An interesting paper on Solomon’s Temple, by Mr E. C. Robins, F.S.A., will be found in ‘The Builder’ of Jan. 9 and 16, 1886.<\/p>\n
It appears from 1Ki 6:27<\/span> below, where the wings of the cherubim touch each other and also touch the walls of the most holy place, that the measures mentioned in this account of the Temple are measures of the interior, and that allowance must be made for the thickness of the outside walls in any calculation of the size of the building.<\/p>\n The size of Solomons temple depends upon the true length of the ancient cubit, which is doubtful. It has been estimated as somewhat less than a foot, and again as between 19 and 20 inches, a difference of nearly 8 inches, which would produce a variation of nearly 40 feet in the length of the temple-chamber, and of 46 in that of the entire building. It is worthy of remark that, even according to the highest estimate, Solomons temple was really a small building, less than 120 feet long, and less than 35 broad. Remark that the measures of the temple, both house and porch 1Ki 6:3<\/span>, were exactly double those of the older tabernacle (Exo 26:18<\/span> note). This identity of proportion amounts to an undesigned coincidence, indicating the thoroughly historical character of both Kings and Exodus.<\/P> <\/p>\n Verse 2<\/span>. The length thereof<\/B><\/I> was <\/B>threescore cubits<\/B><\/I>] A cubit, according to Bishop Cumberland, is 21 inches, and 888 decimals, or 1 foot, 9 inches, and 888 decimals. <\/P> Yds.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/P> <\/TD> Ft.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/P> <\/TD> Inch.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/P> <\/TD> <\/TR> According to this, the length, 60 cubits, was . . . . .<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/P> <\/TD> 36<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/P> <\/TD> 1<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/P> <\/TD> 5.28<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/P> <\/TD> <\/TR> The breadth, 20 cubits, was . .<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/P> <\/TD> 12<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/P> <\/TD> 0<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/P> <\/TD> 5.76<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/P> <\/TD> <\/TR> The height, 30 cubits, was . . .<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/P> <\/TD> 18<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/P> <\/TD> 0<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/P> <\/TD> 8.64<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/P> <\/TD> <\/TR> <\/TABLE> This constituted what was called the temple<\/I> or house<\/I>, the house<\/I> of God<\/I>, c. But, besides this, there were courts<\/I> and colonnades<\/I>, where the people might assemble to perform their devotions and assist at the sacrifices, without being exposed to the open air. The court surrounded the temple, or holy place, into which the priests alone entered. Sometimes the whole of the building is called the temple<\/I> at other times that, the measurement of which is given above. But as no proper account can be given of such a building in notes<\/I>; and as there is a great variety of opinion concerning the temple, its structure, ornaments, c., as mentioned in the books of Kings<\/I> and Chronicles<\/I>, in Ezekiel<\/I>, and by Josephus<\/I> and as modern writers, such as Vilalpandus<\/I>, Dr. Lightfoot<\/I>, and Dr. Prideaux<\/I>, professing to be guided by the same principles, have produced very different buildings; I think it best to hazard nothing on the subject, but give that description at the end of the chapter which Calmet with great pains and industry has collected: at the same time, pledging myself to no particular form<\/I> or appearance<\/I>, as I find I cannot give any thing as the likeness of Solomon’s temple<\/I> which I could say, either in honour or conscience, bears any affinity to it. For other particulars I must refer the reader to the three large volumes of Vilalpandus<\/I>, Dr. Lightfoot’s<\/I> Works, and to the Connections of<\/I> Dr. Prideaux<\/I>.<\/P><\/p>\n The house; <\/B>properly so called, as distinct from all the walls and buildings which were adjoining to it, to wit, the holy and most holy place. <\/P> The length thereof; <\/B>from east and to west. And this and the other measures may seem to belong to the inside from wall to wall. <\/P> Threescore cubits; <\/B>cubits of the sanctuary; of which See Poole “Gen 6:15<\/span>“. <\/P> The height thereof, <\/B>to wit, of the house; for the porch was 120 cubits high, 2Ch 3:4<\/span>. So that all the measures compared each with other were harmonious. For 60 to 20 (the length to the breadth) is triple, or as 3 to 1; and 60 to 30 (the length to the height) is double, or as 2 to 1<\/span>; and 30 to 20 (the height to the breadth) is sesquialter, or one and a half, as 3 to 2; which are the proportions answering to the three great concords in music, commonly called a twelfth, an eighth, and a fifth; which therefore must needs be a graceful proportion to the eye, as that in music is graceful to the ear. <\/P> <\/p>\n 2. the house which king Solomonbuilt for the Lord<\/B>The dimensions are given in cubits, whichare to be reckoned according to the early standard (2Ch3:3<\/span>), or holy cubit (Eze 40:5<\/span>;Eze 43:13<\/span>), a handbreadth longerthan the common or later one. It is probable that the internalelevation only is here stated.<\/P><\/p>\n And the house which King Solomon built for the Lord<\/strong>,…. For his worship, honour, and glory:<\/p>\n the length thereof [was] threescore cubits<\/strong>; sixty cubits from east to west, including the holy place and the most holy place; the holy place was forty cubits, and the most holy place twenty; the same measure, as to length, Eupolemus, an Heathen writer n, gives of the temple, but is mistaken in the other measures:<\/p>\n and the breadth thereof twenty [cubits]<\/strong>; from north to south:<\/p>\n and the height thereof thirty cubits<\/strong>; this must be understood of the holy place, for the oracle or most holy place was but twenty cubits high, 1Ki 6:20<\/span>; though the holy place, with the chambers that were over it, which were ninety cubits, three stories high, was in all an hundred twenty cubits, 2Ch 3:4<\/span>; some restrain it to the porch only, which stood at the end, like one of our high steeples, as they think.<\/p>\n n Apud Euseb. Praepar. Evangel. l. 9. c. 34.<\/p>\n B. THE EXTERIOR OF THE HOUSE 6:210<\/p>\n TRANSLATION<\/strong><\/p>\n (2) As for the house which King Solomon built for the LORD: sixty cubits was its length and twenty cubits its breadth and thirty cubits its height. (3) And the porch In front of the Temple of the house, ten cubits was its breadth before the house. (4) And he made for the house windows of fixed lattices. (5) And he built against the wall of the house, floors round about, against the walls which surrounded the Temple and the Debir; and he made chambers round about. (6) And the lowest chamber was five cubits in width, the middle one was six cubits in width and the third was seven cubits in width, for he made rebatements for the house round about that (there might be) no insertion into the walls of the house. (7) And the house when it was being built was built of perfect stones from the quarry, and neither hammer, ax, nor any tool of iron, was heard in the house while it was being built. (8) The door to the middle chamber was in the right side of the house; and by winding stairs they went up into the middle chamber, and from the middle unto the third. (9) So he built the house, and finished it; and he covered the house with beams and boards of cedar. (10) And then he built chambers against all the house, five cubits high, and it was fastened to the house with cedar beams.<\/strong><\/p>\n COMMENTS<\/strong><\/p>\n The erection of Solomons Temple was no doubt the greatest event heretofore in the history of Jerusalem. This sanctuary made Jerusalem the religious capital of the land, the Holy City. The profound importance of this building in the eyes of the Jews is indicated by the amount of space devoted to itfour chapters, three of which are of considerable length. The careful and detailed dimensions are not only proofs of the tender veneration with which the Jew regarded the Temple; they are also indications of the belief that this house was for the Lord and not for man. But as exact and detailed as is the description of this edifice, it is only partial, and the account is so obscure as to leave the modern student in considerable doubt as to what Solomons Temple was really like. Probably more has been written about this building than about any other building in the ancient world. Yet for all that has been said of the Temple, there are few points on which modern scholars are in agreement.<\/p>\n 1. The measurements of the main building exclusive of the porch (1Ki. 6:3<\/span>) and the side chambers (1Ki. 6:5<\/span>) are first given. If the cubit be reckoned as eighteen inches,[169] this building was ninety feet long, thirty feet wide, and forty-five feet high (1Ki. 6:2<\/span>). From these figures it is obvious that the Temple, in comparison with many church buildings, was a very small building. However, the Temple was never meant for the congregation of worshipers, but only for the presence of God and the priests who ministered before that presence. The congregation never met within this building; rather they offered their worship towards it. Worshipers congregated in the great courtyard which surrounded the Temple.<\/p>\n [169] A cubit was the distance from the tip of the elbow to the tip of the middle finger.<\/p>\n 2. Before the main building was a porch or vestibule which extended across the entire front or east end of the Temple, and which was fifteen feet in depth (1Ki. 6:3<\/span>).<\/p>\n 3. The windows are next discussed, and there is quite some disagreement as to the precise meaning of the Hebrew words which describe them. Most scholars now are inclined to regard the windows as being made of fixed lattices, i.e., lattices which were not movable as in domestic architecture (cf. 2Ki. 1:2<\/span>; 2Ki. 13:17<\/span>). As to the number of Temple windows, the text is silent. Keil[170] conjectures that, there were no more than six on each side and probably none in the back.<\/p>\n [170] Keil, BCOT, p. 74.<\/p>\n 4. Around the outside wall of the entire building (exclusive of the porch or front) Solomon built three stories or floors which were divided by partitions into distinct compartments (1Ki. 6:5<\/span>). The chambers varied in width, those on the first floor being 7 feet, those on the second 9 feet, and those on the third floor 10 feet in width. This difference in the width of each tier was due to successive rebatement of the wall from story to story. The outside of the Temple wall took the shape of three (or four) steps, and presented three ledges for the beams which supported the three floors. For some reason the builders did not wish to tie those beams into the wall itself.[171] The fact that a total rebatement of 4 feet in the wall of the Temple furnishes an indication of the thickness of the wall.[172]<\/p>\n [171] Some think because they wished to preserve the great and costly stones of the Temple intact; others, because it was inappropriate to make these chambers which were not directly connected with worship, part of the sacred edifice.<\/p>\n [172] Keil (BCOT, p. 71) estimates the thickness at the base of the Temple wall to have been about 9 feet, a thickness quite in keeping with the remains of great buildings from antiquity. In Ezekiels Temple (Eze. 41:5<\/span>) the thickness of the walls was 7 1\/2 feet.<\/p>\n The detailed description of rebatements in 1Ki. 6:6<\/span> may have been intended to emphasize the fact that no iron tool had to be used to join those chambers to the wall of the Temple proper. Verse seven then amplifies this point by noting the remarkable fact that no iron tool was used on any of the Temple stones.<\/p>\n The stones used in the Temple construction were perfect, i.e., they were so hewn and prepared at the quarry that no sound of any iron tool was heard at the Temple site when the stones were brought together. The King James erroneously renders the Hebrew word massa before it was brought thither. The word simply means quarry. The location of this quarry is uncertain. It may have been that some of the massive foundation stones were brought from the Lebanon mountains along with the wood. But no doubt the bulk of the stone was quarried in Jerusalem itself. Dr. J.T. Barclay, the first missionary to be sent forth by churches of the Restoration movement, discovered just outside the north wall of Jerusalem the entrance to a vast quarry, which stretched back down and under the Temple mount.[173] Immense quantities of stone have been cut from this mammoth cave through the course of Jerusalems history.<\/p>\n [173] Barclay, CGK, p. 118.<\/p>\n The ground level chambers no doubt had doors which are passed over by the sacred historian. He does, however, feel compelled to relate how one was able to enter the second and third stories. The door leading to the second story was on the ground floor on the right (i.e., south) side of the building. This door seems to have been in the external wall[174] of the side structure, not in the wall of the sanctuary itself. This door led to a winding stairway which, it would appear, was the only means of access to the upper stories (1Ki. 6:8<\/span>). It cannot certainly be ascertained whether this entrance to the upper stories was located in the middle of the right side or in the front by the side of the porch.<\/p>\n [174] Gray (OTL, p. 156), however, thinks this entrance to the side chambers was from within.<\/p>\n 5. The roof of the house was made of beams and boards of cedar wood (1Ki. 6:9<\/span>). The roof was most likely flat as was customary in ancient temples and houses.<\/p>\n The height of these side chambers is brought out in 1Ki. 6:10<\/span>. Each story was 7 feet high. The three stories would altogether measure 22 feet. With allowance for the joists and floors, the entire exterior height of the structure would be in the neighborhood of 2730 feet high. This would leave a clear space of something like 1821 feet between the side structure and the top of the Temple proper, assuming, of course, that the roof of the side chambers was flat. The side chambers were fastened to the house with cedar beams, i.e., the joists which supported the different stories rested upon the rebates in the Temple wall.<\/p>\n There is no indication as to how many separate chambers the three tiers about the Temple contained. Keil estimates that there were thirty. Doubtlessly each chamber had a window, but this is not indicated in the text. These chambers served as storage area for Temple treasures and gifts to the Temple which were made in all kinds of produce. Perhaps some of them were occupied by the priests who were on duty in the Temple.[175]<\/p>\n [175] Tuck (FTK, p. 101) sees the main purpose of the side chambers as structural. They were intended as buttresses to support the walls of the main building which were liable to bulge out in consequence of the great weight of the cedar roof.<\/p>\n (2) The length.<\/strong>By comparison with Exo. 26:16-23<\/span>, we find that the Temple itself was in all its proportions an exact copy of the Tabernacle, each dimension being doubled, and the whole, therefore, in cubical contents, eight times the size. It was, thereforewhatever measure we take for the cubita small building. Taking the usual calculation of eighteen inches for the cubit, the whole would be ninety feet long, thirty feet wide, and forty-five feet highnot larger than a good-sized parish church, and in proportion not unlike a church of Gothic construction. It is, indeed, curious to note that this likeness is carried out in the existence of the porch (which is even represented in 2Ch. 3:4<\/span> as rising into a lofty entrance tower), the division of the house into two parts, like a nave and chancel, the provision of something like aisles (though opening outwards) and of clerestory windows, and the high pitch of the roof. This resemblance is probably not mere coincidence; for in the old Freemasonry, which had a great influence on mediaeval architecture, the plan of Solomons Temple was taken in all its details as a sacred guide. The Oracle or Most Holy place, was lower than the rest, forming an exact cube of thirty feet; the height of the Holy place (sixty feet long and thirty feet wide) is not given, but was probably the same, so that there would be an upper chamber over the whole under the roofwhich, like that of the Tabernacle, appears to have been a high-pitched rooffifteen feet high along the central beam, with sloping sides. This is apparently alluded to in 2Ch. 3:9<\/span>, and possibly in 2Ki. 23:12<\/span>, and in the remark of Josephus, There was another building erected over it, equal in its measures. The Temple was, in fact, only a shrine for the ministering prieststhe outer court, or courts, being the place for the great assembly of the congregationand it relied for magnificence not on size, but on costliness of material and wealth of decoration.<\/p>\n 2<\/strong>. <\/strong> Length threescore cubits <\/strong> Reckoning the cubit at eighteen inches the length would be ninety feet. These dimensions are probably to be understood of the walls on the inside. See note on 1Ki 6:10<\/span>. <\/p>\n Breadth twenty <\/strong> Thirty feet, just one third of the length. <\/p>\n Height thirty cubits <\/strong> Forty-five feet, just half the length. Josephus says the height was sixty cubits, but most of his statements on the dimensions of buildings are untrustworthy. A comparison with Exo 26:15-23<\/span> shows that the dimensions of the temple were exactly double those of the tabernacle. The latter, as described in Exodus 26, 27<\/span>, was the model after which David and Solomon planned the temple.<\/p>\n Description Of The Erection Of The Main Stone Buildings ( 1Ki 6:2-10<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> ). <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n As we read these descriptions we need to keep in mind the huge effort that had been put into bringing things up to this stage. It was the result of blood, sweat and tears, and the slave labour of tens of thousands of workers. It must be borne in mind that there are a number of technical terms in what follows which are not fully understood. Thus to some extent the descriptions are tentative. But the basic idea is relatively clear. <\/p>\n 1Ki 6:2<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n ‘<\/strong> And the house which king Solomon built for YHWH, its the length was threescore cubits, and its breadth twenty cubits, and its height thirty cubits.’ <\/p>\n The dimensions of the Temple were now given. It was double the size of the Tabernacle in all dimensions. The cubit was the distance from the elbow to the finger tips, about forty five centimetres or seventeen and a half inches. Thus the building was about twenty seven metres (ninety feet) long, nine metres (thirty feet) wide, and thirteen and a half metres (forty five feet) high. It was divided up into the main sanctuary (the Holy Place), and an inner sanctuary (the Most Holy Place), with a porch in front of the main sanctuary. It was thus adequate but not huge, and dwarfed by the House of the Forest of Lebanon ( 1Ki 7:2-3<\/span>). We may feel that had David built it he would have ensured that it was larger than his own palace. <\/p>\n 1Ki 6:3<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n ‘<\/strong> And the porch before the temple of the house, its length was twenty cubits, according to the breadth of the house; and ten cubits was its breadth before the house.’ <\/p>\n The porch in front of the Temple was roughly nine metres (thirty feet) in length i.e. going the breadth of the building and four and a half metres (fifteen feet) in width (from outer door to inner door). <\/p>\n (There were also in fact side-chambers going along the outside of the building (1Ki 6:5<\/span>; 1Ki 6:7<\/span>), and seemingly an outer and inner court (see 1Ki 6:36<\/span>), but the latter are not mentioned in any detail). <\/p>\n 1Ki 6:4<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n ‘<\/strong> And for the house he made windows of fixed lattice-work.’ <\/p>\n The Hebrew words used here are of uncertain meaning, but if the usual ‘guess’, partly supported by grammar and ancient versions, is correct the main sanctuary was lit by small windows near the roof, either of fixed lattice work or embrasured. <\/p>\n 1Ki 6:5<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n ‘<\/strong> And against the wall of the house he built stories (or ‘platforms’) round about, against the walls of the house round about, both of the temple and of the inner room, and he made side-chambers round about.’ <\/p>\n Along the walls on the outside were built side-chambers (which would act as ‘store rooms’ and provide facilities for the priests) which went the whole length of the building, probably built on platforms (‘stories’). <\/p>\n 1Ki 6:6<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n ‘<\/strong> The lowest story was five cubits broad, and the middle was six cubits broad, and the third was seven cubits broad, for on the outside he made offsets in the wall of the house round about, that the beams should not have hold in the walls of the house.’ <\/p>\n These side-chambers were built in three stories with the lowest story just over two metres (seven foot six) broad, the second story nearly three metres (nine foot) broad and the top story over three metres ( ten and a half foot) broad. These were thus tiered, and the main building was built in such a way that the tiered walls of the sacred building itself were not pierced, but rebated so as to offer support for the timbers which supported the side-chambers. The sanctuary wall itself was to be kept unpierced, and therefore untainted in any way. <\/p>\n There is a reminder here that we should maintain our own inner hearts (the temples of the Holy Spirit – 1Co 6:15<\/span>; 1Co 6:19-20<\/span>) unpierced by the world, even though we are nevertheless ready to bear the world’s burdens. <\/p>\n 1Ki 6:7<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n ‘<\/strong> And the house, when it was in building, was built of stone made ready at the quarry, and there was neither hammer nor axe nor any tool of iron heard in the house, while it was in building.’ <\/p>\n It has been made clear that the sanctuary was kept ‘untainted’ by using tiering so that its integrity might not be infringed on, and that now leads on to the fact that it was also kept untainted by not allowing any noise or activity of building work to disturb its peacefulness. We have here a reminder that the Temple was built of stone, but it then very importantly (from their viewpoint) informs us that all the work of dressing the stone from which the Temple was built had been done at the quarry. This prevented any noisy work taking place on the actual site of the sanctuary itself, noise which might defile its peacefulness. The central problem being guarded against appears to have been the clanging and clattering noise caused by builder’s tools, which was apparently considered not to be seemly for the site of the house of YHWH, (and which would certainly have disturbed the neighbours). The only noise to be allowed in the Temple area from now on was the praises of God’s people. <\/p>\n It has been suggested that the aim was to prevent the introduction of masons’ tools to the site, especially iron tools, (for the latter compare Exo 20:25<\/span>; Deu 27:5<\/span>, where, however, they were not to touch the altar at all). But the aim would appear to have been to exclude the noise of the tools rather than the tools themselves. (Although we can possibly compare the way in which only flint knives were used for circumcision – Jos 5:2-3<\/span>; Exo 4:25<\/span>). Tools would certainly be required later for repair work. <\/p>\n This information was inserted here in order to tie in with the fact that the beams of the storerooms had not ‘tainted’ the main sanctuary by piercing it. It is saying that in the same way, the area of the sanctuary had not been tainted by the noise and cries of builders. The special ‘holiness’ of the sanctuary was thus being maintained. <\/p>\n There is a reminder to us here that when we meet for worship we should not allow the atmosphere to be tainted by the intrusion of the outside world. Rather it should only be disturbed by the testimony, praises and worship of God’s people. Unseemly noise should be left outside. <\/p>\n 1Ki 6:8<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n ‘<\/strong> The door for the middle side-chamber was in the right side of the house, and they went up by winding stairs into the middle story, and out of the middle into the third.’ <\/p>\n The side-chambers were entered by their own door placed on the right hand side, leading into the middle side-chamber, from where access to the remainder could be obtained. It is quite possible that this access was from within the Holy Place, although it may have been from outside, from the inner court. This included the provision of lulim (possibly ‘winding stairs’, obtained from the Arabic lawiyah, ‘to be coiled’, an example of which was found at Atchana; or ‘ladders’; or ‘trapdoors’, which was the meaning of lulim in later Hebrew) which gave access to the upper chambers. These side-chambers probably had multiple uses. They could be used, for example, to house the priests’ portions and skins, the Temple treasure (much of which would, however, be kept in the sanctuary proper), and even possibly the priests themselves when they were on duty, or when they were preparing to partake of their portions. <\/p>\n 1Ki 6:9<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n ‘<\/strong> So he built the house, and finished it, and he covered the house with beams and planks of cedar.’ <\/p>\n The stonework having been completed, and the house built, the whole was then encased in beams and planks of cedar. The idea is that all was made beautiful and a delight to behold. <\/p>\n 1Ki 6:10<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n ‘<\/strong> And he built the stories against all the house, each five cubits high, and they rested on the house with timber of cedar.’ <\/p>\n And the store-rooms which were built against the house, each of them just over two metres (seven foot six inches) high, rested on cedar beams, which themselves rested on the rebatements made on the walls. Again therefore it is stressed that the purity of the sanctuary was maintained, and that it was not infringed upon by the timbers from the more mundane store-rooms. <\/p>\n (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.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n It appears that the pattern was given to David before his death, how this temple should be built, See 1Ch_28:11-12; 1Ch_28:19 .<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/em><\/p>\n 1Ki 6:2 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.<\/p>\n <\/em><\/p>\n Ver. 2. And the house which king Solomon built for the Lord.<\/strong> ] For his settled habitation among the children of Israel. And forasmuch as the Lord their God was above all gods, 2Ch 2:5 a great God, a mighty and a terrible, Deu 10:17 therefore Solomon set up this most glorious and sumptuous edifice that ever was in the world, in honour of the divine Majesty, and for a type of Christ, “in whom dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” Col 2:9 <\/p>\n <\/p>\n The length thereof was threescore cubits.<\/strong> ] Twice so long and large every way as was the tabernacle; Exo 26:1-37 as the temple in Ezekiel, Eze 40:41-49 setting forth gospel times, is described as much bigger than all the old Jerusalem: and a new Jerusalem bigger than all the land of Canaan.<\/p>\n cubits. See App-51. <\/p>\n the house: Eze 40:1 – Eze 41:26 <\/p>\n the length: According to Bp. Cumberland’s estimation of the cubit, its length was 36 yds. 1 ft. 5\/28 inch; its breadth 12 yds. 5\/76 inch; and its height, 18 yds. 8\/64 inch This constituted what is properly called the temple; but, besides this, there were the courts and colonnades, where the people might assemble to perform their devotions, without being exposed to the open air. <\/p>\n threescore: Ezr 6:3, Ezr 6:4, Eze 41:1-15, Rev 21:16, Rev 21:17 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: 1Ki 6:20 – twenty cubits 2Ch 3:3 – The length Psa 78:69 – And he<\/p>\n 1Ki 6:2. The house Properly so called, as distinct from all the walls and buildings adjoining to it; namely, the holy and most holy place. Which King Solomon built for the Lord For his worship and service; and wherein his divine presence might, as it were, dwell among them by a visible appearance. The length thereof was threescore cubits From east to west; forty of which belonged to the holy place, and twenty to the most holy. And this and the other measures seem to belong to the inside from wall to wall. The cubit was that of the sanctuary, about a foot and a half. And the breadth thereof twenty cubits The length and breadth of it were twice as much as those of the tabernacle, which in length was but thirty cubits, and in breadth but ten. And the height thereof thirty cubits Just half of the length of the whole house. But this is to be understood of the holy place, for the holy of holies was only twenty cubits high, (1Ki 6:20,) and the porch was one hundred and twenty, 2Ch 3:4. The height of the holy place, therefore, was three times the height of that part of the tabernacle. For this temple was to resemble a high tower having chambers in three stories, one above another. All the measures, says Poole, compared each with other, were harmonious. For sixty to twenty (the length to the breadth) is triple; or as three to one: and sixty to thirty (the length to the height) is double; or as two to one: and thirty to twenty (the height to the breadth) is one and a half, or as three to two. Which are the proportions answering to the three great concords in music, commonly called a twelfth, an eighth, and a fifth. Which therefore must needs be a graceful proportion to the eye, as that in music is graceful to the ear.<\/p>\n 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. 2. the length thereof was threescore cubits ] In dimension the Temple was twice the size of the Tabernacle. The latter was 30 cubits long, 10 cubits … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Kings 6:2”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8910","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8910","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8910"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8910\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8910"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8910"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8910"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
<\/P> <\/TD>
<\/P> Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
<\/p>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"