four faces, yet not four component parts. The three faces added to the original one human face by Ezekiel are borrowed from the grandest and strongest of creatures whether living on the earth or in the air. He was induced to do this probably by the Babylonian grouping together of animals which he had learned during the captivity. We remark against this: If any person, on the one hand, knew well enough the forms of the cherubim both in the tabernacle and in the temple, and would, on the other hand, adhere firmly to ancestral institutions and to priestly traditions, that person was Ezekiel, the son of a priest. How is it possible that this prophet, who was emphatically warned by the sight of the images of the Chaldeans, doubtless mythological (Eze 23:14), portrayed on the walls, should himself have been induced, by means of these, to alter completely the sacred cherub-form, and to have made to it arbitrary and self-appointed additions? Umbreit (Hesekiel, s. xii.) rightly says: So far as the form of the cherubim is concerned, the prophet has certainly copied the original type of the temple, the ark of the covenant and the tabernacle floating in his imagination, with conscientious fidelity; but in particular instances he has enriched the idea by the addition of more complete features, without changing anything essentially. The assertion that he gives to the cherub not a fourfold composition, but only four faces, is a mistake, take, for he gives to him the feet of a bull, the wings of an eagle, and the hands of a man (Eze 1:6-9); and in the passage 1Ki 10:14, which, indeed, in a critical respect is not free from suspicion, the word stands for bull, so that many interpreters think that the bull is the prevailing element in the composition of the cherub. Besides, in every living creature the face is the chief thing, by which in fact it is recognized; and when Ezekiel gives to the cherub four faces, he signifies thereby that those four types of being unite therein. To delineate cherubim is consequently a hazardous business, because the form is not fixed; nor as yet is there anything perfectly satisfactory. The latest, by Thenius (tab. 3, fig. 7), is borrowed, almost painfully, from Egyptian sculptures. It is remarkable that the archologists are forever finding the original of the cherub in Egypt, while neither the sphinx nor any other Egyptian complex creature presents the four types united in the cherub. On the other hand, Asiatic, and particularly Assyrian, images, exhibit all four together (comp. Neumann, die Stiftshtte, s. 68 sq.). Nevertheless the cherub is not a copy of these, but is the pure and specific product of Hebrew contemplation. Upon this, more, farther on.The words of 1Ki 6:24 state that the four horizontally outstretched wings took in the entire breadth of the Debir (twenty cubits); that they also touched on the right and left, the north and south wall, and each other in the centre, while it presupposes that they (i.e., the wings) stood close to each other at the shoulder-blades. Under the outspread wings the ark of the covenant was placed, as 1Ki 8:6 plainly says; and it is hence an error when Ewald asserts that the cover of the ark was renewed, and in place of the old cherubim, those massive wooden and gilt were fastened upon ita thing impossible, for they stood 10 cubits apart (1Ki 6:27), while the ark was 3 cubits long (Exo 25:10).
1Ki 6:29-30.And he carved all the walls of the house, &c. Comp. 1Ki 6:18. Keil and others understand by basso-relievo, Vulgate clatur eminentes, which, however, cannot be established by the word itself. For although means to set in motion, to sling (1Sa 17:40; 1Sa 25:29; Jer 10:18), this signification is not available here. But it becomes clear through the following from to break open, to open, then to furrow, to plough (Isa 28:24); in Exo 28:11; Exo 39:6, is used for the work of the graver in stone, and in Exo 28:36; Exo 39:30 of engraving in metal. The figures, moreover, were not in basso relievo, but were sunken. 1Ki 7:31 cannot avail, for with reference to the figures upon the flat surface of the bases, it is said in 1Ki 6:36, and this agrees with , which means in Arabic, loco dimovit. Most of the figurative representations upon the old Egyptian monuments were wrought after this fashion (Thenius). The forms of the cherubim upon the walls were different from the colossal figures under which the ark in the Debir rested. According to Eze 41:19, a lion-face was towards a palm-tree upon one side, and a mans face towards the palm-tree on the other side, so that there was always a cherub between two palm-trees. These had not four faces, but assuredly the wings of the eagle and the feet of the bull were not wanting. We are not to think of palm-branches (Ewald), nor of palm-leaves (Luther), but of palm-trees, such as we see upon ancient coins, and such as Titus caused to be struck off, out of the booty from Jerusalem, with the inscription Juda capta (Lamy, de Tabernaculo, p. 783; Winer, R.-W.-B., i. s. 252). We may, with the Arabic version, understand by open flowers, lilies, for these certainly belonged to the emblems of the sanctuary (1Ki 7:19; 1Ki 7:22; 1Ki 7:26). 1Ki 6:18 names, besides the flowers, also, which is regarded generally as synonymous with , 2Ki 4:39, and is translated coloquinths (i.e., wild or spring gerkins which burst at the touch). We should then understand by it: egg-shaped decorations like that of our architectonics. (Thenius, Keil). But the intimate connection with graven figures in the highest degree significant, such as cherubim, palm-trees, and lilies, makes against a wholly meaningless, empty decoration, a thing not known to oriental sacred architecture. Add to this that in another passage the are described as deadly, a fruit so dangerous and unwholesome would have suggested just the opposite of that which was represented by the other symbolical figures. If it were employed simply on account of its egg-shape, why these coloquinths, since they were not alone round, why not eggs simply? The stem does not mean simply to burst, but also circumire, in hiphil conglomerare, circumagere, and involucrum, glomus, globus, so also glomus, fasciculus convolutus vel colligatus (Buxtorf, Lex. Chald. et Talm., p. 1790). In its intimate connection with , will be taken to mean flower-bundles, i.e., buds; and so the translation is, budding and blown flowers (flower-work). Possibly this flower-work had the form of wreaths, only we can scarcely, with Thenius, translate = festoons, garlands of flowers. Whether the three kinds of graven figures were distributed in single panels, and such panels were in two or three rows, one over the other, after the analogy of Egyptian temples, must be left undecided, owing to the silence of the text.Thenius wishes the without of 1Ki 6:29-30 to be understood of the porch; but nothing has been said of the porch from 1Ki 6:3, and it would have been necessary therefore to designate it by a word. According to 1Ki 6:20 can be referred only to the Debir, and not to the interior of the whole house, consequently by the large compartment must be meant.
1Ki 6:31-35. And for the entering of the oracle, &c. The rabbins, whom many interpreters, even to v. Meyer and Stier, follow, translate the difficult words : the lintel (entablature) of the (or with the) posts, a pentagon. The sense would then be: the lintel of the doors supported two posts abutting one against the other, at an angle which, with it, formed a triangle, and together with the door, a pentagon. [Thus: E. H.] But this is decisively contradicted by that which follows in 1Ki 6:33 of the door of the larger compartment, the corresponding , which cannot possibly be translated out or of a four-cornered, i.e., a square, but only out of a fourth. Besides this, a pentagonal door is without an example in the ancient East. Bttcher and Thenius translate, the entrance-wall with posts of a fifth thickness. But this is founded upon the wholly erroneous supposition that the wall before the holy of holies was two cubits thick (see above, on 1Ki 6:16); of which two cubits, then, the door-posts must have taken in a fifth. Suppose that here means the entrance-wall, still can never be translated fifth thickness. It is in the highest degree surprising that when the thickness of the entrance-wall door-posts is stated, nothing is said of the size of the doors themselves (Keil). Manifestly the text states just this, but still does not say that from each wall there were five cubits to the door: for the doors midway, there were ten cubits remaining (Lightfoot), but the entrance to the Debir took in, with the posts, a fifth of the wall, i.e., was four cubits broad.18 The entrance to the chief compartment, on the other hand (1Ki 6:33), measured one fourth of the wall, was consequently five cubits broad, and larger than that which opened into the Debir, which was appropriate enough for the main entrance. The height of the two entrances is not given. According to 1Ki 6:34 the two wings of the door of entrance into the holy place were folding leaves, i.e., either they were longitudinally like leaves bound together, which could be so folded that it would not be necessary always to open the whole door-wing (Thenius); or the two leaves were the upper and lower halves of each door-wing (Keil, Mertz, Ewald); probably the latter.From the words of 1Ki 6:32 : and spread gold upon the cherubim, as well as fitted upon the carved work (1Ki 6:35), Thenius concludes that the figures only, both upon the doors and also the walls of the temple, were overlaid, so that they must have contrasted splendidly with the brown-red cedar. But this contradicts 1Ki 6:20; 1Ki 6:30, and especially 1Ki 6:22, where is expressly added to the whole house, which does not say merely that such gold-overlaying was partial throughout the house, but that the interior was completely so overlaid. The very floor, upon which no figures were carved, was overlaid with gold; surely the walls and doors were not partially so only. The problematical addition in both verses renders conspicuous the fact that the overlaying with gold did not cover up the figures carved upon the wood, but that it was impressed upon all the elevations and the depressions alike, and that they could be distinctly seen (Keil).The Chronicles mentions, besides the doors (2Ch 3:7), the veil also (1Ki 3:14), the presence of which is not to be doubted (after Ewald), since the object of it was not to divide the two compartments, but rather to cover the ark with the throne (Exo 40:3; Exo 40:21), and was an essential feature of the sanctuary. If even the Herodian temple, which did not contain the ark of the covenant, had nevertheless the veil of the covering (Exo 39:34; Exo 35:12; Mat 27:51), how much less would Solomon have dispensed with it. The non-mention of it in the account now before us has no more significance than when, in the following verses, the inner court alone is described, and the fact of the outer court is entirely passed by.
1Ki 6:36-38. And he built the inner court, &c. This designation presupposes a larger court, which is mentioned expressly in the Chronicles (2Ch 4:9), and, in distinction from that of the priests, is described as the great court. The inner court is called, in Jer 36:10, the higher, because it lay somewhat above the level of the court intended for the people. The statements about the structure of both are singularly meagre. No one doubts that they were square-shaped (comp. Exo 27:9 sq.;Eze 40:47). The words, three rows of hewed stones, &c., can refer only to the enclosing walls. There were three rows of squared stones, one over the other, and a layer of cedar. are certainly not beams properly, but planks, thick boards, for of what use would beams have been here? The opinion that upright cedar beams, resting upon the uppermost row of stones, formed a low palisade, is erroneous (Merz). The people in the outer court, by such an arrangement, would have been deprived of a view of the sanctuary and of the holy offices in the inner court. It was manifestly but a low enclosure, over which those outside of it could look (2Ch 7:3). The outer court doubtless had stone walls surrounding it because, according to 2Ch 4:9, doors overlaid with brass led into it. Our account mentions nothing of cells or chambers in the forecourt spoken of in 2Ki 23:11; Jer 35:2; Jer 36:10. But perhaps Solomon built some of them; at least they were, according to 1Ch 28:12, originally intended.We can but offer conjectures about the dimensions of the courts. Following the analogy of the tabernacle, by doubling the spaces we may estimate the court of the priests at 200 cubits long from east to west, and 100 cubits wide from north to south The outer or great court must have been at least as large (Keil). In the temple of Ezekiel, whose measurements and definitions, especially in the matter of the courts, are to be regarded as least of all purely historical, both of them are perfect squares (Eze 42:15-20; Thenius).The very carefully stated length of time for the building of the temple, given in 1Ki 6:37-38, was reasonably short, and shows with what zeal the work was carried on, especially when we consider that, according to Pliny (Hist. Nat., xxxvi. 12), all Asia was 200 years building the temple of Diana at Ephesus. As the month Zif was the second, and the month Bul the eighth, the time occupied in the building was about seven and a half years. Whether in this the time also is to be reckoned for the substructions19 which Josephus mentions, and also for the cutting of the wood, and the hewing of the stones, is an idle question. If now we cast a glance over the whole of the description of the temple, full and explicit as it is in details, it is not sufficient to enable us to delineate a complete, well-assured drawing of it, because, as Winer very properly remarks, many points which must be clear in a drawing are passed over without a word, and others remain more or less uncertain. This is especially true in respect of outward forms and architectural style, which, in a drawing, are matters of supreme importance. Upon this point scarcely anything more can be said than that the building on the whole was rectilinear, and of box-form (Merz). It is certain that the builders, artists, and workmen who executed it, were all Phnicians (1Ki 5:6; 1Ki 7:14), whence it follows that the style of the building, in so far as the preserved ground-plan and design of the tabernacle was not required by Solomon, was Phnician. But since all adequate descriptions of Phnician buildings, and all memorials, such as are still extant in Egypt, are wanting, we know nothing of the distinguishing peculiarity of Phnician architecture, which certainly, since the material employed was chiefly wood, must have differed essentially from the much later Grco-Roman, and especially from the Egyptian, which made use exclusively of hard stone (Schnaase, Gesch. der bild. Knste, i. s. 238, 249). The older drawings, therefore, in Grco-Roman style, by Villalpand, Lundy, &c., as also the later, in Egyptian style, by Hirt and Kopp, are wholly unsatisfactory. Had Solomon wished to build in the Egyptian style, he would not have summoned Phnician workmen, but Egyptian, whom he could have easily procured from his royal father-in-law. The most recent drawings by Thenius and Keil (bibl. Archologie) rest upon a careful study of the text, and are therefore much to be preferred to all the earlier ones; but even they, from the considerations already adduced, cannot lay claim in all respects to truth. Strong but not unfounded is the view of Romberg and Steger (Gesch. der Baukunst, i. s. 26): It is just as easy to portray a living man from a tolerably well preserved skeleton, as to succeed in copying a building which shall correspond to its reality, when but few and uncertain remains of its style of architecture are in our possession. Many as are the gaps of the biblical account in respect of architecture, it nevertheless contains all which can contribute to the knowledge of the religious ideas upon which the temple was founded; it serves also to our understanding of its significance, and this is the chief concern here.
The Soterio-historical Significance of the Temple
1. The unusually careful chronological date about the building of the temple (1Ki 6:1; 1Ki 6:37-38) manifestly places it high above the series of ordinary events, and proclaims it as an especially weighty, epoch-making occurrence in the theocratic history (Heilsgeschichte). Comp. Introd. 3. This would not have been the case if an architectonic work, or a building giving evidence of power and wealth simply, were concerned. It is its thoroughly religious character which causes it to appear as such a momentous transaction, and for the sake of which it is so circumstantially described. The product of theocratic ideas, it is likewise the expression of them. If the entire cultus were no idle ceremony, still less could the structure, where this cultus became concentrated, be an empty, meaningless piece of architectural splendor. All the ancients so founded, arranged, and adorned their temples that they were the expression and the representation of their specific religious contemplation (comp. Symb. des Mos. Kult., i. s. 91 sq.). The temple of Solomon would have been an exception to all the sacred buildings of high antiquity, had it not been the expression of the specifically Israelitish, Old Testament ideas of religion. Weighty as an inquiry into its outward material may be, the need of investigation and information respecting its religious meaning is much greater.
2. The significance of the temple as a whole and in general is sufficiently stated by the builder himself in the discourse delivered at its solemn consecration, and in the longer prayer connected with it (1Ki 8:10-53).
(a) Solomon begins the discourse with the words, I have built thee an house to dwell in (), a settled place for thee to abide in forever (1Ki 8:13; 2Ch 6:2). The first and most general destination of the temple was, to be a dwelling-place of Jehovah. But that this dwelling was not in the remotest degree connected with the heathenish superstition, that God stood in need of a shelter, like a man, and could be confined within a given space, the words which soon follow demonstrate (1Ki 6:27): behold the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee: how much less this house that I have builded. The dwelling of Jehovah with or in the midst of Israel is rather the immediate result of the choice of them to be His peculiar and covenant people, and in a measure coincides with it. As, according to the Hebrew use of speech in general, dwelling with any one is as much as to be bound to, to be in fellowship with (comp. e.g. Psa 1:1; Psa 5:5; Psa 120:5), and even the marriage relation is expressed by dwelling with (Gen 30:20; Ezr 10:2; Ezr 10:10; Neh 13:23; Neh 13:27), so also Jehovahs dwelling with Israel denotes His connection and fellowship with this people, and stands in the closest relation to the covenant. Comp. Exo 29:45-46 : And they shall know that I am the Lord their God that brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, that I may dwell among them. Lev 26:12 sq.: And I will walk among you, and will be your God, and ye shall be my people. So also Eze 37:27. Immediately upon the election, and the conclusion of the covenant, follows the command, Exo 25:8 : And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them. But inasmuch as the Old Testament covenant relation moves in the sphere of bodily, visible forms, so also is Jehovahs dwelling local, visible, and requires consequently a dwelling-place, which can be a tent as well as a temple. As little as Jehovah, by the choice of Israel from among all peoples, has ceased to be the God of the whole earth (Exo 19:5), just so little has He, by His dwelling-place in the midst of His people, ceased to be everywhere in heaven and upon earth. This dwelling-place does not contain Him; He is not banished to a particular place, but in the place where Israel dwells there He is, and dwells also in their midst, for He has not chosen the people for the sake of the dwelling-place, but the dwelling-place for the sake of the people (2Ma 5:19). So His dwelling-place is the visible sign and pledge of the covenant relation. The dwelling-house is, as such, the house of the covenant. To this first signification of the house another immediately attaches itself. The dwelling of Jehovah in a specific place, includes within itself the conception of witnessing, and of revealing himself, in so far as God, where He makes and declares himself to be known, is and remains, and so dwells. Hence the conceptions of dwelling and of revealing himself coincide. Jacob named the place where a revelation was made to him the house of God, though there was no house or dwelling-place there. Subsequently he built an altar and called the place Beth-el, for there had God revealed himself to him (Gen 28:12-19; Gen 35:7). By from to dwell, the Rabbins, as is known, express the highest form of revelation. Christ says of him to whom He and the Father reveal themselves, we will make our abode with him (Joh 14:21-23). The place of the dwelling of Jehovah is eo ipso the place of divine attestation and revelation, the place where He will speak with Israel, and declare himself to him (Exo 29:42 sq.): in the innermost portion of the dwelling, hence, is the testimonial of the covenant , which means simply the witness, and the dwelling itself consequently is named the dwelling (tent) of the testimony (Num 9:15; 17:23; Num 18:2).
(b) Solomon repeatedly refers to the design of the house, according to the word of Jehovah Himselfthat my name might be therein, &c., my name shall be there (1Ki 8:16; 1Ki 8:29; comp. 2Ch 6:5; 2Ki 23:27). In other places it is expressed thus: to put my name there forever (1Ki 9:3; 2Ki 21:7; comp. 1Ki 11:36; 1Ki 14:21; 2Ki 21:4), or that my name may dwell there (Deu 12:11; Deu 14:23; Deu 16:11; Deu 26:2; Neh 1:9), or in an abbreviated form, to (for the) name of Jehovah (1Ki 8:17-20; 1Ki 8:48; 1Ki 3:2; 1Ki 5:17; 2Sa 7:13; 1Ch 22:7; 1Ch 22:19; 1Ch 28:3, &c.). That the name of Jehovah has the same sense here as in Exo 23:21, for my name is in himthe angel who leads Israel, that the formula does not say simply that the house is built to the glory of God, or that here God will be called upon and honored, scarcely needs mention. The name of God is God himself in so far as He makes himself known, declares and reveals himself. But in His relation to Israel, Jehovah declares himself essentially as the One who is holy and who will make holy; that He may be known as such, is the aim and object of the covenant, the sign and pledge of which is His dwelling in the midst of Israel (Exo 29:43-46; Lev 11:45). The name of Jehovah is hence essentially the name of His holiness (Lev 20:3; Psa 33:21; Psa 103:1; Psa 105:3; Psa 106:47; Psa 145:21; Isa 57:15; Eze 39:7; Eze 39:25), and that the house was to be built to this name, David announced solemnly before all Israel (1Ch 29:16), to build to thee an house for thy holy name. With this end in view, the house is called in the Psalms the temple of thy holiness (Psa 5:8; Psa 79:1; Psa 138:2); its two divisions are named simply holy and holy of holies (Exo 26:33; 1Ki 8:6; 1Ki 8:8), and the whole, usually, (Exo 25:8; Lev 12:4; Psa 74:7; 1Ch 28:10; Isa 63:18; Eze 8:6; Eze 9:6, &c.)all of which presupposes that He who is and dwells here, is before all things and essentially, holy. So then the house of the dwelling is not so much in general the dwelling-place of the divine witnessing and revelation, as of the divine holiness revealing itself in particular. It is an abode of holiness and of sanctification. Here will Jehovah be known and understood by Israel as the Holy One and as Sanctifier, and thereby will be hallowed (Exo 29:43-46; Lev 20:3; Lev 20:7; Eze 37:26-28).
(c) In his prayer Solomon says, hearken thou to the supplication of thy servant and of thy people Israel when they shall pray toward this place: and hear thou in heaven thy dwelling-place (1Ki 8:30). So also in the following verses heaven thy dwelling-place is placed repeatedly over-against this house (comp. 1Ki 8:34; 1Ki 8:39; 1Ki 8:43; 1Ki 8:49). This parallelizing of the temple and of heaven extends through the whole Scripture. Both are named alike, so that often we can scarcely decide whether the temple or heaven be meant. stands for the temple in 1Ki 8:13; 2Ch 6:2 : for heaven in Isa 63:15. is applied to the temple in 1Ki 8:13; Exo 15:17, to heaven in 1Ki 8:30; 1Ki 8:39; 1Ki 8:43; 1Ki 8:49; 2Ch 6:30; 2Ch 6:33; Psa 33:14. = temple in Psa 76:9; = heaven in 2Ch 30:27; Deu 26:15; Jer 25:30; Psa 68:6. = temple in Psa 5:8; Psa 79:1; Psa 138:2 : = heaven in Mic 1:2 sq.; Hab 2:20; Psa 11:4; (Psa 102:20; Psa 18:7; Isa 57:15). The Epistle to the Hebrews (1Ki 9:24) names the sanctuary made with hands, the figure (antitype) of the true, viz., of heaven, and the whole comparison between the high-priesthood of Christ and the Levitical is based upon this antitypical relation between heaven and the earthly, Old Testament sanctuary (1Ki 4:14; 1Ki 6:19-20; 1Ki 8:1-2; 1Ki 10:21), so that v. Gerlach on the place says, with propriety, the earthly sanctuary is also an image of heaven itself. When Solomon also at first designates the house he had built as a settled place (for thee to abide in), and then declares heaven to be the peculiar place of thy dwelling, he regards the temple itself as a heavenly dwelling-place. As Jacob named the place where God had declared and revealed himself to him, the house of God and the gates of heaven (Gen 28:17), so the place where Jehovah dwells and is enthroned must needs appear as a counterpart of heaven. Not, however, as if the temple were a copy of the visible heaven, it is rather a symbolical representation which, by its symbols, points to the peculiar and true dwelling-place of God, heaven itself. The Jewish theology takes cognizance of an upper and a lower dwelling () of God, and lays down this proposition: The house of the sanctuary which is below () is built after the house of the sanctuary which is above () (comp. the places in Schttgen, Hor. Hebr., p. 1213). The apocalyptic , which are His people and whose God He is, comes down from heaven, and has the cube form (four-square) of the holy of holies of the temple (Rev 21:3; Rev 21:16).
(d) The widely-spread notion that the temple (tabernacle) is on the whole and generally a representation of the theocracy of the kingdom of God in Israel (Hengstenberg, Kurtz, Keil, and others) is decidedly erroneous. The house of dwelling for Jehovah is like heaven, before all, a place (1Ki 8:13; 1Ki 8:29; 1Ki 8:35); but the theocracy, the kingdom of God, is not a place, but a divine-human relation. The dwelling of Jehovah in a house, in the midst of Israel, is, indeed, the outward sign and pledge of this relation, but not a figurative representation of it, and the conception of the dwelling of Jehovah, which expresses the fundamental idea of the temple, is in itself in no way identical with the theocracy or the kingdom of God. While temple and heaven have the same names, which would not be possible were there no parallel relation between them, temple and kingdom of God, or theocracy, have no one name in common. The very definite expression in Heb 9:24 comes especially into notice here: according to it the earthly sanctuary made by hands is by no means a copy of the kingdom of God, but is the antitype of the true sanctuary, i. e., of heaven. Just as little as Christ, the high-priest, by His ascension went into the New Testament kingdom of God, but into heaven itself, there to appear before God for us, even so little did the Levitical high-priest, on the day of atonement, go into the kingdom of God, the theocracy, but into the earthly sanctuary, which represented the dwelling-place of God in heaven. There is no propriety in the appeal to the pattern of the tabernacle which was shown to Moses on the mount (Exo 25:9; Exo 25:40), as if it were heavenly indeed, but not a figure of heaven itself. For this pattern was itself only ( and , Heb 8:5), and showed to Moses how he must make and arrange the earthly sanctuary ( , Heb 9:1) in order that it might be a figure of the , i.e., of heaven, Heb 9:11; Heb 9:24). Christ did not enter into the pattern of the tabernacle, but into that which this pattern itself represented (comp. Delitzsch, Comm. zum Hebr. Br., s. 327, 336338).
3. The significance of the temple in detail depends necessarily upon its significance in general, which is more fully defined and carried out by means of it. Here especially, above everything else, the ground-plan, i.e., the formal arrangement, is brought into consideration. This is like that of the tabernacle, the place of which was occupied by the temple, yet in so far forth modified and enlarged as the difference between the house and the tent carried with it. The component parts singly are as follows.
(a) The house, by its strongly enclosed walls, is represented as a whole, complete and independent in itself: and this must be well considered. This whole in the interior is divided into a front and rear compartment, which are not separated by a stone wall equally strong, but only by a board partition, and they are thereby designated as divisions of the one dwelling. The object and meaning of these two divisions, as well as their relation to each other, are shown by their names. The whole house is called , the front division holy, the rear division holy of holies. Consequently the one dwelling of Jehovah, which essentially is the place of revelation and attestation of the holy and sanctifying God of Israel, has, as such, two divisions, which, since each bears the impress of the whole, cannot be two diverse dwellings, one by the other; but only divisions distinct from each other by way of grade. Divine revelation, in its nature and being, is a matter of degreeit is gradual, progressive. God is everywhere and always, but He does not make himself known everywhere and always, in the same manner. The heaven is his throne and the earth his footstool (Mat 5:34); He has revealed himself of old through His servants the prophets, but at last through His Sonthe brightness of His glory (Heb 1:1 sq.). But especially is the revelation and attestation of the divine holiness over-against human depravity, gradual, in so far as the greater spread and extension of sin demands a higher attestation and confirmation of divine holiness, i.e., of the sanctifying power of God atoning for sin. Since now the dwelling of Jehovah amongst His people was especially the dwelling-place of a self-revealing holiness, and the entire cultus which was there concentrated had for its object and aim the sanctification of the nation (see above, 2. b), so by means of its two distinct compartments did it present itself as a complete holy dwelling-place which was fitted to bring to and to keep in the consciousness of the people both the sinfulness of man and the holiness of God. The act of expiation and of purifying to be consummated in the front compartment, concerned the particular transgressions of individual persons; the act to be consummated in the rear and nobler compartment, on the other hand, concerned the entire nation, and the transgressions during the entire year. Ordinary priests could attend to the former, the high-priest alone could perform the latter (Leviticus 1-5, 16).From all this it is clear to satisfaction how untenable the position of recent writers is when, with Hengstenberg, they understand the two compartments as two distinct dwelling-places, namely, the holy place as the abode of the people, and the holy of holies as the dwelling-place of God, and then explain this combined dwelling-place as a figurative representation of the communion and fellowship of God with His people, and so that the entire sanctuary is a symbol of the kingdom of God under the old covenant. Nothing can be more clearly and distinctly stated than that the whole house is one dwelling-placethe dwelling-place of Jehovah. Jehovah dwells indeed amongst His people, but of a dwelling, side by side, of God and the people under one roof, there is nowhere a syllable. As the whole house, so also each compartment, the holy place and the holy of holies, are called the dwelling-place, but not the former as the dwelling-place of the people and the latter the dwelling-place of God. Further, in 1Ki 6:5, the holy place, in contradistinction with the holy of holies, is called . If now the holy place were the abode of the people over-against the abode of God, the entire sanctuary, comprehending both compartments, could not be called , or simply , as in 1Sa 1:9; 1Sa 3:3; 2Ki 24:13; 2Ch 3:17; Psa 5:8; still less could this expression be used of heaven, which is specially the abode of God and not of the people (Psa 11:4; Psa 18:7; Psa 29:9; Mic 1:2; Hab 2:20).
(b) The porch and the side-structure (Umbau) with the stories are, as has been already shown, structures in front and by the sides of the house, which are recognized as such in that, unlike the house, they did not serve for the performance of any religious office. They do not therefore belong essentially to the ground-plan of the sanctuary, consequently are wanting in the tabernacle, and have no further religious significance than that they give to what was hitherto a tent, the character of a house, and indeed of a great, firm, and strong house, of a palace, in fact. Porches were never used for tents, but only in the case of large, conspicuous buildings like palaces, as, e.g., Solomons (1Ki 7:6 sq.). If now the house of a human sovereign had its porch, much less should one be missing in the house of Jehovah, the God-King, to distinguish it rightly as an , i. e., a kings palace (Pro 30:28; Isa 39:7). We observe the same in respect of the side-structure, which, as is expressly remarked, was not to be included within the house, the main building, did not belong, as an integrating part, to the dwelling of Jehovah, but which served only for purely external purposes, the preservation of the vessels, &c. But like the porch in front, it served, around the sides of the house, which rose above it, to impart the appearance of a grand, richly surrounded, and lasting buildingan .
(c) The fore courts constituted the second essential element of the entire sanctuary. The dwelling of Jehovah is, as observed above, the place where He meets the people, attests himself unto them, speaks with them, has intercourse with them. It is called, consequently, also (Exo 29:42; Exo 29:44; Exo 27:21; Exo 40:22), or simply (Lam 2:6; Psa 74:3), i.e., the tent of assembly, the tabernacle of the congregation (not the time of assembling). The dwelling of Jehovah in a given place makes also a space necessary for the people to meet their Lord and God. Hence the command: thou shalt make the court of the tabernacle (Exo 27:9; Sept.: ). The fore court moreover was not a dwelling-place of the people in contrast with that of Jehovah, but only a court, i.e., a fixed space around the dwelling, an enclosed gathering-place for the people drawing nigh to their God (Merz). As Jehovah had one dwelling-place only, the people could meet Him only here, and only here attend to the covenant relation with Him. All offices in connection with the covenant could be performed, hence, only here, not in other favorite spots, not upon the so-called heights (high places) (Num 17:1-9). And in order that this might be the case with the entire people, it was ordered that all Israelites, certainly three times in the year, should appear before the dwelling of Jehovah (Exo 23:17; Deu 16:16). This and nothing more is the object and significance of the fore court. Hengstenberg is altogether wrong in maintaining that the house or dwelling of the people was properly the holy place, that they occupied this, their peculiar dwelling, only through the medium of their representatives and middle-men, the priests, and that some actual place of their own, over and above this ideal place, was necessary. This the fore court was. Keil, too, is in error when he explains the fore court as an image of the dwelling of Israel in the kingdom of their God. The holy place was, as already noticed, a compartment in the dwelling-place of Jehovah, the forepart thereof, but not the dwelling of the people, and the fore court was not a dwelling-place at all, neither of the people nor of Jehovah, was never named such, but was only the assembling-place outside of Jehovahs dwelling, a mere court by way of distinction, and in contrast with the house. In that the temple had two forecourts instead of one originally designed, is no proof of an alteration of the ground-plan, but is only an enlargement of it, which had its reason in this: that great buildings, especially royal palaces in the Orient, were distinguished from ordinary houses by more forecourts (comp. 1Ki 7:1-12, and Symb. des Mos. Kult., i. s. 241 sq.). Thence it happened especially that, near the tabernacle of the testimony, which stood in the centre of the Israelitish camp, was appointed the place for the priestly tribe (Numbers 2, 3). This continued a fixed custom when the camp ceased to exist; it was the tribe especially, which stood nigh unto Jehovah, which effected the intercourse between Him and the people (Exo 19:22; Eze 42:13; Num 16:5). A fixed limit to the appointed space was judicions, and even necessary, since by the ordinances of David individual worship had greatly increased, and this greatly expanded worship was confined to this one place; by these means it became possible to observe correctly the ordinance, and duly to watch over the appointed performance of the holy services.
4. The significance of the form and measurements of the temple, which stand in the closest relation to the ground-plan, requires us to conclude therefrom that they can be explained neither upon the grounds of outward need and propriety, nor of architectonic beauty. If the portion which constitutes the core and centre of the entire structure, the peculiar dwelling of Jehovah, the holy of holies, have the form of a perfect cube, as 1Ki 6:20 expressly states, a form characteristic not only of the tabernacle, but also of Ezekiels temple, and of the apocalyptic (Eze 41:4; Rev 21:16), a form which appears neither necessary nor convenient, nor architecturally beautiful, while at the same time it was unmistakably intentional and not accidental, it must certainly have some meaning. And if the form of one and that the most important division of the building were significant, it is inconsequent and wilful to explain the equally striking forms and measurements of the remaining compartments as devoid of meaning. To this we must add that, although the forms and measurements of a house, especially of a palace, are not those of a tent, Solomon nevertheless adhered as far as possible to the forms and measurements of the tabernacle, not only in respect of the holy of holies, but also of the other portions of the temple; and he felt himself obliged thereto, while he simply doubled thema sufficient proof that they were to him corresponding, necessary as well as significant for the sanctuary. Besides, in the description of nearly all buildings and spaces which, in a narrower or wider sense, were Gods dwelling-places, when apparently weightier matters are passed over, the measure and disposition, according to size and number, are presented, and oftentimes when one least expects it, as, e.g., in the visions of Ezekiel and of the apocalyptic seer, as we have already noticed. Vitringa rightly explains the measuring of a space or of a building as the , that it is . This especially follows from Rev 11:1-2, where the seer holds a measuring-rod, and is commanded: measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein; but the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles, &c. That which is not measured is ungodly and profane.If we turn now to particular forms and measurements of the temple, we find them like those of the tabernacle and of the temple of Ezekiel.
(a) The form of the square, which is adhered to with palpable rigor, and dominates everything. It is the form of the forecourts, of the house in whole and in its parts, also of both altars. Nowhere is there the form of the triangle (pyramidal) or of the pentagon, nowhere the form of the circle or of the half-circle. Even the porch and the side-structure with its flat roof preserve this square form. In Ezekiel it is given even to the great circuit around the temple, and to the holy city and its domain (Eze 48:8-35); so also in John, in respect of the heavenly Jerusalem (Revelation 21.). From this it follows indisputably that the square was considered as the appropriate form of every dwelling-place of Jehovah, and generally of every sacred space and place, whether tent or house, altar or city. It is well to bear in mind, also, that this square appears always to have been adjusted (oriented) to the points of the compass, and thereby (inasmuch as this constant arrangement was neither necessary nor especially convenient), referred to the proper and original dwelling- and revelation-place of Jehovah, while the square shape of the earthly dwelling corresponded with the four corners of heaventhe upper dwelling (Jer 49:36; Mat 24:31; comp. Zec 2:10; Zec 6:5; Psa 19:6; Job 9:9). In conformity with this view, the space which had the throne in the midst thereof and was the highest place of Jehovahdwelling and self-revealing, the holy of holieshad the most complete form of the square; it was a cube. The holy place, on the other hand, was not a cube but an extended square, but its length was not wilfully or indefinitely arranged; it was double that of the holy of holies, since it served as vestibule to this latter and with it formed the entire dwelling. The square, as the ground-form of the temple, has often been explained as the symbol of regularity, and especially of firmness and immobility, appeal being made to Suidas, who says: ; (Grotius, Vitringa, Hvernick). This is contradicted from the consideration that not only the temple, but the tabernacle also, the movable, wandering sanctuary, had a similar form. It is impossible that the latter, the direct opposite of the former, should set forth the distinguishing characteristics of the tabernacle over against those of the temple; the movable can never be the sign of immobility and permanence. Still less can we adopt the view of Kurtz and Keil, who regard the square as the symbolical form or signature of the kingdom of God, and its adjustment to the four points of the compass as an intimation that this kingdom was designed to comprehend and include within itself the entire world. The dwelling of Jehovah, which is square in its ground-form, is not the kingdom of God itself, but a plan to which the form is given which corresponds with heaven, the peculiar dwelling-place of God, with its four corners. Supposing, moreover, that the temple were an image of the kingdom of God under the old covenant, this covenant was designed only to embrace the people Israel and not the entire world. This is the scope of the new covenant. Witsius, to whom one appeals besides, rightly remarks that the atrium signifies separationem Israelitarum a reliquis gentibus. It is impossible that the same symbol should signify oppositesthe separation of one nation from all others, and also the comprehending of all nations.
(b) In measurements the number ten dominates. It marks the entire building, as well as its parts, be it simply ten or its half, be it doubled or trebled. This was the case with the tabernacle; but since the temple, as house or palace, necessarily required larger dimensions than the tent, so in place of a simple ten the double-ten or twenty was employed, and this is the clearest proof of purpose in respect of the number ten. The dwelling instead of ten cubits is twenty wide, and instead of thrice ten cubits long is thrice twenty. The holy of holies measures twice ten cubits upon all sides, the holy place twice ten cubits doubled in length, and as the great apartment, three times ten cubits in height. The porch is twice ten cubits broad and ten deep. The side-structure, i.e., each of its three stories, is in height half ten, that is, five, and is thereby designated as something merely subordinate. The cherubim in the holy of holies are ten cubits high, each of the wings measures five cubits, so that there were ten cubits from the end of one wing to that of the other (1Ki 6:24). The high altar in the forecourt is ten cubits high, and twice ten cubits long and broad (2Ch 4:1): the bases [gesthle, seats] which belong to it are ten (1Ki 7:27). The brazen sea is ten cubits wide and five high (1Ki 7:23). In the holy place are ten candlesticks and also ten tables, five on the right hand and five on the left (2Ch 4:7-8). In the holy of holies the ten words (Exo 34:28; Deu 4:13), which are named absolutely the witness and the covenant, and which form the root and heart of the sanctuary, are preserved in the ark (Exo 25:16; Exo 25:21; Exo 34:28). Since the dwelling of Jehovah amongst His people is the result, as also the sign and pledge of the covenant (see above, 1, a) without doubt the number in the covenant [ten commandments] dominates the number of the dwelling-place. That the covenant consists of ten words has its reason, not, as Grotius supposes, in the ten fingers of the hands (to be able to count them more easily), but in the significance of the number ten, which comprises all the cardinal numbers and completes them, so that thereby the covenant is designated as a perfect whole, comprising all the chief words or commandments of God.Besides ten, the number three is everywhere conspicuous in the building. It is divided into three sacred spaces (Heiligungs-sttte), which differ from each other by way of degreeforecourt, holy place, holy of holies, with three expiatory objects which are related to each other, the altar of burnt-offering, the altar of incense, and the kapporeth (mercy-seat). The dwelling itself is measured and divided according to the number three; three times the doubled ten, i.e., three times its width, is the measure of its lengththe holy of holies being one-third, and the holy place two-thirds. The latter, as the large compartment, is three times ten cubits high, and has three articles of furniturecandlesticks, the altar of incense, and the table for shewbread. The forecourt also has three kinds of articles for use, viz., the altar of burnt-offering, the stools, and the brazen sea. The side-structure, finally, has three stories. The reason for this prominence of the number three is not to be sought for directly in the divine Trinity, for the revelation of the Trinity belongs to the New Testament. But in the Old Testament, the number three is the signature of every true unit complete in itself, and so, closely resembles ten, with which it is here frequently connected. What happens thrice is the genuine once: what is divided into three is a true unity. The one dwelling, by its division into three parts, is designated as one complete whole, and the three kinds of articles of use which are in the three parts, or in one of them, again form a complete whole, and belong under it to the one or the other relation. While the number ten gives the impress of finishing and completing to multiplicity, the number three is the signature of perfect unity, and thus also of the divine being. (Comp. Symb. des Mos. Kult., i. s. 175 sq.).
5. The significance of the building material, since the choice and use of it is determined by necessity, convenience, greater or lesser artistic skill, and other outward conditions, is not immediate and direct, but must be recognized in so far as the material employed in any structure imparts to it a certain definite character. In the tabernacle, wood was employed; its ceilings were of leather and hair, it had woven hangings such as the nature of a tent required. But when the period of the tent was passed, and in the place of a movable, wandering dwelling, a firm, immovable dwelling, a house, was to be built, in the construction of it everything must be excluded which could be a reminder of a mere tent. In the place of wooden walls consisting of planks arranged side by side, there were thick stone walls; in place of the ceilings and hangings and the like, there were beams, wainscotings, and doors. The stones which were used for the walls were not dried or burned, such as were used in ordinary houses, but large, sound, costly stones, cube-shaped (1Kings 5:31), such as were used in palaces only (comp. Winer, R.- W.-B., i. s. 466)and Jehovahs dwelling should be a palace. The wood was in the highest degree durable, and not liable to decay and corruption, which with the Hebrews was a sign of impurity, and were, therefore, especially appropriate for the sanctuary, the pattern of the heavenly. The three kinds of wood, cedar, cypress, and olive, before others have the quality of durability and hardness (comp. Winer, i. s. 215, 238; ii. s. 172). Cypress, the least valuable (Eze 27:5, and Hvernick on the place), was used for the floor, the more valuable cedar was used for the beams and wainscotings, the olive, the noblest and firmest, was used for the entrances, and in such way that the entrance to the holy place had only door-posts, that into the holy of holies, in addition to such posts, doors also. In the gold, more than in stone and wood, there is a more direct reference to the significance of the building. It was used exclusively only in the interior of the dwelling. In the forecourt there was no gold: repeatedly and as emphatically as possible it is stated that the whole house was overlaid with gold (1Ki 6:21-22). The vessels of the dwelling were wholly either of gold or covered with it, while those of the forecourt were all of brass. The interior of the dwelling also was golden. This was not for the sake of mere ostentatious parade, for this gilding could not be seen from the outside. The people were not allowed to enter within the dwelling, this was the prerogative of the priests; but into the darkened yet wholly golden holy of holies, the high-priest alone could enter once a year. That in the ancient East a symbolical use was made of the noble metals, and especially of gold, is a well-known fact (comp. Symbol. des Mos. Kult., i. s. 272, 282, 295). In the primitive documents of the persic light religion, golden stands for heavenly, divine. To the Hebrews, also, gold is the image of the highest light, of the light of the sun and the heavens (Job 37:21-22). The apocalyptic which descends from heaven, is of pure gold (Rev 21:18; Rev 21:21). God dwelleth in light (1Ti 6:16; comp. Psa 104:2) is equivalent in meaning to God dwelleth in heaven; and if now His earthly dwelling were all golden, it is thereby designated as a heaven- and light-dwelling. The conception of purity in the moral sense of the word is associated likewise with gold (Job 23:10; Mal 3:3); the golden dwelling is hence also a pure, i.e., holy, sanctuary (Psa 24:3-4).
6. The significance of the carvings is explained at once by their form. Upon all the walls of the dwelling, and even upon the doors, there are three kinds of carved figures which are always associated togethercherubim, palms, and flowers. Diverse as they may seem, one and the same religious idea nevertheless lies at the bottom of them, namely, the idea of life, which is only expressed in them in differing ways.
(a) The cherubim are not actual, but, as is evident from their component parts, imaginary beings, and this requires no further proof that they are significant. A Jewish proverb says of their composition, four are the highest things in the world: the lion amongst the wild beasts, the bull amongst cattle, the eagle amongst birds, the man is over all, but God is supreme. (Comp. Spencer, De Leg. Hebr. Rit., ii. p. 242; Schttgen, Hor. Hebr., p. 1108.) God, on the other hand, is common to these four, and the life uniting them, which they have not of themselves, but from Him who is the source of all life, the Creator, and hence stands and is enthroned above them all. Creaturely being reaches its highest stage in those which have an anima, and amongst these animated creatures with souls, the four above named again are the highest and most complete, the most living as it were. By their combination in the cherub, he appears as anima animantium, as the complex and representative of the highest creaturely life. Upon this account, and this alone, could Ezekiel name the cherubim absolutely , i.e., the living beings (Eze 1:5; Eze 1:13; Eze 1:15; Eze 1:19; Eze 1:22). He employs, in fact, the collective-singular , i.e., the living, to denote the unit-life of the four (1Ki 10:14-15; 1Ki 10:17; 1Ki 10:20. This is the living creature that I saw under the God of Israel, by the river of Chebar; comp. 1Ki 1:20-21.) So, also, John names the four over-against God , to whom, as such, they ascribe praise, honor, and thanks, because He has made all things, and all things are and have been created by His will (Rev 4:9-11). In so far as all creaturely life is individualized in them, they are the most direct, immediate evidences of the creative power and glory, the definite, highest praise thereof, and they surround the throne of God. In the fact that they are represented upon all the walls of the house, does it first rightly acquire the character of the dwelling of Jehovah, and especially that of a life-residence testifying to His power and glory. Hence it is apparent how unsatisfactory the view of Riehm is, that the cherubim are merely witnesses of the divine presence, and that they have no other purpose beyond that of overshadowing or covering holy places and things. Certainly this latter was not their design upon the walls of the dwelling, and if they did nothing more than bear witness to the presence of God, how could Ezekiel have ever named them simply the living creatures? The underlying idea of the cherub is specifically wholly Israelitish, and is rooted in the cardinal dogma of God, the creator of all things, which separates it sharply from all other pre-christian religions. This idea is completely destroyed, if, with Riehm, we tear apart the four types which together constitute the cherub, and make the cherub simply a man with wings, and regard the bull and the lion as an arbitrary addition upon the part of Ezekiel, occasioned by his observation of the Babylonian-heathen combinations of beasts.
(b) The palms to the right and left of the cherubim have a relation to vegetable life, like that of the cherubim to animal life. The palm-tree unites in itself whatsoever there is of great and glorious in the vegetable kingdom. The tree, first of all, surpasses all other plants; but amongst trees there is none so lofty and towering, none of such beautiful majestic growth, so constantly in its verdure, casting, by its luxuriant foliage, such deep shadows,while its fruit is said to be the food of the blessed in Paradise,as the palm. Its attributes are so manifold, that men used to number them by the days in the year. Linnus named the palms the princes of the vegetable kingdom, and Humboldt the noblest of plants to which the nations have accorded the meed of beauty. The land, moreover, in which Jehovah had His dwelling, the land of promise, was the true and proper habitat of the palm. Hence, subsequently, the palm, as the symbol of Palestine, appears upon coins (comp. Celsius, Hierobotanicon, ii. p. 444579; my treatise, Der Salom. Temp., s. 120 sq.). The law required that at the feast of tabernacles branches of palm-trees should be at the booths (Lev 23:40). They are the known symbols of salvation, of joy, of peace after victory (Rev 7:9; 1Ma 13:51; 2Ma 10:7; Joh 12:13).
(c) The flower-work finally, in its connection with the significant representations of cherubim and of palm-trees, can by no means be regarded as destitute of meaning, as a mere affair of ornamentation. High antiquity knows nothing in general of empty decorations, like our so-called egg fillets and arabesques. In the ancient temples in particular, there were no kinds of forms which had not a religious meaning. From that time down to our own, flowers and blossoms have been the usual symbols of life-fulness, and in all languages the age of the greatest life-fulness has been called its bloom. So then by the flower-work, as by the cherubim and the palm-trees, by which on all sides the dwelling of Jehovah was decorated, was it designated as an abode of life. It should not be left out of mind here, that the Israelitish religion did not conceive of life, after the heathen natural religions, as physical, but essentially as moral. The Creator of the world, who as such is the source of all life, and is the absolutely living, is to it also the all-holy (Isa 43:15), who dwells in the midst of Israel to sanctify the people and by them to be hallowed (Exo 29:43-46; Eze 37:26-28). All true divine life is in its nature an holy life, and hence the symbols of life in the sanctuary are eo ipso symbols of an holy life. The cherubim are not merely upon the walls of the dwelling, but above all in the holy of holies, they form the throne of the holy One of Israel, and they are inseparable from the kapporeth (Exo 25:19), i.e., from the article of furniture where the highest and most embracing expiatory or sanctification rite is consummated. In the apocalyptic vision, the four living beings stand around the throne, and day and night they say, Holy, holy, holy Lord God Almighty (Rev 4:8), like the seraphim in Isa 6:2 sq. As the righteous who lead an holy life are compared generally with trees which perpetually flourish and bring forth fruit (Psa 1:3; Jer 17:8; Isa 61:3), so especially with palm-trees, with an unmistakable reference to the palms which are planted in the house of the Lord (Psa 92:12-15; comp. Eze 47:12; Rev 22:2; Psa 52:8). So also are blossoms and flowers, especially lilies, symbols of righteousness and holiness (Eccl. 39:13). So also the plate worn upon the forehead of the high-priest, with the inscription, Holiness unto the Lord, was called simply , i.e., flower (Exo 28:36). The budding of Aarons rod was the sign of an holy estate (Num 17:10). The crown of life (Rev 2:10) is likewise the crown of righteousness (2Ti 4:8). If now the three kinds of figures are represented upon the gold with which the dwelling was overlaid, the two conceptions of light and life, the correlatives of the conception of revelation (Psa 36:9; Joh 1:4; Joh 8:12), are symbolically united. But the conception of revelation recurs with that of the dwelling (see above, under 2. a). The seat of the dwelling and of revelation is necessarily, in its nature, a seat of light and life.
(d) The statues of the cherubim in the holy of holies were not in the tabernacle, and we are authorized to suppose that the reason of this is to be found in the relation of the temple to the tabernacle. Their design is stated in 1Ki 8:6-7 : And the priests brought in the ark of the covenant of the Lord unto his place, into the oracle of the house, to the most holy place, even under the wings of the cherubims. For the cherubims spread forth their two wings over the place of the ark, and the cherubims covered the ark and the staves thereof above. It is also remarked in 2Ch 3:13 : and they stood on their feet, which would have been in the highest degree superfluous, if it were not meant by this expression that they were firm and immovable, like , i.e., pillars. The ark of the covenant with the kapporeth and the cherubim then placed there, like its staves,the evidences of mobility and transport show,was a movable, wandering throne, just as the entire dwelling was a transportable tent. As the peculiar original pledge of the covenant, it was not, when the house was built, made anew, but it was taken from the tent and lodged within the house, that it might forever have its abiding-place and cease to be transportable. To this end it was placed under the fixed, immovable cherubim, whose wings completely covered it, covering the staves, the very witnesses of its movableness, and with it one entire whole was formed. As the cherubim in general, in their being and meaning, belonged to the throne (see above), so the firm fixing of the throne was represented by means of the permanent, large cherubim-statues. It is entirely wide of the mark to explain, as Thenius does, on the pretended analogy of cherubim with the guardian griffins and dragons of heathen religions, our cherubim in the holy of holies, as the watchmen and guardians of the throne of Jehovah. For, apart from every other consideration, nothing is more contradictory to the Israelitish idea of God than that Jehovah stands in need of guardians of His throne. The cherubim indeed are the supporters and vehicle of His throne, but never as the watchmen thereof (comp. Ezekiel 1, 10); they belong rather to the throne itself, and are, as such, witnesses and representatives of the glory of God, but they do not guard Him. When in our text here, we think especially of their wings spread over the holy of holies (from wall to wall), and that with them they overshadow the ark, the reason for this is in the fact that He who is here enthroned in His glory () is invisible, or rather is unapproachable and removed, for He dwells in an unapproachable splendor; no man can see Him and live (1Ti 6:16; Lev 16:2; Jdg 13:23). But it does not follow from this, as Riehm would have it, that the design of the cherubim consisted only in veiling and covering the present God, and that their significance was like that of the enwrapping clouds (Psa 97:2; Psa 18:11-12; Exo 19:9; Exo 19:16; Exo 24:16); for the cherubim upon the walls between the palm-trees had nothing to cover or veil. This was only their special duty in the holy of holies, by the throne. When it is expressly added that they did not turn their faces like those already upon the kapporeth, and towards it, but towards the house, i.e., towards the holy place, we can find a reason for it in their special functions: as the heralds, messengers of that which is not to be approached, they should direct their gaze towards the outer world
7. To show the significance of the temple in its relation to the history of redemption, the question presents itself finally: as to the manner in which it was related to the temples of heathen antiquity, whether it was more or less a copy, or an original. K. O. Mller (Archologie der K., i. s. 372, Eng. trans, p. 276) remarks strikingly of the heathen temple that it was at first nothing more than the place where an image, the object of worship, could be securely set up and protected. Every place enclosing the image of a god, if only set off with stakes, was called a temple (Servius defines templum by locus, palis aut hastis clausus, modo sit sacer). Without the image of the divinity, heathen antiquity could not conceive of a temple. Half in wonder and half in derision, Tacitus exclaims over the temple at Jerusalem (Hist., 5. 9), Nulla intus Deum effigies, vacua sedes et inania arcana! and Spencer (De Leg. Hebr. Rit., iii. 5, 6) rightly says: Seculi fide receptum erat, templa Numine et religione vacua et plane nulla esse. A temple was not first built, and then an image of the god made to erect within it, but a temple was built for the already existing image, which then became, in a proper sense, the house or dwelling of the represented deity. Forth from the image the heathen temple proceeds. This is its principle. And as the gods of heathenism are nothing more than cosmical powers, their temples in plan and contrivance refer only to cosmical relations (see examples in Der Salomonische Tempel, s. 276 sq. and Symb. des Mos. Kult., i. s. 97 sq.). But the principle of the Israelitish temple is the reverse, in so far as the chief and great commandment of the religion declares: Thou shalt not make unto thyself any graven image, &c. The erection of a dwelling of Jehovah did not proceed from any need of enclosing and preserving an image of God, but only from out the covenant of Jehovah with His chosen people (see above, under 2. a). The tables of the law, which are called simply the covenant (1Ki 8:20), and as the proclamation of the covenant were preserved in the ark, represented, first of all, this invisible covenant relation. Hence this ark was the central point of the covenant. There was concentrated the indwelling of Jehovah; there, too, was His throne. But since Jehovah dwelt within Israel to sanctify the people and by them to be hallowed (Exo 29:43 sq.; Eze 37:26 sq.), His dwelling-place was essentially a sanctuary, and forth from this its supreme and final design, its entire plan, division, and arrangement proceeded (see above, under 2, b, and 3, a). The entire temple rests, consequently, upon ethico-religious ideas, which are specifically Israelitish, and which do not recur in any other of the ancient religions. It is as unique as the Israelitish religion itself; its original is the tabernacle, from which it differs only because there is necessarily some difference between an house and a tent. Its originality outwardly is shown in the fact that no ancient people possessed a temple like it in plan, arrangement, and contrivance. Men still refer to the Egyptian temples, only these are aggregates which admit of indefinite increase (K. O. Mller, Arch., s. 257, Eng. trans, p. 191), and the common feature of their arrangement was that they were not completed, but were constantly undergoing enlargement, and they had no given measurements. The single portions are in themselves finished, and can last, but other portions can be added, and others yet again. The band which holds these single, different parts together is slight (Schnaase, Gesch. der bild. Knste, i. s. 393, 424). Quite the reverse holds in respect of the dwelling of Jehovah, the plan of which is in the highest degree simplean house consisting of two divisions surrounded by a court. An indefinite extension is just as impossible as a contraction, without the destruction of the whole, and precisely in this respect the Israelitish sanctuary is more like all other ancient temples than those of Egypt. Besides this, the style of architecture in the Egyptian temples, to which the truncated pyramidal form essentially belongs, is entirely diverse in that of Solomon, as also the stone ceilings and pillars, while on the other hand they do not have wooden wainscotings and overlaying of metals. As Solomon availed himself of Phnician workmen, occasion has been found to institute a comparison with Phnician temples (Schnaase, s. 238). But the accounts respecting these temples are so scanty and general, that the attempt has been made, upon the supposition that the temple of Solomon was a copy of the Phnician, to fill out and complete the defective descriptions of them from the scriptural delineation of our temple (comp. Vatke, Relig. des Alt. Test. s. 323 sq.; Mller, Archol., Eng. trans. p. 214). The little that we know of the Phnician temples of a later date, does not exhibit the remotest likeness to that of Solomon (comp. my treatise, s. 250 sq.). In this matter modern criticism pursues a very partisan course. It is compelled to acknowledge that each ancient people had their own peculiar religious ideas, which were expressed in their sacred structures, but that the people Israel alone built their only temple, not according to what was peculiar to themselves, but according to foreign, heathenish ideas. Originality is conceded to all other temples rather than to the temple of Solomon.
[The justness of our authors observations here is indisputable. We cannot reconstruct the temple as we can reconstruct any building, essential features of which are remaining. Doubtless as its architect was a Phnician, it bore the impress of the Phnician genius. The originality of the temple was in its arrangements and its design and its significance; but in its outward form, as it struck the eye of the beholder, we fancy it must have had Phnician features. The Jews were singularly deficient in their conceptions of beauty of form. The cherubim may be cited in proof; and the temple, architecturally, probably was left to the Phnician artist under the conditions which the exigencies of the building itself required. The reader may consult Dean Stanley, Jewish Church, second series, New York, Chas. Scribner & Co., 1870, p. 225236. There is no evidence, however, that it suggested in the least degree an Egyptian temple.E. H.]
8. The typical significance of the temple, which, like that of the tabernacle, is distinctly expressed in the New Testament, rests upon those symbolical features which they have in common. Both are a dwelling of Jehovah, and in this respect the place of the revelation and presence of the holy and sanctifying God, an abode of light and life, forth from which all well-being for Israel proceeds. But the entire Old Testament economy, especially its cultus, bears the impress of the bodily and of the outward, and consequently of the imperfect, and in this the dwelling of Jehovah necessarily participates. As the people Israel, the people of Jehovah, is limited by natural descent ( , 1Co 10:18), so the dwelling of Jehovah therein is conditioned by the corporeal and outward, especially in the way of the local and the visible. But therefore, as imperfect, it looks forward to the perfect which is to come, and hence upon this account is called a or (Heb 8:5; Heb 10:1). The perfect first appeared, when the time was fulfilled, in Him who was the in contrast with the , i.e., in Christ (Col 2:17). What the dwelling typifies, that He is, in reality and truth. In Him dwells the whole fulness of the Godhead, (Col 2:9). He is the , the true revelation of God, and in Him is life and light: He dwelt among us (), and we beheld His glory, (, i.e., ) full of grace and truth (Joh 1:1; Joh 1:4; Joh 1:14). He named himself the temple of God (Joh 2:19), and the chief complaint against Him was, that He said, I can destroy the temple of God, and build it again in three days (Mat 26:61). With this real temple came consequently the end of the merely typical, outward, and local temple. With Him, the dwelling of God hitherto amongst the ceased, and proceeding from Him, who with one sacrifice hath perfected forever them that are sanctified (Heb 10:14), the true abode of God now is here (Joh 14:23). Through Him indeed God dwells now in the collective believers in Him, in the congregation, which is His body, the fulness of Him that filleth all in all (Eph 1:23; Col 2:9-10). Now is the declaration, I will dwell in their midst, realized, for the first time, in its full truth. The congregation which is filled by Him, is the true temple of the living God, the habitation of God in the spirit (2Co 6:16; 1Co 3:16; Eph 2:21-22; 1Pe 2:5). But if Christ appear also as the antitype of details even of the sanctuary, such as the veil before the holy of holies (Heb 10:20), and the throne of grace (Rom 3:25), the ground of this is not, as the old typology supposed, in the circumstance that these objects were immediate types of Christ, but in that through these, truths and divine-human relations were signified, which, like the dwelling itself, first in Christ and through Him reached its full realization (comp. my treatise: Der Salom. Tempel, s. 81 sq.). In so far now, in the New Testament economy, as the congregation of the faithful is itself the dwelling of God, it no more needs a temple; and if Christendom still build houses of God, it is not with the notion that God dwells within them. The Christian church-building is not a temple, but the congregation-house, and Gods house only in this respect. It is not, however, only that, protected from wind and weather, men can worship God undisturbed, but that the faithful may assemble as one body, and exercise their fellowship as members of the body of Christ, and build themselves up as individual stones into a spiritual house, in Jesus Christ the chief cornerstone. Thence it follows that it is a great perversion to regard the temple of Solomon as the model for a Christian church, and to plan one like it. It was not the design of this temple to gather the congregation within itself. They stood in the forecourt. The church, on the other hand, embraces them in, and must have the arrangement and contrivance which corresponds with the being and the needs of the congregation as the communion of the faithful.
[If we keep in mind the various portions of the templeporch, holy place, holy of holies, and the side-structureit would seem that the vision of the completed so-called Gothic-Church, must have dawned upon the mind of some cloistered architect after he had familiarized his mind with the constituent parts and divisions of the temple. Each has a porch: the nave corresponds with the holy place, the aisles with the side-structure, the sanctuary and choir with the holy of holies. In the temple, partition walls separated these portions from each other; in the Christian church-building, all partition walls disappear, and the parts are connected by the use of the pointed arch, and other devices of architectural skill.E. H.]
Homiletical and Practical
1Ki 6:1; 1Ki 6:38. Why was the time for the building of the temple so exactly specified? (1) Because it was a most important event for Israel. It points to the final aim of the leading out of Egypt, the land of bondage. The time of the wandering, of unrest, and of battle, is over. Israel is in possession of the whole of the promised land; the time of the kingdom of peace is come. The temple is a memorial of the truth and mercy of God, who ever fulfils His promises, albeit after many long years (Exo 3:17), supplies all wants, and governs all things excellently. The word of the Lord is sure. After long wandering, after many a cross, many a tribulation and trouble, comes the promised time of peace; the Lord helps His people, even as he preserves every single being unto his heavenly kingdom (2Ti 4:18). (2) Because it is a world-historical event. The temple of Solomon is the first and only one, in the whole ancient world, which was erected to the one, true, and living God. Darkness covers the earth and gross darkness the people (Isa 60:2). Heathendom had here and there greater temples, but they were the abodes of darkness; this temple is the abode of light and life; from it, light breaks forth over all nations (Isa 2:3; Jer 3:17; Mic 4:2). What avails the greatest, most glorious temple, if darkness instead of light proceeds from it, and, amid all the prayers and praises, the knowledge of the living God is wanting?
1Ki 6:2. The exceeding glory and pomp of the temple. (1) The idea, to which it bore witness. No house, no palace in Israel compared, for splendor and glory, with the house of God. Everything in the shape of costly material and treasure which the age permitted, all toil and all art, were lavished upon it. To the Most High were given the noblest and dearest of mens possessions. How many princes, how many nations, how many cities, build gorgeous palaces, and adorn with gold and all treasures the buildings designed to minister to the pride of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and to a haughty manner of life, but yet have no money, no sacrifice, for the temples which either are entirely wanting, or are poor and miserable in appearance! (2) The purpose which it served. Its magnificence was no empty, dead show, to dazzle and intoxicate the senses; everything was full of meaning, and referred to higher, divine things; it was not meant to render sensual man still more sensual, but to draw him nearer to the supersensuous, and thus to elevate him. Empty parade is unseemly for any house of God; rather must everything which wealth and art can accomplish serve to raise the heart and mind to God, so that each one shall say: This is none other but the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven (Gen 28:17)!The temple of Solomon shows what the house of God should ever be: (a) a place of testimony: the testimony or word of God forms its heart and centre; (b) a sanctuary, where we hallow God, and he sanctifies us through Christ (Heb 10:14; Sacrament); (c) an, heavenly place where, far from all worldly cares, peace and rest reign, and all are united in prayer, in the praise and glory of God (see Historical and Ethical).(2) The dwelling of God in the midst of his people (a) in the old, (b) in the new covenant (2Co 6:16).The temple of God a prophecy of Christ and of His church (see Historical and Ethical), or, the typical and the true temple of God (1Pe 2:5). The former is built by mens hands, the latter out of living stones, whose foundation and corner-stone is Christ; there were brought gifts and sacrifices, which could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience (Heb 9:9-10); here are offered spiritual sacrifices, pleasing to God through Christ; the former is an house of external sanctity and purity, the latter an indwelling of God in the soul, a temple of the Holy Ghost, who purifies the conscience from dead works; there God speaks through the law, here through the gospel.
1Ki 6:11-13. Osiander: We ever need, especially in high affairs, divine consolation and help, so that thereby we may be animated to more activity in the performance of our duties. He who has begun and undertaken a work according to the will of God, and for His glory, may rest assured of divine support, may build upon Gods promises, and will not suffer himself to shrink from, or tire of, the obstacles which meet him by the way (Mat 24:13).
1Ki 6:13. I will not leave my people: a glorious word of consolation, but also a solemn word of warning.
1Ki 6:14. Starke: When the word of God is received with faith, it gives new strength to the heart, and urges us on to all goodness (Jam 1:21).
1Ki 6:15-22. All the adorning of the house was within; there was the light and the brightness of gold, there also the symbols of life. Ye are the temple of God (1Co 3:17). The adorning of the faithful shall not be outward, but inward; the hidden man of the heart is manifest only to the Lord, and not to the eyes of the world; the gold of faith, and the life hidden with Christ in God, is the glory of the man.
1Ki 6:23-28. Starke: To make and set up symbols is not, in itself, idolatry, nor against the first commandment, and images are also allowable in churches, if they are not made objects of worship. If, indeed, in the holy of holies, the greatest and noblest carvings are placed, we cannot, in the wish to see all works of art removed from the churches, and merely seats and benches remaining, appeal to Scripture, and least of all to the man to whom God gave a wise and understanding heart (1Ki 3:12).
Footnotes:
[1]1Ki 6:1.[The Sept. here read fortieth instead of eightiethfor which there is no authority whatever. In the comparison of this date with Act 13:20 it is to be remembered that the best critical editors, following the MSS. , A, B, C, etc., adopt the reading which places the words after, instead of before, the clause , so that the passage has no longer any chronological bearing upon the statement of the text.
[2]1Ki 6:1.[The Vat. Sept. here interposes the omitted verses 17, 18 of the last chapter, and immediately subjoins verses 37, 38 of the present chapter. In the former verses both recensions have transformed , builders, into , sons.
[3]1Ki 6:2.[The missing cubit is supplied in five MSS., the Sept., and Vulg. The Vat. Sept. changes the last dimension to 25 instead of 30 cubits. The Alex. follows the Heb., which must be right, since all the dimensions are exactly double those of the tabernacle, the proportions being carefully preserved.
[4]1Ki 6:4.[ . The VV. have been much at a loss in translating this expression. The Chald., Vulg. (fenestras obliquas), and Syr., apparently intended to convey the idea of windows like those in the thick wall of a Gothic structure, or the loop-holes of a fortification, narrow on the outside and spreading within. Such may be the sense of the A. V. But the meaning given in the Exeg. Com. must be the true one. means only beams, cross-pieces; and from, , to shut close, means closed, and so fixed.
[5]1Ki 6:5.For the ktib the kri has in each case , which is doubtless right, since the word has here another than the usual sense (Thenius).Bhr. [Keil considers that the masc. form denotes the whole wing of these stories; the fm. the single story of this wing.
[6]1Ki 6:7.[ was built of all unviolated stones of the quarry. Keil.
[7]1Ki 6:8.In place of must necessarily be read (cf. 1Ki 6:6) , as Eze 41:7 stands, and the Targum and the Sept. have read (Bttcher, Ewald, Merz., Thenius).Bhr. [There is no various reading of the Heb. MSS., and the construction indicated by the text as it stands is sufficiently clear: the lower tier of chambers being easily provided for by doors, nothing is said of the entrance to them; but there was a winding stairway from the ground, with a door at its foot, leading to the middle chambers, and thence to the third story. Eze 41:7 can hardly be considered as bearing on the point in question.
[8]1Ki 6:11.[The Vat. Sept. omits here verses 1114.
[9]1Ki 6:15.The true reading, according to 2Ch 3:7, is here as in 1Ki 6:16 [beams] not [walls] (Thenius, Keil).Bhr. [Accordingly our author translates by Balken, supported in this by the Sept. The emendation of the text (for which there is no manuscript authority) is required by the authors conception of the construction of the as 30 cubits high in the interior. Against this is the fact that the height of the cedar wainscoting in 1Ki 6:16 is expressly said to have been 20 cubits, and yet no stone was been (1Ki 6:18). If now a chamber above is supposed, no emendation is necessary here, and verses 16 and 18 become consistent. The wainscoting was carried up 20 cubits to where the ceiling met the walls, and above this the walls of the ceiling or of the room above were left bare. A space of two cubits is thus left for the windows, and access to the upper room may have been had from the porch. 2Ch 3:7 does not decide this point. In 1Ki 6:16 the words from the ceiling, are to be supplied from the previous verse. In any case the A. V. is certainly wrong in covering the floor (which was of fir, 1Ki 6:15) with cedar.
[10]1Ki 6:17.The at the end of 1Ki 6:17 is to be understood either adverbially, before (De Wette), or adjectivially, anterior (Ewald, Keil), unless with Thenius, upon the authority of the Sept., we suppose that has fallen out. That is the (so-called) Heehal before the Debir. Upon the figures upon the cedar, 1Ki 6:18 sq., see on 1Ki 6:29. In 1Ki 6:19 is hence to be understood that the Debir was between the Heehel and the side structure. The difficult words , 1Ki 6:20, Thenius will have removed from the text peremptorily, as a gloss placed here from 1Ki 6:17, although they are in all MSS. and ancient VV. Keil explains , with Kimchi, for the noun , occurring also in 1Ki 6:29=the inner, inward. With , the same gold is designated which in Exo 25:11 sq. is called , and in 2Ch 3:8 (Vulg.: purissimum).Bhr.
[11]1Ki 6:18.[The Vat. Sept. omits 1Ki 6:18.
[12]1Ki 6:20.[See Exeg. com.
[13]1Ki 6:22.[The Sept. omit the last clause of this verse, and throughout this whole description omit many clauses and modify others.
[14]1Ki 6:29.[That is in the Holy of Holies, and in the holy place, as the author notes in his translation.
[15]1Ki 6:32.[The author, in his translation, adds: and over the open flowers. The Vulg. has et ctera.F. G.]
[16]1Ki 6:34.Instead of must here necessarily be read, with the Sept., , which stands immediately before.Bhr.
[17][See on this verse Lachmanns text on the authority of A, B, C, which removes the chronological difficulty. cf Textual and Grammatical on 1Ki 6:1.E. H.]
[18][Mr. T O. Paine (Solomons Temple, &c, Boston, Geo. Phinney, 1861) makes the posts, the door-posts, to be meant, and says that they were one-fifth of twenty cubits, the width of the wall. Each door-post was, according to this author, six feet wide. Bp. Patrick says: a fifth may be understood to signify that they held the proportion of a fifth part of the doors (on the place). But our authors exposition is the better.E. H.]
[19][Upon these substructions, see Robinson and The Recovery of Jerusalem, as above.E. H.]
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
CONTENTS
This chapter furnisheth a number of interesting particulars concerning the building of Solomon’s temple. The time it took in building until it was finished. In the earlier part of this service the words of the Lord came unto Solomon with promises concerning it.
1Ki 6:1
(1) And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD.
The Holy Ghost hath been pleased to have it recorded as to the exact time when this wonderful work of Solomon’s temple was begun; even 480 years after the children of Israel came out of Egypt. And Solomon’s reign was suffered to run on to the fourth year before he found time to set about it. Reader! it is really astonishing how rapid the wheels of time, and with them the wheels of human life, run on. How sweetly doth Jesus enforce the necessity of diligence in our spiritual concerns. I must work (saith Jesus) the works of him that sent we while it is day, the night cometh, when no man can work. Joh 9:4 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Solomon’s Temple
1 Kings 6-7
THESE chapters should be compared with 2 Chron. iii.-iv. indeed the whole story should be read in the various forms which it is made to assume in all the historical books, for without this survey of all the parts we might easily come to false conclusions regarding many of the details. In this matter of the history of the temple the Kings and the Chronicles must be considered as filling up what is lacking in each other, and only the whole can be taken as supplying a true basis of exposition.
These chapters are almost wholly devoted to a technical description of the temple and other building works of Solomon. It is profitable to compare the two chapters with the descriptions given in Exo 25 , Exo 27 , Exo 35 , and Exo 38 of the building of the tabernacle, which may be taken as an outline of the construction of the temple itself in many important particulars. This account of the temple, too, may be compared with advantage with the prophetic vision which was granted to Ezekiel (Ezekiel 40-46).
The temple which Solomon built for the Lord was small as to mere arithmetical dimensions, but large when taken in its spiritual signification. “The length thereof was threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof twenty cubits, and the height thereof thirty cubits.” It is curious to notice that the temple itself was in all its proportions the duplicate of the tabernacle, each dimension however being doubled, and the whole therefore being in cubical measure eight times the size of the house built by Moses. If the usual calculation of eighteen inches to the cubit be taken, the whole measurement would stand thus: length ninety feet, width thirty feet, height forty-five feet. The temple was only a shrine for the ministering priests, the outer court, or outer courts, constituting the meeting place of the great assembly of the congregation. The temple relied for its magnificence not upon its size, but upon the costliness of the material, and the all but incalculable wealth of the decoration by which it was enriched and adorned. Mark the point of progress which has been reached in this historical development of the idea of the sanctuary. We have seen what the tabernacle in the wilderness was how frail, yet how beautiful; we now see how substantial the temple is, how strongly founded, and how patiently elaborated in all its costly details. We see also that the dimensions of the sanctuary are doubled. This fact of the dimensions being doubled is full of moral significance. The idea of the sanctuary is making progress, more space is required for it; yet there is no undue haste, nothing of the nature of obtrusive encroachment but everything of the quality of steady and irresistible progress: as we see the enlarged dimensions we hear a great voice saying, “As truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord.” The sanctuary is never diminished in size or in importance; it is a growing quantity; though growing sometimes slowly and almost indeed imperceptibly, yet the line is one of progress and never of recession.
“And the house, when it was in building, was built of stone made ready before it was brought thither: so that there was neither hammer nor axe nor any tool of iron heard in the house, while it was in building” (vi. 7).
Here was a great erection which proceeded towards its accomplishment without noise or tumult. Yet there is nothing wrong in noise itself. In all preparation there must be signs of energy and restlessness and even of apparent confusion, yet a solemn and steadfast purpose may be running through all the energetic engagements. Who can tell how many preparations are going on in distant places, the full purport and use of which cannot be understood apart from the sanctuary which is being silently put up? This may be the meaning of many a war and controversy and distressing tumult. Whilst the heathen are raging, they may be undergoing a process of preparation for incorporation into the temple of God. God sitteth upon the floods, and all the uproar is controlled by himself. If we could have looked upon Lebanon at the time when the hewers of trees were engaged upon it, we should have seen nothing but confusion. Before the hewers of wood went to Lebanon that famous locality was proverbial for its beauty and fragrance. Lebanon was watered by the streams from the snowy heights when all Palestine was parched up. Now look at Lebanon when the fellers of trees are carrying out their purpose: how harsh the sounds, how crashing the fall, how like a devastation the whole appearance; looked at within its own limits, the scene is one that pains the heart. Was it for this violent overthrow that all this noble beauty was perfected? We must take the larger view, and turn not only to Lebanon but to Mount Moriah, and there observe what is being done with the material which Lebanon supplies. “Behold, I build an house to the name of the Lord my God, to dedicate it to him, and to burn before him sweet incense, and for the continual shewbread, and for the burnt offerings morning and evening, on the sabbaths, and on the new moons, and on the solemn feasts of the Lord our God.” Thus the two pictures must be brought together the confusion on Lebanon, and the construction upon Mount Moriah. “Solomon began to build the house of the Lord at Jerusalem in Mount Moriah, where the Lord appeared unto David his father, in the place that David had prepared in the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite.” The noisy timber-fellers and the quiet builders belong to the same great company of workers for the Lord God of Israel. The noisy men must not complain of the quietness of those who go about their work without making any noise; nor must the quiet constructors rebuke the energy of men without whose activity they themselves could not proceed to lay another course in all the sacred structure of the sanctuary. We need the son of thunder, and the son of consolation; the great wind, and the silent sun; the tempestuous rain, and the noiseless dew: all these must be considered as part of the great ministry which God has appointed for the accomplishment of his purposes upon the earth.
Now whilst the work is proceeding so quietly and satisfactorily, the voice of caution is heard from heaven:
“And the word of. the Lord came to Solomon, saying, Concerning this house which thou art in building, if thou wilt walk in my statutes, and execute my judgments, and keep all my commandments to walk in them; then will I perform my word with thee, which I spake unto David thy father: and I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will not forsake my people Israel” (vi. 11-13).
A wonderful thing is this, that in the midst of labour God is constantly assuring us that his presence is conditional and that his blessing is therefore contingent upon our obedience. We are not to be so entranced by the progress of the work as to forget that it is God’s work and not ours. Nor are we to be so pleased with the silent advancement of the kingdom of heaven as to suppose that there is no further need of energy and watchfulness on our part; the language of indolence would be: This temple will advance whatever I may do; it is useless therefore for me to put myself to inconvenience, or to undergo any process of costly expenditure; it is evident that the temple will be advanced, do or not do what I may; I will therefore take my ease, and let providence work out its own ends. Even when the temple was rising at Mount Moriah, the Lord came to Solomon with this admonition. There is always a great “If” in all the arrangements which God makes with his Church. We hold our position by our good conduct. The answer will not come down unless the prayer be first sent up. “If ye will fear the Lord, and serve him, and obey his voice, and not rebel against the commandment of the Lord, then shall both ye and also the king that reigneth over you continue following the Lord your God. But if ye will not obey the voice of the Lord, but rebel against the commandment of the Lord, then shall the hand of the Lord be against you, as it was against your fathers.” Notice the conjunction of the words in verse twelve “If thou wilt walk… then will I perform.” How continuous and how exacting is the discipline of life; on what a slender thread apparently hangs the fulfilment of all the divine promises; on the other hand, how rich is the reply of God to those who really walk in the way of his statutes and make it the business of their lives to fulfil all his commands. Very sweet are the words ” And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will not forsake my people Israel.” It would appear that the one object of the building of the sanctuary was that God might dwell among his people. “I will set my tabernacle among you…. I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore.” Nor were these blessings confined to the Old Testament saints: they are the heritage and everlasting joy of the Christian Church. “Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: thou hast received gifts for men: yea, for the rebellious also, that the Lord God might dwell among them.” No temple after the pattern of Solomon’s magnificent sanctuary do we now rear, because we have come to the point in spiritual development in which the living temple is greater than any stones which can be made to symbolise it “Ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” If God promised not to forsake his people Israel, he has renewed his promise in relation to those who are in Christ Jesus his Son, partakers of his divine nature by the energy of a living faith He hath said, “I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee;” Jesus said, “Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” The living temple which is being built by the Holy Ghost is not left to be overthrown by the winds of the enemy, by tempestuous rains, or by the lightning of human anger; God having begun it will continue it, and complete it, and the temple of God shall stand sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his.
It is curious to notice the use which is made of an image with which we became familiar whilst reading the earliest portions of the book of Genesis the image, namely, of the cherubims.
“And within the oracle he [Solomon] made two cherubims of olive tree, each ten cubits high. And five cubits was the one wing of the cherub, and five cubits the other wing of the cherub: from the uttermost part of the one wing unto the uttermost part of the other were ten cubits. And the other cherub was ten cubits: both the cherubims were of one measure and one size. The height of the one cherub was ten cubits, and so was it of the other cherub. And he set the cherubims within the inner house: and they stretched forth the wings of the cherubims, so that the wing of the one touched the one wall, and the wing of the other cherub touched the other wall; and their wings touched one another in the midst of the house” ( 1Ki 6:23-27 ).
We cannot tell what the cherubims were. God “placed at the east of the garden of Eden cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life,” so we read in the book of Genesis. In Exodus we read “Thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat.” In Ezekiel we read “He spake unto the man clothed with linen, and said, Go in between the wheels, even under the cherub, and fill thine hand with coals of fire from between the cherubims, and scatter them over the city. And he went in in my sight. Now the cherubims stood on the right side of the house, when the man went in; and the cloud filled the inner court. Then the glory of the Lord went up from the cherub, and stood over the threshold of the house; and the house was filled with the cloud, and the court was full of the brightness of the Lord’s glory. And the sound of the cherubims’ wings was heard even to the outer court, as the voice of the Almighty God when he speaketh” ( 1Ki 10:2-5 ). It is spiritually useful now and again to have the imagination challenged by problems which do not admit of immediate solution. We suppose ourselves to be acquainted with life in all its ranges and particulars, whereas we are being continually shown, even by science itself, that we have hardly begun the study of that greatest of mysteries. When we know all life we shall know God himself. All the life we do know, either with the naked eye or with the instruments of science, is but part of the eternity of God. We should need to bring all life together into one focus, into one massive and perfect completeness, before we could begin to form even an initial idea of what is meant by the life divine. We are not, then, bounded by such life as is represented by man, or beast, or fish, or bird; there is an upward as well as a downward line from man; and that upward line carries us in the direction of angels and principalities and powers, of glowing seraphim and cherubim that are radiant with knowledge. Along that line we cannot rise very far. It is something to know that far beyond anything we have yet known of life there are mysteries of existence which baffle our fancy, and yet stimulate our piety, creating within us a desire to grow up into the life of God in all things, and to see the universe from the point of view occupied by the Son of man himself.
“But Solomon was building his own house thirteen years, and he finished all his house” ( 1Ki 7:1 ).
A very curious thing this, that whilst Solomon was building the temple of God he was also building his own house. It does not follow that when a man is building his own house he is also building the temple of God; but it inevitably follows that when a man is deeply engaged in promoting the interests of the divine sanctuary, he is most truly laying the foundations of his own house, and completing the things which most nearly concern himself. “Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you.” No man loses anything by taking part in the building of the temple of God. He comes away from that sacred erection with new ideas concerning what may be made of the materials he is using in the construction of his own dwelling-place. The Spirit of God acts in a mysterious manner along all this line of human conduct. The eyes are enlightened in prayer: commercial sagacity is sharpened in the very process of studying the oracles of God: the spirit of honourable adventure is stirred and perfected by the highest speculations in things divine, when those speculations are balanced by beneficence of thought and action in relation to the affairs of men.
Turning again from the king’s palace to the house of the Lord, we cannot but be struck with the grandeur of the appointments which Solomon made:
“And Solomon made all the vessels that pertained unto the house of the Lord: the altar of gold, and the table of gold, whereupon the shewbread was, and the candlesticks of pure gold, five on the right side, and five on the left, before the oracle, with the flowers, and the lamps, and the tongs of gold, and the bowls, and the snuffers, and the basons, and the spoons, and the censers of pure gold; and the hinges of gold, both for the doors of the inner house, the most holy place, and for the doors of the house, to wit, of the temple” (vii. 48-50).
The “altar of God” is the altar of incense. On that altar incense was to be burned morning and evening. To the Israelites the offering of incense typified the offering of worship which God would accept. The word “shewbread” properly means bread of the face or presence of God, called in the Septuagint version bread of offering or bread of presentation. This bread was clearly of the nature of a eucharistic offering, whereby man acknowledged that the whole sustenance of life is derived alone from God, and indicating in a way which the spirit only can understand that man doth not live by bread alone, but by every word proceeding out of the mouth of God. The candlesticks were of pure gold; the flowers and the lamps and the tongs were of gold; the bowls and the snuffers and the basons and the spoons and the censers were of pure gold; the hinges of the doors of the inner house, the most holy place, were hinges of gold. All these things are to be taken typically when we come to apply them to the Christian Church. “The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.” Every prayer is to be as pure gold. Every sermon is to be as an offering wrought in pure gold. Everything done in the sanctuary is to be done with the care of men who are entrusted with the charge of pure gold. There is to be nothing inexpensive, frivolous, worthless, careless in any part of the service of the sanctuary. The hinge and the altar, the spoon and the candlestick, the lamp and the bowl, are all necessary. Nor is one to be disparaged at the expense of the other. “There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.” Am I a hinge upon the door of the sanctuary? Am I but as a bason or a bowl, or as a pair of snuffers, in the service of the temple? It is enough. We are all wrought out of the same precious gold and worked by the same Master. Let us rest in that sweet thought The hinge in itself may not be worth much, but it is part of the king’s gold, and he will require an account of that gold when he comes to audit the affairs of time.
We now come to the close, so far as the building is concerned. We read, “so was ended all the work that king Solomon made for the house of the Lord” (vii. 51). We read in the book of Exodus, “so Moses finished the work.” By and by we shall read, “I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do,” and later on we shall hear the words, “It is finished.” There is a tone of melancholy in the words which announce even the completion of the temple. Who would not be always engaged in enlarging and perfecting the house of the Lord? Surely the builders could not turn away from the temple in whose building they would take no more part without sighing that their work was done. Has not many a commentator been made sad when he reached the last verse which he was expounding? Has not many an author owned that he was sorry to part with the imaginary characters whose history he had been tracing for many a day? Do we not feel also a pang at the heart when some long sweet interview as between friend and friend is ended? We should never forget that there is often more joy in the process than there is merely at the point of completion.
Herein is a great lesson for workers: they should find their heaven in their work, and not suppose that it comes at the end of their labour; the labour itself is the rest when the heart is attuned to the purposes of God, and the will can only find its rest in obedience to the commands of God. It is not every man, however, who is permitted to see the end of his work. How many die ere the topstone is brought on! How many true labourers have almost prayed to be allowed to see the completion of their ministry, either in speech or in literature, in the education of their families or in the consolidation of their business! To live but a few years longer, then the capital would be put upon the pillar, then the circle would be completed, and then the long rest of death might come. But we cannot tell how all this may be ordered by the divine hand. “What I say unto you I say unto all, Watch:” “In such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.” All we have to do is to hold our work as a divine appointment, to carry it on, to suspend it, or to lay it down just as God may please. He will make some compensation for the disappointment and the bitterness of the heart that longs to see the last touch put to the labour of a lifetime. Yes, blessed be God, we cannot tell how all that sorrow may be made up to us in the brighter scene. We may then be made to see how foolish we were and ignorant in wishing to remain outside heaven a little longer; yet who can tell but we may be shown that even in heaven we can do something towards completing the work we began on earth. Here we must simply stand, and wonder, and adore. Sometimes there comes a thought over the heart that it will be impossible that our connection with these present spheres and opportunities and relations shall be for ever dissolved. Then comes the sweet and consolatory thought that even from on high we may be permitted to do something, in a way not now known, and in a way not now to be measured, towards carrying forward to maturity the work which it was the joy and the very heaven of our life to take part in. But why distress our imagination with such inquiries, or wear out the heart with such solicitudes? “Nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.” “Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.” It is joy enough to be permitted to take any part in the work, without desiring to see that work completed in all its meaning. In the bright by and by of heaven, in the long, long days of celestial summer, in the peace and rest and ineffable quiet of the land on high, we shall see why it was that our work was interrupted, that the sentence we were just uttering was punctuated by death, and that the best things of our lives were intercepted and turned to apparent uselessness and ruin. We must wait and we must hope!
Selected Note
The first who planned the erection of a stone-built sanctuary was David, who, when he was inhabiting his house of cedar, and God had given him rest from all his enemies, meditated the design of building a temple in which the ark of (God might be placed, instead of being deposited “within curtains,” or in a tent as hitherto. This design was at first encouraged by the prophet Nathan; but he was afterwards instructed to tell David that such a work was less appropriate for him, who had been a warrior from his youth, and had shed much blood, than for his son, who should enjoy in prosperity and peace the rewards of his father’s victories. Nevertheless, the design itself was highly approved as a token of proper feelings towards the Divine King, (2Sa 7:1-12 ; 1Ch 17:1-14 ; 1Ch 28 .). We learn, moreover, from 1Ki 5 and 1Ch 22 that David had collected materials which were afterwards employed in the erection of the temple, which was commenced four years after his death, about b.c. 1012, in the second month, that is, the the month of Siv (comp. 1Ki 6:1 ; 2Ch 3:2 ), 480 years after the Exodus from Egypt. We thus learn that the Israelitish sanctuary had remained movable more than four centuries subsequent to the conquest of Canaan. “In the fourth year of Solomon’s reign was the foundation of the house of the Lord laid, in the month Siv: and in the eleventh year, in the month Bul, which is the eighth month, was the house finished throughout all the parts thereof, and according to all the fashion of it. So was he seven years in building it.”
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
XXVIII
THE WORKS OF SOLOMON
1Ki 5:1-7:51
The works of Solomon were mainly buildings, whether of houses, or cisterns, etc., constructed during his reign and under his supervision. The first and most famous was the Temple. The second was his own house. The third was his wife’s house. The fourth was the upbuilding of the walls of Jerusalem and its fortifications, strengthening particularly the famous citadel of Millo. Fifth, he built two kinds of cities, and quite a number of each kind. One kind was for the headquarters and protection of his commerce; another kind was fortified cities controlling all the passes from any direction into his land. Among the fortified cities note the following:
First, Lebanon. He erected a strong fortification in the northern part of his country in the mountains of Lebanon on the great highway of Damascus, to guard the immense trade that poured through that city from the fords of the Euphrates.
Next, Hazor, still further north near Lake Merom. The object of that city was to protect the entrance from the south of Syria into his country. You should know the topography of the country in order to understand fully the wisdom of the location of each fortified city.
The next was at Megiddon on the plain of Bsdraelon, which was the great battle plain of the Holy Land. It was so in ancient times. It was so in mediaeval times, and according to prophecy will be so near the end of time. This fortification controlled all the Esdraelon plain. It was in the western part of the Holy Land, about the middle of it not far from the Mediterranean Sea.
The next was the great pass of Bethhoron, where Joshua fought his decisive battle. That is the pass leading from the Philistine country to Jerusalem. He fortified both ends of that pass, upper and nether, so that from the Plains of the Philistines an army could not approach Jerusalem in that direction.
Then on the south there were Gezer and Baalath, two other fortified places that protected not only from the Philistine raids, but from the Egyptian raids on the southwest. His other fenced cities and I will not mention all of them, protected the borders on the east of the Jordan, so that when these fortifications were completed Solomon’s country was like Paris before the war with Germany, and even since, i.e., from every direction there were long lines of fortifications.
The other class of cities was mainly on account of trade. You should have a map before you. East or northeast of Damascus, and south of his border on the Euphrates, was a desert, and in that desert a cluster of the most famous springs or fountains in the world perennial water in abundance and beautiful groves of palm trees and there Solomon built a city, Tadmor, which stood a thousand years, and in later history is called Palmyra, where Zenobia, the Queen of the East, reigned. If you are familiar with Roman history, you will remember her capture at her capital Palmyra, and her being brought a prisoner to Rome, and there settling down as a quiet Roman matron, marrying a member of the Roman nobility. In history the city of Palmyra is famous. In our times it is famous for archaeology. To the ruins of Palmyra, Baalbek, and Thebes on the Nile, and similar places, scholars go to excavate and give us the result of their studies in archaeology.
Solomon built quite a city, not for land commerce, but for sea commerce, at the head of the Gulf of Akaba, and transported a large population there in order that it should be held by loyal Jews, as that was his only good seaport. Those on the Mediterranean coast that lay within the boundary of his country Joppa, for example were very poor seaports. The next great buildings in connection with his reign were the store houses, immense structures on all the lines of traffic leading to Jerusalem where the revenues of the king were collected. Then the great stables that he had erected for the housing of his chariot horses and cavalry horses.
Another great work of Solomon was the building of roads. Our city papers say much about the split-log drag and the necessity for good wagon roads, roads for foot passengers and horsemen, for bringing the country products to the city markets. Solomon’s system of roads became as famous as the roads described by Prescott in the history of Peru, which are ahead of any in history except the Roman roads.
A very difficult work of Solomon was the building of a navy of his own. When he traded in the Mediterranean he had to use the ships of Tyre, just as a great part of our trade now is carried on in English or German bottoms. That is not as helpful to a country as to have its own merchant marine, its own ships for carriage. A tremendous change in Solomon’s kingdom was brought about by the establishment of this navy of his at Eziongeber at the head of the Gulf of Akaba, which is a part of the Red Sea. Those ships were manned largely by Tyrians, as the Jews were not good sailors, and that fleet would sail with imposing ceremony, to be gone three years. That is a very considerable voyage. The fleet would sail down the Indian Ocean to the East Indies, Borneo, Sumatra, and other islands of the archipelago in the. Indian Ocean, and then on to the archipelagos in the Pacific Ocean, and all down the eastern coast of Africa.
Before Solomon’s time Africa had been circumnavigated. Fleets, starting in the Red Sea, had gone clear around the Cape of Good Hope in South Africa, and back into the Mediterranean through the Straits of Gibraltar. They seemed to have forgotten about this when, not long before the time of Columbus, Vasco da Gama circumnavigated Africa, but it had been done before Solomon’s time. That fleet would bring him back spices, jewels, gold, and silver, and it mentions in your text here peacocks among other things, with the hundred eyes of Argus in their tails, according to Greek legend. You remember that Juno appointed Argus, because he had a hundred eyes, to watch Jupiter and see that he did not stay out at night, and Jupiter employed Mercury to play on his flute, and by its music to put Argus to sleep, and while asleep to kill him; and then Jupiter had his own sweet will without espionage. But Juno put the eyes of Argus in the peacock’s tail, and indeed if his eyes could serve no better purpose while in his head, they might as well be in a bird’s tail. In Huribut’s Bible Atlas is a detailed description of Solomon’s famous building, the Temple of the Lord. You must not expect from me an elaborate description of the Temple. I submit, rather, some salient points.
I. The plan and specifications. These were all given to David by inspiration of God. The Temple proper was but an enlargement of the house built by Moses, with relative proportions preserved throughout. The plan of the house built by Moses was also inspired. This we studied in Exodus.
II. The date. In 1Ki 6:1 , this statement is made: “And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the Lord,” and on the second day of that second month, as you see from the corresponding passage in Chronicles, this Temple was commenced. This specific date, so circumstantially given, has puzzled many commentators. They don’t know how to fit the events of Moses, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and David into just 480 years. It is the governing passage that largely influenced Archbishop Usher in arranging the chronology as you see it at the head of your King James Bible.
Turn now to 1Ki 6:37 : “In the fourth year was the foundation of the house of the Lord laid, in the month of Ziv. And in the eleventh year, in the month Bul, which is the eighth month, was the house finished throughout all the parts thereof, and according to all the fashion of it. So was he seven years in building it.” Not only the building itself, but all its furniture, the utensils, and implements of every kind put in the Temple and used in its worship, was a work of seven years.
The next salient point worthy of your attention is the message of the Lord to Solomon when he was about to commence this work. You will find it on 1Ki 6:11 : “And the word of the Lord came to Solomon, saying, Concerning this house which thou art building, if thou wilt walk in my statutes and execute my judgments, and keep all of my commandments to walk in them; then will I perform my word with thee, which I spake unto David, thy father. And I will dwell among the children of Israel and will not forsake my people Israel.” This is what he says to Solomon, “You have commenced to build a house for me. I come to tell you that I am with you, and give you my promise at the start that it shall be God’s dwelling-place.” When we come to the next visit the Lord makes to Solomon, when the house was dedicated, I will give you another remarkable passage, but this one is at the commencement of the work.
The next thing we note is the site. The first intimation of the site is given to us in Abraham’s time. Abraham was commanded to take his son Isaac and offer him up as a burnt offering upon Mount Moriah, then held by the Jebusites; and on that mountain and at the very place where the Temple wag subsequently erected, there the symbolic forecast of the offering up of a greater Isaac took place. The next account that we have of the site is when the great plague came upon the people of Jerusalem, and David to avert the plague presented himself before God, and offered to die for his people, to let the punishment come upon him and spare the people. When he saw the angel of death approaching Jerusalem, he boldly went forth to meet the angel, and proposed a substitutionary sacrifice of himself; and then the plague was stayed, and at the place where the plague was stayed, David bought the threshing-floor of Araunah, the Jebusite, and marked it out as the site where God’s house was to be erected, where the great sacrifices were to be offered throughout the ages, that were to foretell the coming of the greatest Sacrifice.
Next in importance is the great work of preparing the foundation. You must conceive of an irregularly shaped mountain whose crest was taken off low enough down the mountain to give sufficient area. If on three sides the mountain sloped down into the valley, a wall must be built on those three sides high enough for the desired level, and the crest taken off must be used to fill in all the space to a level with the wall summit. On one side there would be no wall. The area of the space thus leveled was about thirty acres in the shape of a trapezoid, one side of which was 1,520 feet; the opposite side 1,611 feet; one end 1,017 feet, and the other end 921 feet. Of course, the height of the wall would vary on the three sides, according to the dip of the slope into the valley below. The greatest height of the wall was 143 feet. This perpendicular wall, built of immense stones bevelled into each other would cement, would render the Temple area unapproachable and impregnable on three sides. The fourth side was safe-guarded by an immense moat, and by the fortified tower of Millo. The crest of the mountain taken off was not sufficient in bulk to fill on the three sides up to the top of the wall, and then to furnish stones for the buildings and terraces. So Solomon opened quarries on the other mountainsides, tunneling under the city itself. There today may be seen Solomon’s subterranean quarries, where slaves toiled in the heart of the earth. Their bones are yet where they died, and the marks of their implements on the everlasting rock, and some of the mammoth unused stones. These slaves were the unassimilated Canaanites, fed and clothed indeed after a fashion, but without wages. So also the multitude of laborerg who were sent to Tyre under overseers to get out the forest timbers, were conscript laborers, thousands of them, working in reliefs under taskmasters.
But Solomon had nobody in his kingdom skilful enough to direct the stone work and establish foundries for the materials of brass, silver, and gold. So he appealed to Hiram, king of Tyre, for an expert superintendent. The king of Tyre sent him the son of a widow, also called Hiram. If you ever get to be a Mason, you will hear more about Hiram Abiff. He was the architect of the whole business, and had the full superintendence of everything. Your text here gives an account of him, and of what he did in constructing the Temple.
An equally stupendous work in the way of preparation had to be done, namely, to provide an adequate water supply. To this end, he built enormous cisterns capable of holding many millions of barrels of water, and aqueducts for carrying the water. He built pools, like the Pool of Siloam, and vast reservoirs.
You must not conceive of the thirty-five acres as one level, but several terraced levels, one terrace rising above another until on the highest level is the Temple proper and its immediate approaches. The lowest level was the court of the Gentiles, a higher level the court of the women. The whole area with its inner divisions corresponds in general plan to the enclosed area around the tabernacle of Moses and the tent itself. The Temple proper, itself a small building, was only the tent of Moses on a larger scale, all relative proportions preserved.
The lumber material was more difficult to procure than the stone material. It came from the forests of Lebanon cedar and fir. The getting out of the timber from the forest, and the floating of it in great rafts from Tyre to Joppa, was performed by Hiram’s men. Solomon furnished the rations and compensated for the labor by giving King Hiram ten cities. When Hiram came to inspect the cities, he found them to be only sites for cities, something like Charles Dickens’ description of American cities, which existed only in sanguine prospect, or like the Bible description of Jerusalem in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah: “Now the city was exceedingly large, only the houses were not yet built, and the inhabitants thereof were few.” Hiram, in disgust, refused to receive them, and Solomon built them and peopled them with Jews. It has always seemed, on the face of it, that Solomon played an unworthy Yankee trick on his confiding and generous ally. Solomon’s own men had to transport this lumber material all the way up hill from Joppa to Jerusalem, and there, under the skilled supervision of Hiram, the widow’s son, they were fashioned for their place in the Temple. Indeed, every part, whether of stone, timber, or metal, was so skilfully fashioned that the Temple went up without the sound of ax, saw, or hammer. So the spiritual temple arises in silence rather than noise. The kingdom of heaven comes not with observation. “Sanctified rows,” as in many modern meetings, and confusions of mingled services, as at Corinth, are not contributory to the edifying of the temple of Christ.
There are some very striking references to the works of Solomon in the books of Ecclesiastes and the Song. For instance, this passage from Ecclesiastes 2 Solomon himself talking: “I made me great works, I builded me houses; I planted me vineyards; I made me gardens and orchards, and I planted trees in them of all kinds of fruits; I made me pools of water, to water therewith the wood that bringeth forth trees.”
The gardens or paradises built by Solomon, the principal ones, were these: One near Jerusalem, where tremendous work in the rock had to be made to get space terrace space for his garden. Another was built about seven miles south of Jerusalem, near Bethlehem; and his summer park was at Mount Lebanon, described in the Song of Solomon, and when the hot summertime would come, and he would start to that summer resort in the mountains, a palanquin, or traveling carriage was made, and what a gorgeous thing it was! As it was a mountainous country, a palanquin was used and carried on the shoulders of men, but not until he got to a point where a chariot could not be used; up to that point he went in a beautiful chariot, the finest ever known, drawn by the finest of horses, as that Song tells you: “Who is this that cometh out of the wilderness like pillars of smoke, perfumed with myrrh and frankincense, with all the powders of the merchant?”
The era of all these famous works was one of peace. These are not the achievements of unsettled times. War is destructive, not constructive. Solomon was not a man of blood, but the prince of peace, and hence the type of him at whose triumph all wars cease forever.
QUESTIONS
1. What was the principal building works of Solomon in Jerusalem?
2. What two kinds of cities elsewhere?
3. Cite the more important fortified cities and the purpose of each.
4. Locate and describe the trade city of Tadmor, and give something of its subsequent history.
5. What was city for sea trade, and how peopled?
6. Why was he dependent upon the Phoenician cities of Tyre and Sidon for Mediterranean trade?
7. Locate and give the reason for building Eziongeber, and describe the commerce promoted by it. Tell about his fleet there, how manned and why, the time length of its voyages, the countries visited, and the products imported.
8. Was Africa circumnavigated before the famous voyages around it by Vasco da Gama? How was it done?
9. Where, probably, the Ophir of the ancients? Where Tarshish?
10. What did Solomon build in the way of roads, and what other countries since his time were noted for the building of good roads?
11. What attention is given to this matter by our country now?
12. How were the plans and specifications of the Temple obtained, and through whom?
13. What previous plan on a smaller scale was followed, and how and through whom was it obtained?
14. Why was Jehovah so particular in insisting on exact conformity with every detail of his plan?
15. What was the site of the Temple, and the two great historical events leading to its selection, and their typical import?
16. Where may we find the details of the Temple structure?
17. Give the date of its beginning, and time of its building.
18. Describe the foundation work, the area obtained, and its shape and side dimensions.
19. Whence the material for this foundation work, the laborers, and the modern evidence of their labor?
20. How many levels on this area, and the purpose of each?
21. Whence and what the materials of wood, how gotten out and transported, who the laborers, how many, and how supplied with food?
22. Who was the human architect?
23. Besides food supplies, how did Solomon compensate Hiram, king of Tyre, for his help, what Hiram’s opinion of the bargain, and what became of the rejected compensation?
24. What evidence of the perfect preparation of every piece of material before it was put into the building, and what the typical import?
25. What became of Solomon’s Temple, and whose succeeded it? What were its fortunes, and who restored it on a grand scale near the time of our Lord, and what became of it? What building now occupies the ancient building site?
26. Of what was the tabernacle of Moses and Solomon’s Temple a type?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
1Ki 6:1 And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which [is] the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD.
Ver. 1. And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year, &c. ] Not in the four hundred and ninetieth year, as Beda reckoneth, much less four hundred and ninety-second, as Josephus, or five hundred and eighty-eighth, as Sulpitius.
Were come out of the land of Egypt.
In the fourth year of Solomon’s reign.] For so long he was settling the kingdom, and making preparation for the work. His father had left vast sums of gold and silver, even a hundred thousand talents of gold, which is, say interpreters, one thousand and two hundred millions of our money, and a thousand thousand talents of silver, which amount to as much – viz., to a thousand and two hundred millions of gold, besides abundance of brass, wood, stones, and other materials. 1Ch 22:14 Yet all this served not in any comparison for the perfecting of this most stately and costly structure, the world’s wonderment, the house of the most high God, 1Ch 2:5 and a type of the Church triumphant in heaven, as the tabernacle had been of the Church militant upon earth.
In the month Zif.
Which is the second month
He began to build.
a Plat., lib. vii. De Leg.
b Arist., lib. vi. Polit.
four hundred and eightieth year. Note max the number is Greekinal (not Cardinal) = the 480th year of some longer and larger period, viz. the 490 years from the Exodus to the Dedication of the Temple; the difference of ten years being made up of seven years in building (1Ki 6:38) and three years in furnishing. Dedicated not in seventh year, for Completion took place in the eighth month of one year (1Ki 6:38), and the Dedication in the seventh month of another (1Ki 8:2). The chronological period was 40 years in wilderness + 450 years under judges + 40 years of Saul + 40 years of David + 3 years of Solomon (1Ki 6:1) = 573 (from 1490-917). The mystical period of 480 years is obtained by deducting the period of 93 years, when Israel’s national position was in abeyance. Thus: 8 (Jdg 3:8) + 18 (Jdg 3:14) + 20 (Jdg 4:3) + 7 (Jdg 6:1) + 40 (Jdg 13:1) = 93. (N. B. The eighteen years of Jdg 10:7, Jdg 10:9, was local and beyond Jordan. It did not affect the national position). Hence 573-93 = 480 (from 873-93).
children = sons.
the house of the LORD = the Temple. Similar in plan to the Tabernacle, but double the size. the LORD. Hebrew. Jehovah. App-4.
Chapter 6
So in chapter six he began to build the temple.
In the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, and in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign, in the second month, they began the building of the temple. Now the temple was to be ninety feet long and thirty feet wide, and forty-five feet tall ( 1Ki 6:1-2 ).
So if you can picture now in your mind, ninety feet is just about from the edge of the platform here to the back door. So that’s how long Solomon’s temple was. It’s a little more than forty-five feet from arch to arch. So it wasn’t quite as wide. And of course, it was quite a bit taller because actually it was only thirty feet wide. So that will be from this aisle about over to the middle of this one over. But forty-five feet high. So that is quite high for a building. So it was rather high and long and narrow. And of course, it had the one end that was partitioned off and had doors at that time into the holy of holies. The doors were of carved olive wood and overlaid with gold.
And as you get into chapter six, it begins to give you the description of the temple that they were constructing. Now in verse seven, it tells us:
When they were building it, it was built of stone made ready before it was brought to the site: so that there was neither hammer nor ax nor any tool of iron heard in the house, while it was in building ( 1Ki 6:7 ).
So all of the cutting of the stone was done at the quarry, which was, of course, under the city. And they would cut the stones to size and all there, and then bring them out and just lay them in. So there was no noise of a hammer or any iron or tool at the actual construction site of the temple.
Now there’s an interesting story that is told in the construction of the temple. And that is that the stones being quarried at a distance from the actual site of the building, they were, all of them, once quarried marked with a special mark. So that they would have the plan at the quarry for the building and the dimension of each stone, and then they also had another set of plans on the job. And again, each stone made especially for each slot and they would quarry the stone and send it, and they would mark where it went. And the foreman on the job would see the stone and he would direct them where to lay it.
Well, a stone came from the quarry that didn’t seem to fit into the building. And so the people didn’t see or understand where this particular stone went, so they toss it aside. Now this building was seven years in the construction. So in seven years the shrubbery and all can grow up and cover. And the story goes that this stone just became lost in this overgrow of shrubbery and all. So that when the temple was just about completed, the foreman sent a message to the quarry, “We’re all set to lay the cornerstone, the chief stone of the building. Where is it?” And the quarry said, “That stone was made and already sent to the job.” They said, “Well, it’s not here.” They said, “Well, it’s been sent. Look for it.” And someone said, “Well, remember that stone we threw over there in the bushes?” And they went over, and sure enough, the stone that was rejected by the builders was the chief cornerstone of the building.
Now Peter picks this up when he is talking to the Sanhedrin when he is called on the carpet because of the healing of the lame man in the temple. And here is Peter standing before the Sanhedrin, he said, “Hey, fellows, if you’re going to arrest me today because of the good deed done to this lame man, then that’s your problem. But you want to know by what power or authority I did it? Be it known unto you that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth does this man stand here before you whole. And He is the stone which was set of naught by you builders, but God has made Him the chief cornerstone.” And he is showing them a parallel, a story that was familiar to all of them how that the chief stone was rejected, but the same has become the head of the corner; it’s in a psalm. But Peter shows that actually it is only prefiguring Jesus Christ, the chief cornerstone who was rejected by the religious builders in Israel. But God has made Him the head cornerstone over all.
So this is why that psalm and why Peter picked it up is that the stones were all carved out away from the site and brought to the site ready to be set.
Now again,
The word of the LORD came to Solomon [in verse twelve], declaring, Concerning this house which you are building ( 1Ki 6:11-12 ),
Again, conditional.
if you will walk in my statutes, and execute my judgments, and keep all my commandments to walk in them; then will I perform my word with thee, which I spake unto David your father: and I will dwell among the children of Israel, I will not forsake my people Israel ( 1Ki 6:12-13 ).
So God’s promise, conditional promise to Solomon that God would dwell there in the midst of the people. Now they did not build temples to worship in. That is, to congregate to worship. The temple and the idea of the temple was a place for God to dwell in. David said, “It isn’t right that I’m dwelling in this house that is all sealed and nice and God is still dwelling in a tent. I’m going to make a house for God.”
Now when we build churches, we think of accommodating the people that we might all gather together in order that we might worship God together here and study His word and grow in our knowledge and understanding of God. But not so in those days. In their building of a temple, the idea was to build a house for God and the common ordinary person was never allowed inside. Only the priests were allowed to go inside of the temple to visit with God. But the common people weren’t allowed inside the building at all. There were the porches where they could go into the porches. But into the actual building itself, only the priests could enter.
So it wasn’t a center of worship like buildings that we build today in the church. And our idea is to accommodate the people, to gather together to worship God. Their idea was to build a house for God to dwell in. But then when Solomon finished the temple, he saw how foolish the whole thing was. He said, “God, I look up and I know that the heavens of heaven aren’t big enough to contain You. How much less this little house that I’ve built here?” And we know that “God doesn’t dwell in temples or in houses made with hands” ( Act 7:48 ). But He dwells, of course, within our hearts and lives. But He who fills the universe fills my heart and my life tonight. For my body has become the temple of the Holy Spirit. The dwelling place of God and God’s Spirit within me.
So we don’t need to build temples for God to dwell in. We build places where we can assemble to acknowledge God and to worship God. So God said, “I will dwell among my people. As long as they walk in my statutes, keep my commandments, I will dwell among them. And I will not forsake my people Israel.”
And so it goes on and tells of the building of the house for God and of the holy of holies which was a thirty-foot cube, and of the two cherubim that they built to go into the holy of holies, carved them out of olive wood and then overlaid them with gold, and how that the cherubims wing spans were ten feet from wing to wing. So they were pretty good size cherubim. And they were set in the holy of holies, and at this point, the only furnishing within the holy of holies was the ark of the covenant, and the golden cherubims were sort of over the ark of the covenant.
Now even as the tabernacle was a model of heaven, so the temple in a sense became a model of heaven, because the design was much as the tabernacle with the holy place on the outer part where the priest would come and daily bring the sacrifices and so forth to sprinkle before the mercy seat. But then, the holy of holies with the ark of the covenant were… was all overlaid with gold, with the golden cherubim and the ark of the covenant in the middle.
Now the ark of the covenant was lost or was placed in hiding at the time of Nebuchadnezzar’s siege of Jerusalem. There are some rumors that Jeremiah hid the ark of the covenant. But the ark of the covenant was not in Herod’s temple. And perhaps someplace in the earth today that ark of the covenant still exists. It would be a fascinating archaeological find because within the ark of the covenant are the two tables of stone upon which God inscribed the Ten Commandments. And so how fascinating it would be to find this little golden box, and inside two stones with strange writing on them.
They were the… it was the only furnishing within the holy of holies, and Solomon built this seven years, overlaid the whole thing with gold, the planks and all overlaid with gold. It must have been fabulously beautiful and of course, extremely expensive. They estimated, of course, that was at gold thirty-two dollars an ounce; they estimated the cost at into the hundreds of millions. Now at five hundred forty-seven dollars an ounce, I don’t know. It would really be something.
So it gives you the sort of the dimensions of the building and the carvings and so forth. And I’ll leave you to peruse those at your own leisure. So it was seven years, the end of chapter six, in building the house of God. “
This chapter is full of interest, as it gives a somewhat detailed description of the structure of the Temple. In all essentials its actual central building was on the pattern of the Tabernacle. It was, however, twice the size of the Tabernacle, and was built of solid material because it was intended to remain in a permanent position, seeing that the nation was now settled in the land.
Moreover, this settlement was symbolized by the fact that round about the Temple proper many chambers were erected to serve in various ways the interest of the priests and worshipers which had been entirely absent from the Tabernacle.
The time occupied in the construction of the Temple was seven years, during which the actual work of erection in the city went forward in impressive silence.
In this description we have special mention of the oracle, or Holy of Holies; of the golden altar; the doors, and the cherubim. Like the Tabernacle of old, its chief splendor was within, where everything was encased in gold, neither wood nor stone being visible. The magnificence of this small Temple for small it was by comparison with temples erected in other lands to other gods-may be gathered from the fact that the amount of gold used was six hundred talents.
the Plan of the Lords House
1Ki 6:1-13
The Temple was twice the size of the Tabernacle-ninety feet long by thirty feet broad, and forty-five feet high. The plan had been given to David by revelation, 1Ch 28:11-12. Seven years and a half were consumed in its erection. It was completed in sacred silence, 1Ki 6:7. The awful sanctity of the shrine would have been violated if its construction had been marred by the harsh and violent sounds that generally accompany the masons toil. Like some tall palm the noiseless fabric sprang. In nature, God works so silently that we do not realize His activities.
The central motive was to provide a place worthy to be called the house of God. Israel was now ruled by a king, but he was viewed as the organ and instrument of Jehovah. It was fitting, therefore, that the King of kings should have a dwelling-place among the people of Israel. The tabernacle of God was with men. He dwelled with them on the earth. The Temple was, moreover, the type, first of the body of Jesus, Joh 2:21; then of each believer, 1Co 3:16; and lastly of the whole Church, Eph 2:21-22. Each of these is the dwelling-place of God, and the innermost chamber-the Holy of Holies-is meant to be the throne-room of the Shekinah of His presence, Lev 16:2.
1Ki 6:7
The building of the Temple on Mount Moriah is a parable of the present world. St. Paul applies the simile of the text to the building of the Church of God when, in the Epistle to the Ephesians, he says that this Church is built upon the foundation of the Apostles and prophets, and that it groweth with a noiseless growth into a holy temple for the Lord. The text is a revelation of the twofold condition of the life of the Church of Christ as it is to-day.
I. There are three conditions of the Church’s life: two present, one future. The Church is militant on earth; the Church is expectant in Paradise; the Church shall be glorified in Jesus Christ when He comes and she passes into Paradise. However chequered may be the Church’s course on earth, within the veil Jesus is realising His thought of His Church, not in the transitory conditions of time, but under abiding conditions in eternity. Jesus is the Builder of His Church in Paradise, for He is the true Solomon.
II. When Solomon built his church, the first thing he did was to dig deep, that his foundations might rest upon a rock. Christ lays the foundations of His Church deep in His own wounded form. Upon the person of Jesus, as the crucified Redeemer, do the foundations of the Church rest.
III. Solomon laid the foundation stones of the Temple. The Bible tells us that the foundation stones of the Church are the twelve Apostles. Their influence is a living power with us today.
IV. We are not as yet in Jerusalem; we are in Lebanon. God’s great work is going on age after age; the purpose of the Church is to be the school of heaven, the place where men and women are made ready for eternity.
G. Body, Contemporary Pulpit, vol. iv., p. 1.
What Lebanon was to Zion, this world is to heaven. This world is the quarry and the work-field, heaven the temple. Gradually in its calm magnificence, far out of sight, that temple in Zion is rising and stretching on, in its preordained proportions, to its vast circumference. Another and another stone is being added to it, but not one that has not been hewn and fitted here.
I. God sends His stone-squarers to His children; afflictions ply their hammers, and unkind men their sharp chisels, until the heart, measured as with a plumb-line, is set to the whole will of God, and we are conformed to the heavenly and made correspondent to the Divine.
II. Here on earth the stones lie disjointed and isolated; they are good stones, but they want union. There, in that great spiritual structure, all will be gathered into a perfect oneness, and each shall bear his own proper and necessary part in the temple.
J. Vaughan, Fifty Sermons, 8th series, p. 201.
Taking the Temple as an emblem of the Christian, we say that it was (1) the place of mercy; (2) the place of law; (3) the place of worship.
I. In the Temple was erected the throne of mercy; there mercy was, as it were, localised. The Christian only has a clear idea of mercy as a living principle. He knows his need of it, and knows mercy as an attribute of God. The sense of our need of mercy produces humility and peace.
II. The Law was deposited in the ark, and remained there till the time of Titus. The law of God should dwell in every Christian heart.
III. In the soul of the Christian, as in the Temple, there is communion with the Divine presence, there is the true worship of God. Fellowship with ourselves and the indwelling Spirit of God is the essence of true religion and the true idea of a spiritual temple.
C. Morris, Preacher’s Lantern, vol. iii., p. 563.
References: 1Ki 6:7.-G. Matheson, Moments on the Mount, p. 187; Bishop Woodford, Sermons on Subjects from the Old Testament, p. 80; Sermons for the Christian Seasons, 1st series, vol. ii., p. 613; Dawson, Sermons on Daily Life and Duty, p. 242; New Manual of Sunday-school Addresses, p. 262; E. Thring, Uppingham Sermons, vol. i., p. 71; J. W. Burgon, Ninety-one Short Sermons, No. 86.
1Ki 6:29
The question naturally arises, Why this peculiar carving exclusively? Wherever the worshippers looked they were met by this threefold ornamentation, everywhere cherubim, palm-trees, and open flowers.
I. The first thought that strikes us is the union of the earthly and heavenly, the natural and spiritual, in worship and religion. The highest spiritual objects and two of the most prominent natural objects were portrayed together in the house of God. The highest creature in the spiritual realm was here set alongside of natural objects known to all. Worship of God will never be healthy and many-sided if it excludes the view of the outer world. Look at the Book of Psalms. Deep, manifold, and awful is the tragedy of human life there, and glorious are the bursts of melody and hope that sweep across it; but through all struggle, and agony, and shouts of triumph there come the scent of flowers, and of pines, and of mown grass, the singing of birds, the lowing of cattle, the roar of the sea, and the murmur of the stream. So in the house of God and in worship heaven and earth are brought together.
II. We learn that life is the grand source, material, reality. There were three kinds of life portrayed on these walls. It is life that gives value to all things. Life is that which has fellowship with God; life is that which loves God and longs after Him; life is that which feeds upon God’s truth. All life has the same grand general laws.
III. We see the union of three things in the spiritual life: worship, fruitfulness, and beauty. Worship is represented by the cherub, fruitfulness by the palm-tree, and beauty by the open flower. True spiritual life shows itself, not in one of these, but in all.
IV. We see the union of these three things in the worship of God-aspiration, growth, and receptivity. The open flower is the way to the cherub; by reception the plant and the flower live; and by reception the soul of man lives and grows.
J. Leckie, Sermons Preached at Ibrox, p. 133.
References: 1Ki 6:35.-J. Reid Howatt, Churchette, p. 51. 1Ki 6-7-Parker, vol. vii., p. 295. 1Ki 7:5.-Preacher’s Monthly, vol. ii., p. 144. 1Ki 7:5, 1Ki 7:6.-S. Baring-Gould, One Hundred Sermon Sketches, p. 193.
CHAPTER 6The Description of the Temple
1. The date of the beginning of the building (1Ki 6:1)
2. The house, the porches and side chambers (1Ki 6:2-10)
3. The divine charge (1Ki 6:11-14)
4. The internal arrangements (1Ki 6:15-22)
5. The cherubim (1Ki 6:23-30)
6. The doors (1Ki 6:31-35)
7. The inner court and the temple finished (1Ki 6:36-38)
Three chapters are taken up with the description of the temple, its contents, Solomons house of the forest of Lebanon and with the dedication of the house of the LORD. Rich foreshadowings are here which we must pass over in greater part. Books could be written on these three chapters. However, we hope to point out the way for a closer study of the temple. The building of the temple commenced in the month of Zif (splendour), the second month when nature bursts forth in all her splendour. There comes a morning without clouds (2Sa 23:4) with glorious splendour, when He, for whose coming all is waiting, will build the temple (Zec 6:12). It took seven years to finish the house. The temple was erected on Mount Moriah. There was an immense foundation of great hewn and splendid stones, a platform upon which the temple was built. This great foundation remains to the present day, known by the name Haram-esh-Sheref, and upon it there stands now the Mosque of Omar. One stone alone is thirty-eight feet and nine inches long. This great stone is one of the most interesting stones of the world, for it is the chief corner stone of the temples massive wall. Among the ancient Jews, the foundation corner stone of their great sanctuary on Moriah was regarded as the emblem of moral and spiritual truths. It had two functions to perform; first, like the other foundation stones, it was a support for the masonry above, but it had also to face both ways, and was thus a bond of union between the two walls…. The engineers, in order to ascertain the dimensions of this foundation stone, worked round it, and report that it is three feet eight inches high, and fourteen feet in length. At the angle it is let down into the rock to a depth of fourteen inches, but, as the rock rises towards the north, the depth at four feet north of the angle is increased to thirty-two inches, while the northern end seems entirely embedded in the rock. The block is further described as squared and polished, with a finely dressed face…. Fixed in its abiding position three thousand years ago, it still stands sure and steadfast (from report, Recent Discoveries in the Temple Hill).
Still more interesting is the fact that the men who made an exploration of this temple wall, some 3000 years old, discovered certain marks. We quote from the Palestine Exploration report: I must now speak somewhat fully on a subject which has engaged public attention for some time, and has already given rise to many conjectures, namely, the writings, either painted on or cut into the stones, discovered lately on the bottom rows of the wall, at the south-east corner of the Haram, at a depth of about eighty feet there, where the foundations lie on the live rock itself. I have examined them carefully in their places–by no means an easy task. The ventilation at that depth is unfavourable to free breathing; nor is the pale glimmer of the taper, or the sudden glare of the magnesium wire, calculated materially to assist epigraphical studies…. I have come to the following conclusions:–First: The signs cut, or painted, were on the stones when they were first laid in their present places. Secondly: They do not represent any inscription. Thirdly: They are Phoenician. I consider them to be partly letters, partly numerals, and partly special masons, or quarry, signs. Some of them were recognisable at once as well-known Phoenician characters; others, hitherto unknown in Phoenician epigraphy, I had the rare satisfaction of being able to identify on absolutely undoubted antique Phoenician structures in Syria, such as the primitive substructures of the harbour at Sidon. No less did I observe them on the bevelled stones taken from ancient edifices and built into later work throughout Phoenicia. For a striking and obvious instance of this, the stones of which (old Phoenician stones to wit) immured in their present place at subsequent periods, teem with peculiar marks identical with those at Jerusalem. Thus the stones testify to the fact that strangers, Phoenicians and others were employed. This rock foundation, which has remained unshaken, is an illustration of Him, the rock of ages, upon whom everything rests.
The dimensions of the house were twice the size of those adopted in the tabernacle; the whole length was 60 cubits, the breadth 20 cubits, and the height also 20 cubits. The interior was lined with boards of cedar, the house was overlaid with gold, and a wall surrounded the whole. The upper chambers were 10 cubits high, on which account the height of the whole building is stated to have been 30 cubits. The porch before the entrance of the temple was 10 cubits in length and as many in breadth, and here were placed two massive pillars of brass, named Jachin (he shall establish, or, steadfastness) and Boaz (in Him is strength). On the other three sides a building was erected three stories in height, which rose to two-thirds of the height of the house of the temple. The sanctuary, 40 cubits in length, contained the golden altar of incense, ten candlesticks of gold, and ten tables of gold. The holiest of all was a cube of 20 cubits; it contained two cherubim made of the wood of the olive-tree, overlaid with gold, and 10 cubits in height, whose expanded wings touched in the middle, and, on the opposite sides, touched the walls.
In verse 7 we find a remarkable statement: And the house when it was building, was built of stone made ready before it was brought thither, so that there was neither hammer nor axe nor any tool of iron heard in the house, while it was in building. Thus orderly and quietly proceeds the erection of that spiritual house, the Church, destined to be the holy temple in eternity. However, the temple itself does not exactly prefigure the Church. It is a type of the Fathers house above where God dwells. The chambers or dwellings round about remind us of the words of our Lord: In my Fathers house are many mansions (literally: abodes, dwellings). It is a blessed hint that God will have His people dwelling with Him. But the temple is also prophetic of another temple which will yet stand on the earth when our Lord reigns. His glory will cover and fill that house, which will be a house of prayer and worship for all nations.
After the description of the dimensions of the house, and after he had built it and built the chambers, the word of the Lord came to Solomon telling him that His dwelling among the children of Israel depended upon Solomons faithfulness. Soon the failure came in and Ezekiel saw later the departure of the glory of the Lord from the temple and from Jerusalem.
And in the house gold was the prominent feature. The word gold occurs eleven times in this chapter. All was overlaid with gold. Besides this there were glistening stones, and of divers colours (1Ch 29:2). Everything was of pure gold; the sanctuary might have been called the golden house. The floor was overlaid with gold, the walls, the doors and ceiling were covered with pure gold, and the walls had inlaid precious stones (2Ch 3:6). Gold is the emblem of divine righteousness and divine glory. Therefore the whole sanctuary witnessed to the glory of righteousness which is in keeping with the prophetic foreshadowing of this house. How much greater will be the glory and the manifestation of divine righteousness when the true King builds the house and manifests His glory!
Another interesting feature present was the cherubim. While the cherubim which belonged to the ark of the covenant remained unchanged, for it was the same ark which was in the tabernacle, Solomon put on either side of it the big figure of a cherub carved of olive wood and overlaid with gold. Each was ten cubits high. The two with their wings met over the mercy seat, while the wing of the one touched the wall on the south and the wing of the other touched the wall on the north. Then instead of these cherubim, like those on the ark, looking downwards towards the mercy seat, they looked outwards (2Ch 3:13). Inwards really means towards the house or outwards. And this is in harmony with the reign of righteousness which is foreshadowed in Solomon and the temple. At that time, righteousness reigning and being established, these symbols of Gods power can look outwards in blessing, instead of having their eyes fixed on the covenant alone. During the time there was nothing but the covenant, they gazed upon it; but when God has established His throne in righteousness, He can turn towards the world to bless it according to that righteousness.
the house of the Lord
The typology of the temple, if indeed it has any typical significance, is most obscure and difficult. The N.T. invariably expounds the typology of the tabernacle, not of the temple. The symbolism of the latter may be revealed in the kingdom-age (see “Kingdom” O.T., (See Scofield “Gen 1:26”) See Scofield “Zec 12:8” N.T.,; Luk 1:32; 1Co 15:28. In the N.T. the usual Gk. word for sanctuary (naos) is used
(1) of the temple in Jerusalem Mat 23:16.
(2) of the believer’s body 1Co 3:16; 1Co 3:17; 1Co 6:19
(3) of the local church 2Co 6:16 and
(4) of the true church Eph 2:21 But in all these instances the thought is simply of a habitation of God. No reference to the structure of the temple, as in the case of the tabernacle Heb 9:1 to Heb 10:39.
Zif
Second month, i.e. May.
am 2993, bc 1011, An, Ex, Is, 480
And it came: Jdg 11:26, 2Ch 3:1, 2Ch 3:2
in the month Zif: 1Ki 6:37, Num 1:1
began: Heb. built, Act 7:47
build: 1Ch 29:19, Zec 6:12, Zec 6:13, Zec 6:15, Joh 2:19-21, 1Co 6:19, 2Co 6:16, Eph 2:20-22, Col 2:7, Heb 9:11, Heb 11:10, 1Pe 2:5
Reciprocal: Exo 31:6 – that they 1Ki 3:1 – the house 1Ki 6:38 – seven years 1Ki 10:4 – the house 1Ki 11:4 – when Solomon 1Ch 6:10 – Solomon 2Ch 9:3 – the house Ezr 5:11 – which a great Heb 4:7 – after
BUILDING THE TEMPLE
THE WORK IN OUTLINE (1Ki 6:1-14)
Note the particularities as to date, dimensions and general appearance (1Ki 6:1-4), on which space will not permit extended comment. As to the size of the cubit, the question as to whether the elevation is external or internal, the description and purpose of the windows, for example, students must be referred to Bible dictionaries.
The chambers (1Ki 6:5-10) on three sides of the temple seem to have been three stories high, each wider than that beneath it, with a winding stairway on the interior leading to the middle and upper stories.
Travelers speak of a quarry near Jerusalem from which the stones are likely to have come. There is evidence too, that they were dressed there as the text says (1Ki 6:7), for other stones like them in size and substance are found in the remains.
The communication of the Lord to Solomon is significant of encouragement and warning. When He speaks of dwelling among His people it has the same meaning as when He used the words in the wilderness. The visible glory resting over the mercy seat in the most holy place was the token of His presence. It remained there while the nation served Him, and that meant that He was protecting and blessing them.
THE DETAILS (1Ki 6:15-38)
1Ki 6:15 reveals that the walls were sheathed with cedar and the floor planked with fir or cypress; thus the stone was entirely hidden. The walls were carved in relief with foliage and flowers (1Ki 6:18) and cherubim and palm trees (1Ki 6:29). But the whole was overlaid with gold (1Ki 6:22).
Comparing the first and last verses of the chapter, how long was the temple in building? In round numbers how does the last verse reckon it?
SOLOMONS OWN PALACE (1Ki 7:1-12)
Perhaps the longer time occupied in building this is explained by the fact that its completion was not so urgent or important as the temple, and that the same preparation for it had not been made in advance (1Ki 7:1).
In the Revised Version 1Ki 7:2 begins: For he built the house of the forest of Lebanon. This indicates that it is still his own house which is referred to, the material for which came from the same locality as that for the temple.
The edifice seems to have been oblong (1Ki 7:2), with a front porch used as a judgment hall (1Ki 7:6-7). There was also a large hall in the center, on one side of which were the kings apartments and on the other those of the queen (1Ki 7:8). Compare Est 2:3; Est 2:9.
The phrase in 1Ki 7:12, the inner court of the house of the Lord, should read as in the Revised Version, like as the inner court, etc. The meaning is that, in the palace as in the temple, the same rows of hewn stones and cedar beams formed the wall.
THE FOREIGN CRAFTSMAN AND HIS WORK (1Ki 7:13-51)
This Hiram was not the king of Tyre, but another man of that country by the same name, and evidently a genius in metal work (1Ki 7:14).
Tyrians and other Pheonicians were not only great workers in timber (1Ki 7:6), but renowned the world over for the art in which he so greatly excelled.
But Hiram had Jewish blood in him too (1Ki 7:14). Here he is said to be of the tribe of Naphtali on his mothers side, while 2Ch 2:14 speaks of her as of Dan; but she may have belonged to the first named while living in Dan.
Hirams work consisted, first, of the pillars of the temple and their capitols, the latter beautifully ornamented, and which were named as they were set up (1Ki 7:15-22).
Next came the molten sea (1Ki 7:23-26), which was not the same as the brazen laver of the tabernacle, as will be seen by comparing 2Ch 4:1-6, especially verse 6.
Then the ten bases of brass (1Ki 7:27-39), which, according to 1Ki 7:38, were for the support of the brazen layers. And these in turn were for the washing of the sacrifices (see 2 Chronicles 1, as above).
Hiram also made what other things (1Ki 7:40)? What locality was selected for the furnaces, and why? (For answer to the last half of this question compare the margin with the text of the verse.) The reference here is to bronze rather than what we know as brass.
Observe in 1Ki 7:51 that in addition to the furnishings which Solomon made for the temple and which were modeled after those in the tabernacle of the wilderness, he also deposited therein the sacred articles which David his father had dedicated, though they probably were not used.
QUESTIONS
1. What archaeological evidence is born to the historical character of this narrative?
2. How does God encourage and warn Solomon?
3. Why may a longer period have been taken in building the palace than the temple?
4. For what were the people on the north of Palestine noted?
5. How would you harmonize verse 14 with the corresponding reference in 2 Chronicles?
6. What do the names Jachin and Boaz mean?
7. For what use was the molten sea?
1Ki 6:1. In the four hundred and eightieth year Allowing forty years to Moses, seventeen to Joshua, two hundred and ninety-nine to the Judges, forty to Eli, forty to Samuel and Saul, forty to David, and four to Solomon before he began the work, we have just the sum of four hundred and eighty. So long it was before that holy house was built, which in less than four hundred and thirty years was burned by Nebuchadnezzar. It was thus deferred, because Israel had, by their sins, made themselves unworthy of this honour: and because God would show how little he values external pomp and splendour in his service. And God ordered it now, chiefly to be a shadow of good things to come. In the fourth year of Solomons reign Solomon was occupied more than three years in making the necessary preparations; for although, his father had amassed much treasure, had left him a plan, and provided many things necessary for the undertaking, yet as these materials, it appears, lay at a considerable distance, and were left rude and unfashioned, it could not cost less time to form them into the exact symmetry in which the Scripture represents them to have been before they were used, and to bring them together to Jerusalem. In the month Zif The second of the ecclesiastical year. The word signifying splendour, beauty, comeliness, it was a very proper name for that month when the trees and the whole vegetable creation first break forth, and the beauty of the spring begins to appear. He began to build the house of the Lord Either to lay the foundation of it, or to build on the foundation before mentioned.
1Ki 6:1. In the four hundred and eightieth year. The Hebrew, the Chaldaic, and most of the Greek versions read as the English; yet some difficulties occur. Vide Poli in locum. The following summary seems to contain the chronology.
Moses in the desert 40 Num 14:33
Joshua in war and peace 17 Not named
The Judges 299 Ushers chronology
Elis presidency 40 1Sa 4:18
Samuel and Saul 40
David 40 1Ki 2:11
Solomon 4 Solomons 4th year
480 years.
1Ki 6:26. One cherub was ten cubits, or more than eighteen feet. Those seen by Ezekiel were very large.
1Ki 6:29. He carved cherubims, and palm trees, and open flowers; that is, flowers in full bloom. The supreme Being was understood to delight in woods, groves, gardens, and fountains. So a poet has saidHabitarunt Dii quoque sylvas. But the druids thought he preferred cairns, craggs, and mountain-tops. The prophet says, he prefers the heart of the contrite, and the man that trembles at his word.
1Ki 6:36. Three rows of stone, and a row of cedar beams put across to support the floor, and shelter the worshippers from the solar rays and the rain. The stones used in the temple were all large.
REFLECTIONS.
We proceed now to the description of the glorious temple of the Lord of hosts as built by human hands: and it being designated as a figure of the true church, and illustrative of the heavenly mansions, let us review with veneration the stupendous pile. It stood on mount Moriah, the place where Isaac was laid on the altar. The area of the temple and its courts was a square of five hundred cubits. Eze 42:16-17. The exterior wall was strong like a fortress, comprising a square of four thousand cubits in circumference. Where the ground was irregular it was levelled by arches upon arches, to give beauty and uniformity to all the works. The foundation of this temple was laid with great solemnity, in the four hundred and eightieth year after the Israelites left Egypt, and became an independent nation; it being usual for nations to reckon their epoch from some early and memorable occurrence. The length of this temple was sixty cubits, the breadth twenty, and the height thirty. Difficulties here occur which in this age cannot be solved. If the cubit be eighteen inches, as Dr. Lightfoot here contends, or if it be eighteen inches and a handbreadth, the temple would still be no more than a gentlemans seat, or a good village church. Why then employ one hundred and eighty thousand men for seven years and a half in so contracted a work? Now we find, in the sixth chapter of Ezra, that Cyrus commanded the Jews to build a temple sixty feet high, and sixty broad, but the length not being named, is understood to be the same, which would be exactly six times larger than the temple of Solomon; yet the aged men wept because it was so much smaller than Solomons temple. Besides, we read in 2Ch 3:4, and in Josephus also, that the porch was one hundred and twenty cubits high: the porch was indeed thirty cubits high, but there were chambers over it. It is therefore highly probable that the sixty cubits in length was only the measure of one of the spaces between the four smaller towers which overlooked the building, the temple: and allowing twenty cubits for each of those towers, and sixty cubits for each of the spaces between, then the whole length of the front would be two hundred and sixty cubits. Allowing also the temple to have had four fronts exactly similar, it would exhibit a most noble and regular appearance. The height of the tower, and the length of the building, would then nearly correspond in height and length with the principal cathedral churches in Europe. There were also within the square of the temple other correspondent buildings which formed the court of the Israelites, the court of the priests, the court of the women, &c. The windows were narrow without, but wide within, that the rays of light might dilate in the chambers; and this was wisely done to prevent unpleasant effects from the force of tempests. The chambers were well adapted for the servants of the sanctuary; and happy were they whose dwellings were in the house of the Lord. Happier still are they who shall gain an everlasting priesthood in the house of our heavenly Father, in which there are many mansions. The winding staircase may mark the difficulties in our ascent to heaven; but when we once reach the top, we have a wide and unbounded prospect; yea, and not from Nebo, as Moses, for we shall then have realized the summit of our wishes, and shall find ourselves in the midst of the promised land. The brazen altar was raised very high, by which the Holy Ghost had designated the elevation of our Saviour on the cross.
But though the outside of the sanctuary was of huge and polished stone; yet the inside was of cedar, decorated with carvings, and coated with gold. So the church is ultimately made all glorious within, and adorned with all the adornings of God our Saviour. The Oracle, or the holy of holies, being a figure of heaven, contained the mercyseat, the ark, &c., as described in the last chapters of Exodus. But being a perfect square of twenty cubits, and the wings of each cherub being five feet, those figures stood near the ark to extend their wings around the mercyseat. Those were placed there, as we read in Isaiah the sixth, to represent the multitude of the heavenly host, surrounding the immediate presence of God. Let us learn of them to surround the throne of heaven with the constant oblations of prayer and praise. To sum up what has been said in Exodus, and also in this place, this temple was a striking figure of Christs mystical body, of his militant church, and of the everlasting and more glorious temple of the celestial city, and the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
1Ki 6:1-37. Description of Solomons Temple.The Temple area is on the eastern hill of Jerusalem, which overlooks the valley of the Kidron, with the Mount of Olives on the opposite side. It was probably not the Zion captured by David (2 Samuel 5), but the site was purchased by him from Ornan, or Araunah, the Jebusite (2Sa 24:18-25). It is marked by an outcrop of rock, now called the Sakrah. The Temple hill is divided from the Upper City on the western hill by a valley called the Tyropan (cheese-makers). The Temple was part of a great scheme of building which has been restored by Stade, whose reconstruction is now generally adopted in descriptions of early Jerusalem. To understand aright the difficult account of Solomons buildings in these chapters, Ezekiels restored Temple (Ezekiel 40-48) and Josephus sketch of Herods Temple (Wars, 1Ki 6:5), should be consulted.
The foundations of the Temple were laid in the four hundred and eightieth year after the Exodus, and in the fourth year of Solomon (1). This is the earliest date given in the Bible. But the reading is doubtful. (a) The arrangement of chs. 5 and 6 is very different in the LXX. (b) Origen did not know the date. (c) Josephus says that the Temple was built 592 years after the Exodus, Exo 10:20 after Abraham left Mesopotamia, 1440 after the Flood, and Exo 31:02 after the Creation (Ant. viii. 31). The number 480 can be best explained by the Hebrew reckoning of a generation to be 40 years. By this reckoning, approximate at best, a similar period might be said to intervene between Solomon and the Captivity (430 years to the time of the last king, Zedekiah, and 50 years for the Captivity, the 70 being reckoned from the fall of Jehoiachin).
The Temple was sixty cubits long and twenty broad. It was approached by a porch, and around it were rooms or side chambers in three stories. The dimensions are twice those of the Tabernacle (Exo 26:7-13). Small as they were even then, it must be borne in mind that an ancient temple was intended not as a place in which a congregation might assemble, but as a shrine or abode of the Deity. The Greeks drew a distinction between the whole building and grounds of a temple (hieron) and the sanctuary (naos). The house described in this chapter is the latter, though it consisted (1Ki 6:16 f.) of two parts, the hekal or temple, and the debir, translated oracle, which was the naos, strictly speaking. The former corresponded to the holy place in the Tabernacle, the latter to the holy of holies (1Ki 6:16, a P addition). The oracle was a perfect cube, being twenty cubits in length, breadth, and height respectively (1Ki 6:20), the holy place being a double cube forty cubits in length. The table for the shewbread was of cedar (1Ki 7:48). The huge winged cherubim were placed in the inner sanctuary. The Temple was seven years building, and was finished in the eighth month, Bul (Oct.Nov.).
THE BUILDING OF THE TEMPLE
(vs.1-38)
The date of the beginning of the temple is given specifically in verse 1 as the 480th year after Israel had left Egypt, which was the 4th year of Solomon’s reign, in the month Ziv, the second month of the year (v.1). All that time was required before Israel attained the zenith of their power and splendor. Sadly, it did not last very long – yet it was a fulfillment of God’s promise to Israel that He would take Israel from Egypt and establish them in great blessing in the land of promise. The permanent fulfillment of this promise awaits the coming of the Messiah in power and glory, when He will establish Israel in millennial blessing.
The size of the temple was comparatively small, though its splendor was unsurpassed. The temple was 60 by 20 cubits and 30 cubits high (v.2). The vestibule at the front was additional to this, spanning the 20 cubits width and extending ten cubits outward (v.3). The cubit is understood to be between 18 and 22 inches. Surrounding the main building on all sides except the front there were chambers built three stories high, the lower rooms only 5 cubits wide, the middle six cubits and the upper seven cubits (vs.5-6). Their other dimensions are not given.
There was nothing like this in the tabernacle, for the tabernacle symbolizes God’s dwelling among a pilgrim people on earth, who had tents rather than any settled dwelling place. The temple pictures the Father’s house in heaven. In the temple, however, there could only be a limited number of rooms used by the priests, who were serving in the temple at a given time. But the Lord Jesus says, “In My Father’s house are many mansions” (Joh 14:2). Thus the type is only a faint picture of the reality. The Lord is virtually saying there is room for all His redeemed people there. The word for “mansions” is better translated “abodes,” permanent dwelling places. All believers will have their place there, for all are priests of God and in glory will function in the full capacity of priests, mainly in offering up spiritual sacrifices to God.
Verse 7 informs us that when the stones were quarried they were completely finished at the quarry, formed to exact size to fit in place, so that no hammer, chisel or other tool was heard in the actual building. This required remarkable skill. It pictures the skill of the Lord Jesus in hewing out sinners from the caverns of sin and fitting them perfectly for use in the house of God He is building today, the Church. The work goes on quietly but effectively, with no fanfare or ostentation. The world over the Lord is adding to the Church daily those who are being saved.
The doorway for the stairs up to the second and third floors was on the right side (v.8). Since no other door for the upstairs is mentioned, it seems that there must have been a hallway on the three sides, connecting all the rooms. Each of the rooms was 5 cubits high (v.10), though their length is not mentioned.
The temple inside was paneled with beams and boards of cedar (v.9). The tabernacle was built of acacia boards (Exo 26:15). Acacia is a hard, desert wood and speaks of humanity in temporary circumstances of desert experience. Those boards picture believers as they are seen even now “in Christ” for they were covered with gold. But the cedar of the temple, a specially enduring wood, speaks of believers in glory, in the Father’s house, also clothed with gold, the symbol of divine glory, reflecting the beauty of Christ for eternity, not only on earth.
While the temple was still in building, God spoke to Solomon, telling him seriously that God’s dwelling in the temple would be conditional upon Solomon’s obedience to God’s statutes, his executing God’s judgments and keeping His commandments (vs.11-13). How different this is to the fact that the Church of God is now established as “a habitation of God in the Spirit” (Eph 2:21-22). God’s presence in the Church is not conditional on our obedience, but is based upon the permanent value of the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus, a divine work, with no condition of man’s work involved at all.
Neither Solomon personally nor his family nor his subjects fulfilled the conditions God set down, so that eventually God withdrew from the temple. Ezekiel records the glory departing in stages (Eze 8:4; Eze 9:3; Eze 10:18; Eze 11:23). God did bear long with Israel’s disobedience, but eventually, as the Lord Jesus said, “Your house is left to you desolate” (Mat 23:38). This was solemnly finalized when the Lord Jesus, the Son over God’s house, was rejected and crucified. What could the temple be without its Lord?
The inside walls of the temple were built of cedar from the floor to the ceiling, and the floor with planks of cypress (v.15). Cypress is a hard, durable wood of fragrant smell. Cedar is not so hard but just as durable.
The inner sanctuary also had walls of cedar and was 20 cubits in all three dimensions (vs.16, 20). This was 10 cubits less in height than the temple proper, but nothing is said as to what was done with the other ten cubits. The outer sanctuary was twice the size of the inner, being 40 cubits long and the same width and height. These are the same proportions as are seen in the tabernacle (Exo 26:15-32).
The cedar walls were carved with ornamental buds and open flowers (v.18). Of course these would be visible through the overlaying gold. These buds and flowers are a reminder of resurrection life, just as in eternity the Father’s house will portray the wonderful joy and beauty of the resurrection of Christ, a life vibrant and eternal.
Then the inner sanctuary was prepared as a place for the ark. This was the only article of furniture inside the holiest of all. It speaks of Christ as the Sustainer of the throne of God, for the mercy-seat covering the ark symbolizes God’s throne, which is not only a throne of justice and authority, but a throne of grace or of mercy, from which God’s mercy is dispensed to those in need (Heb 4:16).
The inner sanctuary was a cube, 20 cubits in length, breadth and height (v.20). This is beautifully symbolic of the Trinity. God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The unity and equality of each member of the Trinity is pictured in this. We cannot say that the Father is part of God, nor the Son or the Spirit are part of God. The cube tells us that the Father is God, the Son is God and the Spirit is God; for it could not be said that the length is part of the cube, the width also a part and the height a part. Every point within the cube is comprehended in the length, also in the width and in the height. If one dimension is taken away, nothing is left. Thus, while God is a triune Being, the oneness of the Godhead is also emphasized.
The sanctuary was overlaid with pure gold, and the cedar altar also (v.20). This was evidently the same altar as mentioned in verse 22 which was placed in the outer sanctuary next to the inner sanctuary. This altar was for offering incense. It pictures Christ as the Sustainer of the worship of His people. The altar of burnt offering was outside, for on this were offered the many animals, all of them speaking of the value of the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary for us. Now, being raised from the dead, He “dieth no more,” but He receives worship.
Having overlaid the inside of the temple with pure gold, Solomon also had gold chains stretched across the front of the inner sanctuary. The gold chains were evidently in addition to the doors (v.31). The veil also was in place there, for chapter 8:4 tells us that all the holy furnishings of the tabernacle were brought to the temple; and of course at the time of the death of the Lord Jesus, the veil of the temple was torn in two from the top to the bottom. Gold speaks of the beauty of the glory of God, for the temple was His dwelling.
Also, in the inner sanctuary were two cherubim carved from olive wood. The olive is symbolic of Christ from whom the Spirit of God (the oil) is sent from the Father (Joh 15:26). These were also covered with gold (v.28). Their size was large, with their wings stretched sideways, each measuring 10 cubits from wing tip to wing tip. Being side by side, their inside wings touched each other and the outside wings touched the wall on either side, thus spanning the whole width of 20 cubits. The cherubim symbolize the government of God. Since there were two this reminds us of the perfect balance of God’s government, involving both justice and grace which are equally important (vs.22-27).
Besides this all the walls of both the inner and outer sanctuary were carved with figures of cherubim, palm trees and open flowers. The number of these is not mentioned, nor the size of the cherubim. Likely they were smaller than the first two mentioned. But God was thus insisting on His government of grace and truth, which people too easily forget. The palm trees speak of Christ who bears fruit with unfailing consistency. The open flowers picture the mature beauty (not buds) of the Lord Jesus. Thus we see the four principles that are of paramount importance if God was to dwell there – grace, truth, fruitfulness and beauty.
Doors of olive wood were made for the entrance to the inner sanctuary (v.31). There were two of these doors and they also had carvings of figures of cherubim, palm trees and open flowers (v.32). In the tabernacle there were no doors, but only a veil, because the tabernacle was temporary as God’s dwelling while Israel were journeying in the wilderness; but in the temple there were evidently doors as well as the veil.
There were also doors by which to enter into the outer sanctuary The posts for these were made of olive wood (v.33), but the doors themselves of cypress (v.34). These two had carvings of cherubim, palm trees and open flowers, all overlaid with gold (v.35).
The court surrounding the temple was fenced with three rows of hewn stone and a row of cedar beams (v.36). It may be difficult to envision just what is meant by this, and the spiritual significance of it may be just as difficult to discern.
Seven years were required for the building to be completed. This may seem a long time when so large a number of workmen were engaged in the work, but there had to be painstaking labor involved in the great detail of the work, for the temple pictures the Father’s house in glory.
6:1 And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month {a} Zif, which [is] the second month, that he began to build the {b} house of the LORD.
(a) Which contains part of April and part of May.
(b) By which is meant the temple and the oracle.
2. Temple construction ch. 6
After arrangements for building the temple were in order, construction began. This building took seven years to complete (1Ki 6:38).
"In an earlier era scholars debunked the reality of a temple in Israel like Solomon’s because nothing similar was known from the ancient Near East. However, at ’Ain Dara (and earlier in Tall Ta’yinat), Syria, a temple from the tenth century B.C. came to light that bore a remarkable similarity to the temple of Jerusalem. The size is approximately the same; it consists of two chambers, the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place; and it clearly accommodated cultic features like those described in the Bible. Thus the notion that Israel had a temple in the tenth century rests on firm ground." [Note: Eugene Merrill, "The Veracity of the Word: A Summary of Major Archaeological Finds," Kindred Spirit 34:3 (Winter 2010):13.]
The outside of the temple 6:1-10
1Ki 6:1 is one of the most important verses in the Old Testament chronologically. The dates of Solomon’s reign (971-931 B.C.) are quite certain. They rest on references that other ancient Near Eastern king lists corroborate. Solomon began temple construction about 966 B.C. According to this verse the Exodus took place in 1445 or 1446 B.C. Most conservative scholars who take statements in Scripture like this verse seriously hold this date for the Exodus. The more popular date of about 1280 B.C. rests primarily on the assumption that Ramses II was the pharaoh of the Exodus. Those who hold this view believe historical similarities between conditions during Ramses’ reign and the biblical description of the Exodus support their theory. There are some first-rate otherwise conservative scholars who hold the later (1280) date. [Note: E.g., Kenneth A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament, pp. 57-75.]
Why did the writer of Kings tie the building of the temple to the Exodus? It was evidently for the reason explained above. With the building of the temple Israel would have an opportunity as never before in her history to realize the purpose for which God had formed and freed the nation. That purpose was to draw all people to Himself.
Even though we have some information about the general specifications and appearance of the temple, the omission of other data makes the reproduction of a complete detailed model impossible. Essentially it followed the pattern of both the Mosaic tabernacle and other ancient Near Eastern temples. [Note: See William F. Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, pp. 142-56. V. Hurowitz, I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writing, is a thorough survey of ancient temple buildings. See also B. Halpern, The Constitution of the Monarchy in Israel, pp. 19-24.]
The temple was 90 feet long, 30 feet wide, and 45 feet high. It had about 2,700 square feet of floor space. Its large open front porch added 15 more feet to its length. It was about twice the size of the Mosaic tabernacle, and it faced east, as did the tabernacle and other ancient Near Eastern temples. Solomon’s temple was similar to other ancient Near Eastern temples in both size and design. [Note: See Hurowitz, pp. 251-546.] This is an example of acculturation: God giving revelation of Himself in forms that were familiar to the original recipients. The exterior of the temple was limestone, cedar, and gold, so it must have been extremely beautiful.
On two or three sides there were narrow clerestory windows above the three stories of side rooms that projected from the outer walls. The priests used these side rooms for storage and service purposes. They were smallest on the first floor where there were also hallways and stairways, larger on the second floor that also had halls and stairs, and largest on the third floor. The offset ledges were apparently supports for the upper floors that fastened to the walls of this surrounding structure. Measurements in the text are probably inside dimensions.
Evidently Solomon wanted to preserve the sanctity of the temple even while it was under construction by eliminating as much noise as possible (1Ki 6:7; cf. Deu 27:5-6).
; 1Ki 6:1-38; 1Ki 7:1-51
THE TEMPLE
1Ki 5:1-18; 1Ki 6:1-38; 1Ki 7:1-51
“And his next son, for wealth and wisdom famed, The clouded Ark of God, till then in tents Wandering, shall in a glorious temple enshrine.”
-Paradise Lost, 12:340.
AFTER the destructive battle of Aphek, in which the Philistines had defeated Israel, slain the two sons of Eli, and taken captive the Ark of God, they had inflicted a terrible vengeance on the old sanctuary at Shiloh. They had burnt the young men in the fire, and slain the priests with the sword, and no widows were left to make lamentation. {Psa 78:58-64} It is true that, terrified by portents and diseases, the Philistines after a time restored the Ark, and the Tabernacle of the wilderness with its brazen altar still gave sacredness to the great high place at Gibeon, to which apparently it had been removed. Nevertheless, the old worship seems to have languished till it received a new and powerful impulse from the religious earnestness of David. He had the mind of a patriot-statesman as well as of a soldier, and he felt that a nation is nothing without its sacred memories. Those memories clustered round the now-discredited Ark. Its capture, and its parade as a trophy of victory in the shrine of Dagon, had robbed it of all its superstitious prestige as a fetish; but, degraded as it had been, it still continued to be the one inestimably precious historic relic which enshrined the memories of the deliverance of Israel from Egypt, and the dawn of its heroic age.
As soon as David had given to his people the boon of a unique capital, nothing could be more natural than the wish to add sacredness to the glory of the capital by making it the center of the national worship. According to the Chronicles, David-feeling it a reproach that he himself should dwell in palaces celled with cedar and painted with vermilion while the Ark of God dwelt between curtains-had made unheard-of preparations to build a house for God. But it had been decreed unfit that the sanctuary should be built by a man whose hands were red with the blood of many wars, and he had received the promise that the great work should be accomplished by his son.
Into that work Solomon threw himself with hearty zeal in the month Zif of the fourth year of his reign, when his kingdom was consolidated. It commanded all his sympathies as an artist, a lover of magnificence, and a ruler bent on the work of centralization. It was a task to which he was bound by the solemn exhortation of his father, and he felt, doubtless, its political as well as its religious importance. With his sincere desire to build to Gods glory was mingled a prophetic conviction that his task would be fraught with immense issues for the future of his people and of all the world. The presence of the Temple left its impress on the very name of Jerusalem. Although it has nothing to do with the Temple or with Solomon, it became known to the heathen world as Hierosolyma, which, as we see from Eupolemos (Euseb., Praep. Evang., 9:34), the Gentile world supposed to mean “the Temple (Hieron) of Solomon.”
The materials already provided were of priceless value. David had consecrated to God the spoils which he had won from conquered kings. We must reject, as the exaggerations of national vanity, the monstrous numbers which now stand in the text of the chronicler; but a king whose court was simple and inexpensive was quite able to amass treasures of gold and silver, brass and iron, precious marbles and onyx stones. Solomon had only to add to these sacred stores.
He inherited the friendship which David had enjoyed, with Hiram, King of Tyre, who, according to the strange phrase of the Vatican Septuagint, sent his servants “to anoint” Solomon. The friendliest overtures passed between the two kings in letters, to which Josephus appeals as still extant. A commercial treaty was made by which Solomon engaged to furnish the Tyrian king with annual revenues of wheat, barley, and oil; {Comp. Eze 27:17 Act 12:20} and Hiram put at Solomons disposal the skilled labor of an army of Sidonian wood-cutters and artisans. The huge trunks of cedar and cypress were sent rushing down the heights of Lebanon by schlittage, and laboriously dragged by road or river to the shore. There they were constructed into immense rafts, which were floated a hundred miles along the coast to Joppa, where they were again dragged with enormous toil for thirty-five miles up the steep and rocky roads to Jerusalem. For more than twenty years, while Solomon was building the Temple and his various royal constructions, Jerusalem became a hive of ceaseless and varied industry. Its ordinary inhabitants must have been swelled by an army of Canaanite serfs and Phoenician artisans to whom residences were assigned in Ophel. There lived the hewers and bevellers of stone; the cedar-cutters of Gebal or Biblos; the cunning workmen in gold or brass; the bronze-casters who made their moulds in the clay ground of the Jordan valley; the carvers and engravers; the dyers who stained wool with the purple of the murex, and the scarlet dye of the trumpet fish; the weavers and embroiderers of fine linen. Every class of laborer was put into requisition, from the descendants of the Gibeonite Nethinim, who were rough hewers of wood and drawers of water, to the trained artificers whose beautiful productions were the wonder of the world. The “father,” or master-workman, of the whole community was a half-caste, who also bore the name of Hiram, and was the son of a woman of Naphtali by a Tyrian father.
Some writers have tried to minimize Solomons work as a builder, and have spoken of the Temple as an exceedingly insignificant structure which would not stand a moments comparison with the smallest and humblest of our own cathedrals. Insignificant in size it certainly was, but we must not forget its costly splendor, the remote age in which the work was achieved, and the truly stupendous constructions which the design required. Mount Moriah was selected as a site hallowed by the tradition of Abrahams sacrifice, and more recently by Davids vision of the Angel of the Pestilence with his drawn sword on the threshing-floor of the Jebusite Prince Araunah. But to utilize this doubly consecrated area involved almost superhuman difficulties, which would have been avoided if the loftier but less suitable height of the Mount of Olives could have been chosen. The rugged summit had to be enlarged to a space of five hundred yards square, and this level was supported by Cyclopean walls, which have long been the wonder of the world. The magnificent wall on the east side, known as “the Jews wailing-place,” is doubtless the work of Solomon, and after outlasting “the drums and tramplings of a hundred triumphs,” it remains to this day in uninjured massiveness. One of the finely beveled stones is 38 1/2 feet long and 7 feet high, and weighs more than 100 tons. These vast stones were hewn from a quarry above the level of the wall, and lowered by rollers down an inclined plane. Part of the old wall rises 30 feet above the present level of the soil, but a far larger part of the height lies hidden 80 feet under the accumulated debris of the often captured city. At the southwest angle, by Robinsons arch, three pavements were discovered, one beneath the other, showing the gradual filling up of the valley; and on the lowest of these were found the broken voussoirs of the arch. In Solomons day the whole of this mighty wall was visible. On one of the lowest stones have been discovered the Phoenician paint-marks which indicated where each of the huge masses, so carefully dressed, edge-drafted, and beveled, was to be placed in the structure. The caverns, quarries water storages, and subterranean conduits hewn out of the solid rock, over which Jerusalem is built, could only have been constructed at the cost of immeasurable toil. They would be wonderful even with our infinitely more rapid methods and more powerful agencies; but when we remember that they were made three thousand years ago we do not wonder that their massiveness has haunted the imagination of so many myriads of visitors from every nation. It was perhaps from his Egyptian father-in-law that Solomon, to his own cost, learnt the secret of forced labor which alone rendered such undertakings possible. In their Egyptian bondage the forefathers of Israel had been fatally familiar with the ugly word Mas, the labor wrung from them by hard task-masters. {Exo 1:2} In the reign of Solomon it once more became only too common on the lips of the burdened people. 1Ki 4:6; 1Ki 5:13-14; 1Ki 5:17-18; 1Ki 9:15; 1Ki 21:12-18.
Four classes were subject to it.
1. The lightest labor was required from the native freeborn Israelites (ezrach). They were not regarded as bondsmen yet 30,000 of these were required in relays of 10,000 to work, one month in every three, in the forest of Lebanon.
2. There were strangers, or resident aliens (Gerim), such as the Phoenicians and Giblites, who were Hirams subjects and worked for pay.
3. There were three classes of slaves-those taken in war, or sold for debt, or home-born.
4. Lowest and most wretched of all, there were the vassal Canaanites (Toshabim), from whom were drawn those 70, 000 burden-bearers, and 80, 000 quarry-men, the Helots of Palestine, who were placed under the charge of 3600 Israelite ofricers. The blotches of smoke are still visible on the walls and roofs of the subterranean quarries where there poor serfs, in the dim torchlight and suffocating air “labored without reward, perished without pity, and suffered without redress.” The sad narrative reveals to us, and modern research confirms, that the purple of Solomon had a very seamy side, and that an abyss of misery heaved and moaned under the glittering surface of his splendor. {1Ki 5:13; 1Ki 9:22 2Ch 8:9} (Omitted in the LXX) Jerusalem during the twenty years occupied by his building must have presented the disastrous spectacle of task-masters, armed with rods and scourges, enforcing the toil of gangs of slaves, as we see them represented in the tombs of Egypt and the palaces of Assyria. The sequel shows the jealousies and discontents even of the native Israelites, who felt themselves to be “scourged with whips and laden with heavy burdens.” They were bondmen in all but name, for purposes which bore very little on their own welfare. But the curses of the wretched aborigines must have been deeper, if not so loud. They were torn from such homes as the despotism of conquest still left to them, and were forced to hopeless and unrewarded toil for the alien worship and hateful palaces of their masters. Five centuries later we find a pitiable trace of their existence in the 392 Hierodouloi, menials lower even than the enslaved Nethinim, who are called “sons of the slaves of Solomon”-the dwindling and miserable remnant of that vast levy of Palestinian serfs.
Apart from the lavish costliness of its materials the actual Temple was architecturally a poor and commonplace structure. It was quite small-only 90 feet long, 35 feet broad, and 45 feet high. It was meant for the symbolic habitation of God, not for the worship of great congregations. It only represented the nascent art and limited resources of a tenth-rate kingdom, and was totally devoid alike of the pure and stately beauty of the Parthenon and the awe-inspiring grandeur of the great Egyptian temples with their avenues of obelisks and sphinxes and their colossal statues of deities and kings
“Staring right on with calm, eternal eyes.”
When Justinian, boastfully exclaimed, as he looked at his church, “I have vanquished thee, O Solomon,” and when the Khalif Omar, pointing to the Dome of the Rock, murmured, “Behold, a greater than Solomon is here,” they forgot the vast differences between them and the Jewish king in the epoch at which they lived and the resources which they could command. The Temple was built in “majestic silence.”
“No workmans axe no ponderous hammer rung.
Like some tall palm the noiseless fabric sprung.”
This was due to religious reverence. It could be easily accomplished, because each stone and beam was carefully prepared to be fitted in its exact place before it was carried up the Temple hill.
The elaborate particulars furnished us of the measurements of Solomons Temple are too late in age, too divergent in particulars, too loosely strung together, too much mingled with later reminiscences, and altogether too architecturally insufficient, to enable us to reconstruct the exact building, or even to form more than a vague conception of its external appearance. Both in Kings and Chronicles the notices, as Keil says, are “incomplete extracts made independently of one another.” and vague in essential details. Critics and architects have attempted to reproduce the Temple on Greek, Egyptian, and Phoenician models, so entirely unlike each other as to show that we can arrive at no certainty. It is, however, most probable that, alike in ornamentation and conception, the building was predominantly Phoenician. Severe in outline, gorgeous in detail, it was more like the Temple of Venus-Astarte at Paphos than any other. Fortunately the details, apart from such dim symbolism as we may detect in them, have no religious importance, but only a historic and antiquarian interest.
The Temple-called Baith or Hekal-was surrounded by the thickly clustered houses of the Levites, and by porticoes through which the precincts were entered by numerous gates of wood overlaid with brass. A grove of olives, palms, cedars, and cypresses, the home of many birds, probably adorned the outer court. This court was shut from the “higher court,” {Jer 36:10} afterwards known as “the Court of the Priests,” by a partition of three rows of hewn stones surmounted by a cornice of cedar beams. In the higher court, which was reached by a flight of steps, was the vast new altar of brass, 15 feet high and 30 feet long, of which the hollow was filled with earth and stones, and of which the blazing sacrifices were visible in the court below. Here also stood the huge molten sea, borne on the backs of twelve brazen oxen, of which three faced to each quarter of the heavens. It was in the form of a lotus blossom, and its rim was hung with three hundred wild gourds in bronze, cast in two rows. Its reservoir of eight hundred and eighty gallons of water was for the priestly ablutions necessary in the butcheries of sacrifice, and its usefulness was supplemented by ten brazen caldrons on wheels, five on each side, adorned like “the sea,” with pensile garlands and cherubic emblems, Whether “the brazen serpent of the wilderness,” to which the children of Israel burnt incense down to the days of Hezekiah, was in that court or in the Temple we do not know.
On the western side of this court, facing the rising sun, stood the Temple itself, on a platform elevated some sixteen feet from the ground. Its side chambers were “lean-to” annexes (Hebrews, ribs; Vulg., tabulata) in three stories, all accessible by one central entrance on the outside. Their beams rested on rebatements in the thickness of the wall, and the highest was the broadest. Above these were windows “skewed and closed,” as the margin of the A.V. says; or “broad within and narrow without”; or, as it should rather be rendered, “with closed crossbeams,” that is, with immovable lattices, which could not be opened and shut, but which allowed the escape of the smoke of lamps and the fumes of incense. These chambers must also have had windows. They were used to store the garments of the priests and other necessary paraphernalia of the Temple service, but as to all details we are left completely in the dark.
Of the external aspect of the building in Solomons day we know nothing. We cannot even tell whether it had one level roof, or whether the Holy of Holies was like a lower chancel at the end of it; nor whether the roof was flat or, as the Rabbis say, ridged; nor whether the outer surface of the three-storeyed chambers which surrounded it was of stone, or planked with cedar, or overlaid with plinths of gold and silver; nor whether, in any case, it was ornamented with carvings or left blank; nor whether the cornices only were decorated with open flowers like the Assyrian rosettes. Nor do we know with certainty whether it was supported within by pillars or not. In the state of the records as they have come down to us, all accurate or intelligible descriptions are slurred over by compilers who had no technical knowledge and whose main desire was to impress their countrymen with the truth that the holy building was-as indeed for its day it was-“exceeding magnifical of fame and of glory throughout all countries.”
In front of or just within the porch were two superb pillars, regarded as miracles of Tyrian art, made of fluted bronze, 27 feet high and 18 feet thick. Their capitals of 7 1/2 feet in height resembled an open lotus blossom, surrounded by double wreaths of two hundred pensile bronze pomegranates, supporting an abacus, carved with conventional lily work. Both pomegranates and lilies had a symbolic meaning. The pillars were, for unknown reasons, called Jachin and Boaz. Much about them is obscure. It is not even known whether they stood detached like obelisks, or formed Propylaea; or supported the architraves of the porch itself, or were a sort of gateway, surmounted by a melathron with two epithemas, like a Japanese or Indian toran. The porch (Olam), which was of the same height as the house (i.e. 45 feet high), was hung with the gilded shields of Hadadezers soldiers which David had taken in battle, and perhaps also with consecrated armor, like the sword of Goliath, {2Sa 8:7, 1Ch 18:7} to show that “unto the Lord belongeth our shield,” {Psa 89:18} and that “the shields of the earth belong unto God.” {Psa 47:9} A door of cypress wood, of two leaves, made in four squares, 7 1/2 feet broad and high, turning on golden hinges overlaid with gold, and carved with palm branches and festoons of lilies and pomegranates, opened from the porch into the main apartment. This was the Mikdash, Holy Place, or Sanctuary, and sometimes specially called in Chaldee “the Palace” (Hekal, or Birah). {Ezr 5:14-15, etc.} Before it, as in the Tabernacle, hung an embroidered curtain (Masak). It was probably supported by four pillars on each side. In the interspaces were five tables on each side, overlaid with gold, and each encircled by a wreath of gold (zer). On these were placed the cakes of shewbread. At the end of the chamber, on each side the door of the Holiest, were five golden candlesticks with chains of wreathed gold hanging between them. In the center of the room stood the golden altar of incense, and somewhere (we must suppose) the golden candlestick of the Tabernacle, with its seven branches ornamented with lilies, pomegranates, and calices of almond flowers. Nothing which was in the darkness of the Holiest was visible except the projecting golden staves with which the Ark had been carried to its place. The Holy Place itself was lighted by narrow slits.
The entrance to the Holiest, the Debir, or oracle, which corresponded to the Greek adytum, was through a two-leaved door of olive wood, 6 feet high and broad, overlaid with gold, and carved with palms, cherubim, and open flowers. The partition was of cedar wood. The floor of the whole house was of cedar overlaid with gold. The interior of this “Oracle,” as it was called-for the title “Holy of Holies” is of later origin-was, at any rate in the later Temples, concealed by an embroidered veil of blue, purple, and crimson, looped up with golden chains. The Oracle, like the New Jerusalem of the Apocalypse, was a perfect cube, 30 feet broad and long and high, covered with gold, but shrouded in perpetual and unbroken darkness.
No light was ever visible in it save such as was shed by the crimson gleam of the thurible of incense which the high priest carried into it once a year on the Great Day of Atonement. In the center of the floor must apparently have risen the mass of rock which is still visible in the Mosque of Omar, from which it is called Al Sakhra, “the Dome of the Rock.” Tradition pointed to it as the spot on which Abraham had laid for sacrifice the body of his son Isaac, when the angel restrained the descending knife. It was also the site of Araunahs threshing-floor, and had been. therefore hallowed by two angelic apparitions. On it was deposited with solemn ceremony the awful palladium of the Ark, which had been preserved through the wanderings and wars of the Exodus and the troublous days of the Judges. It contained the most sacred possession of the nation, the most priceless treasure which Israel guarded for the world. This treasure was the Two Tables of the Ten Commandments, graven (in the anthropomorphic language of the ancient record) by the actual finger of God; the tables which Moses had shattered on the rocks of Mount Sinai as he descended to the backsliding people. The Ark was covered with its old “Propitiatory,” or “Mercy-seat,” overshadowed by the wings of two small cherubim; but Solomon had prepared for its reception a new and far more magnificent covering, in the form of two colossal cherubim, 15 feet high, of which each expanded wing was 7 1/2 feet long. These wings touched the outer walls of the Oracle, and also touched each other over the center of the Ark.
Such was the Temple.
It was the “forum, fortress, university, and sanctuary” of the Jews, and the transitory emblem of the Church of Christs kingdom. It was destined to occupy a large share in the memory, and even in the religious development, of the world, because it became the central point round which crystallized the entire history of the Chosen People. The kings of Judah are henceforth estimated with almost exclusive reference to the relation in which they stood to the centralized worship of Jehovah. The Spanish kings who built and decorated the Escurial caught the spirit of Jewish annals when, in the Court of the Kings, they reared the six colossal statues of David the originator, of Solomon the founder, of Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, Josiah, and Manasseh the restorers or purifiers of the Temple worship.
It required the toil of 300, 000 men for twenty years to build one of the pyramids. It took two hundred years to build and four hundred to embellish the great Temple of Artemis of the Ephesians. It took more than five centuries to give to Westminster Abbey its present form. Solomons Temple only took seven and a half years to build; but, as we shall see, its objects were wholly different from those of the great shrines which we have mentioned. The wealth lavished upon it was such that its dishes, bowls, cups, even its snuffers and snuffer trays, and its meanest utensils, were of pure gold. The massiveness of its substructions, the splendor of its materials, the artistic skill displayed by the Tyrian workmen in all its details and adornments, added to the awful sense of its indwelling Deity, gave it an imperishable fame. Needing but little repair, it stood for more than four centuries. Succeeded as it was by the Temples of Zerubbabel and of Herod, it carried down till seventy years after the Christian era the memory of the Tabernacle in the wilderness, of which it preserved the general outline, though it exactly doubled all the proportions and admitted many innovations.
The dedication ceremony was carried out with the utmost pomp. It required nearly a year to complete the necessary preparations, and the ceremony with its feasts occupied fourteen days; which were partly coincident with the autumn Feast of Tabernacles.
The dedication falls into three great acts. The first was the removal of the Ark to its new home; {1Ki 8:1-3} then followed the speech and the prayer of Solomon (1Ki 8:12-61); and, finally, the great holocaust was offered (1Ki 8:62-66).
The old Tabernacle, or what remained of it, with its precious heirlooms, was carried by priests and Levites from the high place at Gibeon, which was henceforth abandoned. This procession was met by another, far more numerous and splendid, consisting of all the princes, nobles, and captains, which brought the Ark from the tent erected for it on Mount Zion by David forty years before.
The Israelites had flocked to Jerusalem in countless multitudes, under their sheykhs and emirs from the border of Hamath on the Orontes, north of Mount Lebanon, to the Wady el-Areesh. The king, in his most regal state, accompanied the procession, and the Ark passed through myriads of worshippers crowded in the outer court, from the tent on Mount Zion into the darkness of the Oracle on Mount Moriah, where it continued, unseen perhaps by any human eye but that of the high priest once a year, until it was carried away by Nebuchadnezzar to Babylon. To indicate that this was to be its rest for ever, the staves, contrary to the old law, were drawn out of the golden rings through which they ran, in order that no human hand might touch the sacred emblem itself when it was borne on the shoulders of the Levitic priests. “And there they are unto this day,” writes the compiler from his ancient record, long after Temple and Ark had ceased to exist.
The king is the one predominant figure, and the high priest is not once mentioned. Nathan is only mentioned by the heathen historian Eupolemos. Visible to the whole vast multitude, Solomon stood in the inner court on a high scaffolding of brass. Then came a burst of music and psalmody from the priests and musicians, robed in white robes, who densely thronged the steps of the great altar. They held in their hands their glittering harps and cymbals, and psalteries in their precious frames of red sandal wood, and twelve of their number rent the air with the blast of their silver trumpets as Solomon, in this supreme hour of his prosperity, shone forth before his people in all his manly beauty.
At the sight of that stately figure in its gorgeous robes the song of praise was swelled by innumerable voices, and, to crown all, a blaze of sudden glory wrapped the Temple and the whole scene in heavens own splendor. {2Ch 5:13-14} First, the king, standing with his back to the people, broke out into a few words of prophetic song. Then, turning to the multitude, he blessed them-he, and not the high priest-and briefly told them the history and significance of this house of God, warning them faithfully that the Temple after all was but the emblem of Gods presence in the midst of them, and that the Most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands, neither is worshipped with mens hands as though He needed anything. After this he advanced to the altar, and kneeling on his knees {2Ch 6:13}-a most unusual attitude among the Jews, who, down to the latest ages, usually stood up to pray-he prayed with the palms of his hands upturned to heaven, as though to receive in deep humility its outpoured benefits. The prayer, as here given, consists of an introduction, seven petitions, and a conclusion. It was a passionate entreaty that God would hear, both individually and nationally, both in prosperity and in adversity, the supplications of His people, and even of strangers, Who should either pray in the courts of that His house, or should make it the Kibleh of their devotions.
After the dedicatory prayer both the outer and the inner court of the Temple reeked and swam with the blood of countless victims-victims so numerous that the great brazen altar became wholly insufficient for them. At the close of the entire festival they departed to their homes with joy and gladness.
But whatever the Temple might or might not be to the people, the king used it as his own chapel. Three times a year, we are told, he offered-and for all that appears, offered with his own hand without the intervention of any priest burnt offerings and peace offerings upon the altar. Not only this, but he actually “burnt incense therewith upon the altar which was before the Lord,”-the very thing which was regarded as so deadly a crime in the case of King Uzziah. Throughout the history of the monarchy, the priests, with scarcely any exception, seem to have been passive tools in the hands of the kings. Even under Rehoboam much more under Ahaz and Manasseh-the sacred precincts were defiled with nameless abominations, to which, so far as we know, the priests offered no resistance.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
Fuente: The Sermon Bible
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary